Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Talk Page Archived

Okay. 40 sections and 74 kilobytes is LARGE enough for archiving. It just got TOO damn big. If you wish to continue old discussions, please continue them here. Thanks.  Dylanlip  (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Current gen consoles are top importance

IMO, the "big 3" current gen consoles should be top importance, but the assessment scale disagrees. Thoughts? –xeno^talk 15:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the current scale. I.e. - Top is hardware articles that form the basis of vgames (Video game console) or consoles that shaped the whole industry (Atari 2600). Nothing about the Wii, XBox 360, or PS3 has drastically changed the video game industry - they're just more recent, which isn't in my opinion a reason to move them to "Top". --PresN 17:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I mainly agree with xeno. The PS3 and 360 are among the 200 most viewed Wikipedia articles, and Wii hits in at 226. They're certainly among our most viewed articles, and importance should probably reflect that. Surely we want to be prioritising the articles which people are most interested in?

That all said, those rankings are a little odd. 55 is Com/sun/media/sound/PortMixerProvider.class, for instance. And 85 is %s. Both above the Big 3.

Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

@PresN obviously I agree that the scale presently places them outside of "Top" importance. My argument is that the scale should be changed to include the reigning current-gen consoles. –xeno^talk 17:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And my argument is that the way the VG project has defined the "Top" importance level - articles that "reflect the basis of video gaming and not so much the hallmarks of the fields" - means that only consoles that changed the face of the industry should be "Top" importance. The Xbox 360 hasn't changed the industry any more than the Xbox did - it's just the current model. The scale as written implicitly rejects the idea that some articles are more "important" because they are current or popular. If you think that those should be criteria -and there's a valid argument to made for that- lets take this discussion back to the main VG talk page, and redo the way the scale works. I just think that basing the "importance" rating on how many page-views the article in question gets doesn't match up with the way it's meant to be - that the more "important" an article is, the more necessary it is to include in a print version of the encyclopedia. Video game consoles is more important to include than PS3, but I'm sure it has several orders of magnitude fewer page-views. --PresN 18:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not wild about this...I don't seem them as really needing to be Top-priority even if they are the most checked. Keeping a stand of actual importance seems to me a better bet, and prevents this from creeping into other project articles (Assassins Creed comes to mind, which was rated High solely based on it's popularity at the time and not noticed until well afterwards).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What ground did the 360 and PS3 break to make them that important? the Wii has Motion control, but the other two arn't as impotant than that. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's best to discuss this at the main VG talk page since the discussion is more active over there. I've replied there, but to summarize briefly: X360 proved the digital delivery market, PS3 proved a console can acheive market share by marketing itself also to non-gamers, i.e., as a home media device (Bluray). –xeno^talk 18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Kingbotk Plugin

Does anyone know whether or not the plugin is Vista-compatible? I would ask the creator of the bot (Kingboyk), but he has not edited since mid-April. Thanks, MacMed^talk_stalk 22:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Try it and find out. Can't think why it wouldn't, the fact that it's written in VB.NET means that it won't work on macs or linux, but as long as you have .net installed (and you should by default) it should work in Vista. If it doesn't work, the worst thing that will happen is... it won't work. --PresN 00:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A-class discussion

FYI- A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Demoted A-class VG articles. Comments and input would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC))

People on the League of Legends page are wondering whether their page should be bumped to mid importance based on its commercial success and groundbreaking pricing scheme (optional pay2play moba that isn't pay2pwn a la Korean MMO). A few comments on there from outsiders would do well to give some perspective as to what importance it deserves. Thanks!Jozrael (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Top importance description

I don't fully understand the statements "Top importance articles reflect the basis of video gaming and not so much the hallmarks of the fields. Such hallmark games and other aspects are typically discussed in Top articles." So hallmarks are only Top when they also happen to be basis (first sentence), thus making hallmark status irrelevant for inclusion in the "Top" impotance level? Yet they are to be discussed in "Top articles" (does that mean the discussion pages of Top articles?)? Nczempin (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hallmark games are discussed in, but not the sole subject of, Top(-importance) articles. Articles on hallmark games are usually High importance. So for example Super Mario 64 is High and Mario is Top. Nifboy (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks. I understand it now, and have made some additional changes that would have made it easier for me in the first place. Please check that it is still correct.-- Nczempin (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yuji Horii's importance

User talk:Teancum recently changed Yuji Horii from Top to mid citing that we only reserve that for the most important articles. IMO, if anyone in the industry deserves this, Yuji Horii given the history and impact of Dragon Quest (and some of his offshoot titles) should be TOP. He clearly fits the definiton "Individuals with an essential historical influence on the medium".陣内_Jinnai 22:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Reset it then. It's not worth me making an argument over it as I don't really care. I would have preferred you discussed this with me directly first rather than making a public issue. This could have been resolved much faster, and without making me look dumb. I could probably cite some policy about discussing things in private first, but as I said I don't care that much. --Teancum (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree; medium is just fine. IMHO he is not in line with the likes of Miyamoto or Will Wright. As I mentioned in the re-assessment request, Dragon Quest itself is only rated medium, so how can its creator be so much more important? The Enix project also has him at a medium importance level. Jinnai was the one who bumped him from Low to Top, providing no justification. I think he is not being objective on the matter. "If anyone deserves it, it is him" is not a very good argument. He does not "clearly" fit the definition at all. -- Nczempin (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"A change like that needs to be discussed". Very true for bumping him up from Low to Top in the first place, not so true when it went through the assessment process. I don't disagree that he is notable, but to make him Top is a stretch. The page itself certainly doesn't reflect it. -- Nczempin (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

the current page has nothing to do with it. There are plently of stub articles rated as Top or high and far more low quality ones rated as feature.

At the very least his works are more than just "critically acclaimed" as there is very well documented evidence to support their impact which makes it a "high" importance level and his accomplishments are beyond Hideo Kojima, one of the high importance people in the example given. I would argue though, if Yuji Horii isn't TOP, neither is Shigeru Miyamoto since their influence is on a similar level. Basically his game series has set the standard for every rpg since, including concepts used since in addition to several other acomplishments listed there (or in the somewhat better Japanese page. Just because he isn't as well known in the US does not mean he automatically gets demoted since I don't think too many know about Nolan Bushnell.

As for this, It's not like he was bumping from top to high, he bumped him all the way to mind, ie someone of barely any importance. Finally, and most importantly, if radical shifts upward need to be discussed so to should radical shifts downward or it gives far more power to those who want to devalue certain items.陣内_Jinnai 00:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Jinnai, that is unworkable. There is no way to prove a negative. It can easily be shown how important Hideo is, and it shows that in the intro. How can an editor prove that a topic is not important? That is why topics are not notable without RS, and why suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Teancum, I don't think this at all makes you look dumb. If there is no evidence that a topic is important then it should always be knocked down. If they are truly important, it should be easy to find references or facts that back that up. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Then you better start moving every stub article to mid/low that's high/top because that logic applies equally to them and also know that that we would be unique in all of Wikipedia in applying WP:N to importance scale, something its not intended for. We would also be unique in requiring a fully fleshed out article to show importance before its get a high rating because WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:V isn't meant to be applied to talk page importance, or anything on it. If you want to do that, I believe it should have an RfC because this would be setting a new precident in Wikipedia.

And yes, you can prove a negative at times. If your really think he is a mid-level person, then you must know less about video game history than I thought. That's why a discussion for such radical change should be done even for lowering; we shouldn't be now extending those policies to talk pages, which they were never intended and still aren't intended to apply.陣内_Jinnai 05:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Well, everyone should, but yes, if there is no reasoning given. And I'm not saying that WP:N applies to importance, I am saying that it is similar: because you cannot prove a negative, we must assume a negative until a positive is proven (or at least agreed upon). How would you suggest proving that a topic is not important? (take a look at Russell's teapot) You should need some facts to back a bump up, but that burden cannot logically be placed on a bump down. A bump down can only be agreed upon by lack of evidence. Maybe this isn't making sense, and I mean no disrespect. And obviously nobody should make such a move against a clear consensus, but there is no reasoning given at Talk:Yuji Horii, which makes the old rating seem arbitrary. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's back it up here. This conversation's getting a little too heated over something relatively minor. How about we call it splitsies and rate him as high? After all, Horii is attributed for his work on making the Dragon Quest series as popular as it is and is probably the most well-known employee of Enix. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like an explanation why Dragon Quest is considered mid-importance, the Square Enix project (of which Jinnai is a member) considers Horii to be of mid-importance, yet we have to consider him Top (or High). I briefly looked for sources for his notability, based on some given on other Top video game person articles: The IGN list of Top 100 video game creators lists him at number 52, behind at least 10 Japanese that we do not consider Top or even High, including at least one Square Enix employee. The Interactive Arts Hall of Fame doesn't include him. This sounds too much of a biased view by someone deeply involved with Dragon Quest. Starting to get emotional about it any attacking other editors does not really help (on how much we know about video games). And just to make him High so we don't have a controversial discussion does not really solve anything. -- Nczempin (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

By "the page itself doesn't reflect it" I meant "The page doesn't reflect that Horii is at least as important as Miyamoto." This is completely independent of its current Stub status. It could still be a Stub and show that importance, but it doesn't. -- Nczempin (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the SE project doesn't really keep up on our importance ratings, so don't use that as evidence. We just worry about class. All of the DQ articles were basically just given the same rating as WPVG. --PresN 18:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There is at least one counter-example to your assertion that "all of the DQ articles were given the same rating as WPVG": The Horii page is Medium for SE, but it was originally Low for VG until it got increased to Top without any justification. If you don't use Importance ratings, please don't convey the appearance that you do. Incidentally, is that an official SE position? If you want to support Jinnai, why don't you just bump Horii to "Top"? -- Nczempin (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The SE project uses importance in about the same way that the VG project does- we set it up at whatever level seemed good to the tagger at the time, let people change it at will without noticing, and ignore it except to have long, silly arguments about a talk page tag that doesn't effect the quality or editor interest in an article... kind of like this one! Just mark it as High, change the SE tag to Top, and go write some articles. --PresN 00:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the personal attack. If you are not interested in the discussion, you are welcome to stay out of it. Your personal opinion seems to be that Importance tags are irrelevant. You are entitled to that opinion, but please don't assume that it is everyone's opinion (otherwise, why do we have them?) or call those that find them relevant (or the discussions about them) "silly". The tags have effects on editor interest, and through that on the quality of the article. Amongst other things, they determine which articles go in the releases of Wikipedia, they determine which articles get assigned as "Collaboration of the Week" and in general, for those who don't have a specific interest in a sub-topic of e. g. VG but are interested in the overall quality, it has an effect on which articles they are most likely to spend time to improve them. It is not a coincidence that on average, the quality correlates with the importance. A stub article with Top importance does attract, and should attract, attention. Right now there is exactly one. -- Nczempin (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And the claim that this page is only Medium for SE because SE doesn't care about Importance doesn't seem to be supported by the change that actually set the importance, which has an edit summary of "(Mid priority for the SEproj (major designer))". -- Nczempin (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'll leave you to this silly argument if you wish. But it is a silly discussion, ~2000 words about 1 word. That amount of text would have made the article past a stub, eliminating your concern. Oh well. If you find me calling a discussion you are participating in "silly" to be a personal attack... then you must feel attacked a lot in life. As per your request, I'll leave you to keep this discussion going. --PresN 01:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Using an English publishers website to denote importance when there has been a history of systemic bias against Dragon Quest when compared to Final Fantasy and games like that (the bias is clearly referenced in multiple articles I might add, so don't just take my word for that) in the English speaking word? If you want to do that, then you need to go and look at a Japanese. Your proposal is just as bad. You want to defacto extend WP:V and WP:NOR to importance as requiring, but require absolutely nothing for someone to lower it.陣内_Jinnai 19:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a systematic bias against Dragon Quest? What do you mean that this bias is clearly referenced? Can you provide a reference? Are you saying that the reliable sources that we use are not reliable? Which others should we use then? Should we give more weight to the Japanese (unbiased?) viewpoint? Can you point to Japanese sources that place Horii in the same league as Miyamoto, but not all those other Japanese people mentioned by IGN? You seem to be avoiding the main questions which are 1. If Dragon Quest is Mid, how can Horii be Top? If it's due to systematic bias, get Dragon Quest to Top first, then we can discuss whether its creator should also be top. 2. Do you claim that you are unbiased towards Dragon Quest, given your own stated interests and where you spend most of your editing time? -- Nczempin (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If Dragon Quest needs to be TOP in order for Horii to be top then demote Miyamoto now because I can guarantee that none of his games should be TOP and if they are, they have been improperly moved there (see our guidelines). Therefore you have no more reason to note he should be top than Horii. Furthermore, I am not saying Wikipedia says has bias against Dragon Quest, I am saying that sources confirm that places like IGN do. Go read the arrticles; I do not have to sit here any babysit you by pointing out links because WP:V and WP:NOR do not apply to importance. NEVER HAVE. You are the one who seems to want to put Miyamoto and others above the rest when he's not requiring games he's made to be listed at TOP importance.

As for Dragon Quest, I'd argue tht it should be high. You can go again, read the article as to why and while you're there you can see the citation about the systemic bias that is noted.陣内_Jinnai 02:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Responding to a removed comment - The bottom line here isn't that I'm not willing to have him lowered; I am not willing to allow though a de facto expansion of WP:V to the talk page by requiring showing reliable sources that he is important. That's what it appears is trying to be rammed through here.陣内_Jinnai 10:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no particular interest in Horii or Dragon Quest. I simply stumbled upon the Horii page when looking at the table of quality vs. importance, and it stuck out. Had it been High-Stub I would probably never even noticed it. There is no reason why I should pick on him, I am pretty sure I am not biased against him. Let's assume that my never having heard of the guy (not a good reason; I have never heard of most of the Japanese guys even on the IGN list) is related more to my lack of knowledge of the game industry than to his article's possible lack of being considered "the basis of all information" or the individual perhaps not being "Individuals with an essential historical influence on the medium (e.g. Nolan Bushnell, Shigeru Miyamoto)" and perhaps not even "Individuals with a career of highly influential works, or historically significant accomplishments (e.g. Hideo Kojima, Tim Schafer, David Jones)" but perhaps "Individuals with a career of internationally successful or critically acclaimed works (e.g. Chris Metzen, Cliff Bleszinski)" (or perhaps not?). When I decide on my view of the importance of a particular subject to the general reader of Wikipedia, I try to see if I have a bias regarding Video game articles, because what may be important to people interested in video games may very well be irrelevant to those people with no particular knowledge of the subject. It is not very easy to do, but I try. Do you try this, or something like this, too? If not, do you think it would make sense to make a serious attempt to investigate whether something that oneself is particularly interested in really matters that much to the whole wide ("outside") world? -- Nczempin (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying and both you and Teacum are right to question the importance level given the article's lackluster status, but what I am saying is that if people actually took the time to check the other pages linked from that instead of requiring WP:V be implemented for importance they'd see that mid level is inappropriate. At the very least, if others here would have checked the associated articles they would see that he easily meets the requirement for high level and almost certainlty meets it for top level. Some of the problems with his article are my fault, I didn't add a special recognition award he got to it when I should have (now done), but imo too many here are assuming what is on the article is all there is, ie inapporpiate application WP:V knowing full well that Wikipedia is a work-in-progress.

As for the systemic bias, that too can be shown if you read some of the pages; there has been documented bias against turn-based rpgs, specially Dragon Quest series is mentioned by some, whereas more action-oriented ones. like Final Fantasy, are lauded and given undue weight for their importance to the medium by the western media like IGN. Again this isn't just me saying this; its reliable sources saying this too. That's why using a list created solely by IGN editors is not an appropriate for the primary means of determine importance.陣内_Jinnai 11:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not questioning it based on the status; the status is only what put it to my attention. If the Miyamoto article had been a stub, I would not have questioned Miyamoto's importance. Neither am I asking for WP:V to be applicable, just a little more convincing argument that he is internationally on the same level as (some; I would consider at least one other guy not to be top). Regarding the (systematic) bias, I have no way of knowing that IGN is biased, other than you telling me it is the case; there is an alternative explanation to the way IGN weighs. But IGN was only taken because I tried to find examples in good faith; I followed the link from the Suzuki page. Since you are more involved in the subject, I thought you could provide something better if what I found wasn't good enough. Again, I don't ask for WP:V, just a little more than what is currently there. Your apparent unwillingness to acknowledge that you are not entirely neutral doesn't help; I came across the article, found it curious, sought others' opinions via the assessment process (instead of just reverting to Low as it originally was), another uninvolved editor gave his opinion and then you came in and did not exactly project the impression that you are an impartial observer. -- Nczempin (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

See that's the problem; you would not question Miyamoto one regardless of its quality, but you are questioning Horii one. That means you also have your own bias. This is probably because you intuitively know Miyaomoto should be top regardless if his article was a stub. That's what I'm saying here; Horii=Miyamoto. It's quite clear the page needs more info as even the list is tagged.陣内_Jinnai 16:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so you don't want to address your bias (based on your editing history, your favourite subjects listed on your user page and the WikiProjects you belong to), instead you claim I am biased towards Miyamoto (based on... what?). This approach makes me question your sincerity in discussing this: Are you even remotely considering that your view may not be universal? Am I indeed wasting my time (as User:PresN has said]] by trying to get across to you? Morii so far seems to be of Top importance only in Japan as far as I can see (I don't know if the Japanese Wikipedia has something similar to our Wikiprojects; I don't know if even the Japanese themselves would consider him to be on the same level as Miyamoto, but let's assume for the moment that tehy do); you have made no attempt (other than saying "reliable sources have said this" without pointing to them) to demonstrate that Morii has this high stature in the English-speaking (or generally, Western) world (all you said is that the source I gave was biased towards one particular game series in particular, without even considering an alternative explanation). You speak of systemic bias, but I am not sure we are interpreting this term in the same way; the Wikiproject at least seems to be concerned mainly with the fact that even in the English Wikipedia English-speaking groups that are not Anglo-American are underrepresented. So I don't think it applies here. An alternative explanation could be that he (and/or Dragon Quest, and/or turn-based roleplaying games) really isn't as renowned from a global (or perhaps just from the English-speaking/Western) perspective as he is in Japan (plus those outside Japan that have a particular affinity towards Japanese culture, to which group you seem to belong), and that this is reflected in inclusions in halls of fame or "Best of" lists. We probably have something similar going the other way, people who are considered "Top" who are essentially unknown in Japan. I don't know how important Richard Garriott is considered to be in the world of turn-based rpgs in Japan, but WPVG currently considers him to be of "High" importance. -- Nczempin (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, this is the award i added to his page. Note it is the same award Miyamoto won for the same reason. Also CEDEC does not usually give out those awards as they tend to give awards out to games themselves. Note though, I am still saying you have your own bias since you wouldn't have required a stub article with Miyamoto to "prove" it was top.陣内_Jinnai 17:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And Miyamoto was the first to be included in the Academy of Interactive Arts' Hall of Fame (a Western institution) and he was #1 on the IGN list, he was keynote speaker at the GDC, and I hope you are not seriously saying that it would not be easy to find truckloads of examples of accolades that Miyamoto won and Horii didn't. Just citing one Japanese award really doesn't help. AFAIK not even all the members of the Hall of Fame are considered to be of Top importance. -- Nczempin (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Back at you. Dragon Quest has been listed as Japan's unoffiical game by the GDC, he has been listed (improperly but still listed none-the-less) as the "Father of Mana" for the introduction of mana points. That right there-something already in the article when you should have read it-should be enough to qualify for him as high.

As for the western recognition, I wouldn't put too much credit in that somehow making him more worthy of TOP than others; Hayao Miyazaki was unknown in the US before Princess Mononoke and yet his influence before then would still mean (for animation) he would be top. I would place even less trust in places like IGN and Gamespot that have been known to have a systemic bias against turn-based rpgs. [1] - there coming from Iwata, so its not just me saying this.陣内_Jinnai 18:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: You consider the president of Nintendo interviewing the maker of Dragon Quest on the commercial page for Dragon Quest 9 to be a reliable source? -- Nczempin (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That its on their website doesn't matter; I wonder what your opinion would have been had I shown you the gametrailers version of the same interview without said knowledge. When it comes to his opinion and he's speaking in general yes that is a reliable source. That the venue is a friendly interview meant to drum up support for the DQ9 is no different that any other interview for any other game which are done for the same reasons. It doesn't matter the venue where Iwata says this since its a general statement, ie turn-based rpgs in general, not a bias against Dragon Quest. If he said the same thing at GDC this year, would you somehow question that statement? It seems you have some kind of bias of your own.陣内_Jinnai 18:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

So where is the part that says that the Western media are biased against turn-based RPGs? All I heard was "Some people think that turn-based RPGs are outdated". And you draw the conclusion from this that it is a fact that there is a systemic bias against Dragon Quest (your earlier claim) or turn-based RPGs in general (your current claim)? We obviously don't have the same idea as to what a reliable source is. If Horii would say "there is a bias in the Western media against turn-based RPGs" it would be a reliable source for him having said that, but not that there actually is such a bias. If a journalist or a book writer says the same thing, I would consider it to be much more of a reliable source, not the least because of higher assumed impartiality. That these interviews are promotional material for the game merely highlights the fact that it should be taken with a grain of salt. That you don't even consider it an issue is consistent with the rest of your views I guess. I know enough now to realize that any discussion of me with you on this subject is pointless. I'd be really happy if other editors would offer their viewpoints. -- Nczempin (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Or, put differently: I am removing myself from the discussion because at least one editor considers me to be biased (like all those other people are biased with respect to Miyamoto). -- Nczempin (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I reverted User:Jinnai's revert of the re-assessment, and I asked to use the regular re-assessment process in the future. -- Nczempin (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And he responds by ignoring my request, saying "i have CLEARLY shown evidence that he at least meets high at this point anyone who does disagree is biased." -- Nczempin (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Had horii said so, that would be different; the same for Ichimura as they are producers of these RPGs. Nintendo doesn't really produce many RPGs, turn-based or otherwise, therefore there is no bias (Zelda BTW is not considered an RPG before someone points that out and says there's a COI). And yes, there are others, including from Gamasutra, but given your opinions I'd sayou'd basically throw back anything I post here and say "its not saying that, its saying this" to uphold IGN as some kind of paragon of neutrality.

Anyway, I put him at high because there is hostility toward the article because the info isn't in the article already, ie I've told people where to look and I shouldn't have to hold everyone's hands like your all kindergarteners. There seems to be an attempt to de facto extend WP:V to importance by requing the info already in the article otherwise.陣内_Jinnai 20:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the assessment process should be followed properly. I submitted the article Yuji Horii for re-assessment, it was assessed. User:Jinnai then just reverted this assessment and started this discussion (note: he could have started the discussion without the revert; I would have considered that to be much more constructive). The discussion ultimately went nowhere, so I reverted back to the result of the re-assessment, with the request to go through the regular re-assessment for future changes. User:Jinnai then changed the rating without having gone through the re-assessment process. -- Nczempin (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically you're chosing one side over the other, one side that has not defended themselves, they just came in saw the article and changed the rating based on what they saw rather than ask first "Why is a stub article rated at top?". I reverted and brought this to discussion per WP:BRD. Now you went and reverted my revert saying essentially his assement was right (otherwise you'd leave the status quo alone and put it up for an independant reassament). I do admit, since the western media is biased when it comes to turn-based rpgs, it is hard to prove Horii is TOP level, so i put him at high, which is clearly evidenced if people go and read the articles associated with him.陣内_Jinnai 20:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say his assessment was right or wrong. I just said that your circumventing the assessment process was inappropriate. It is one thing to be bold and change assessment when there's no perceived controversy; it's another thing when one person thinks it may be a good idea to re-assess, another agrees but you disagree. That would point to behaviour other than simply reverting and then asking for discussion. -- Nczempin (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it back at top, where it was before this all began, and bring it up then. I'll stay out of the reassaement so long as my concerns are noted.陣内_Jinnai 21:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"This" began when you decided to contradict the re-assessment that has taken place already. Feel free to put it back to the level it had then and put it up for re-assessment again. We should be careful that no-one who could be construed to be partial should do the re-assessment. From my side I cannot propose much, because I don't have a particular interest in the subject at hand. Perhaps those that have recently collaborated with me on other articles should be cautious. I don't think it is necessary to list them here. I also think that perhaps this issue is too controversial right now just to have a single person do the re-assessment. My proposal is that we put the article back at Mid, you put up the re-assessment request with a pointer to a new section either here or in the main article talk page (where this discussion should have been from the start IMHO), that I stay out of the discussion as do you, and we accept their consensus. A pointer to this current discussion should also be provided. -- Nczempin (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for lodging this dispute at WP:3O. This process is intended to resolve disputes between two editors, but I notice on scanning back through this section that a few other editors have been involved, including some quite recently. This puts the dispute beyond the scope of 3O and you may like to consider lodging a WP:RFC instead.

This being said I will offer my thoughts. Remember that our collective goal as editors is to produce a high quality online encyclopaedia, the implication being that the end result is for the readers. The project importance and quality scales are internal elements designed to help the relevant WikiProject know where to devote its resources or to showcase areas where they've done exceptional work. Neither the quality rating nor the importance rating are visible to the reader.

Please remember to keep in mind the purpose of the ratings. They're not there to state the subject's importance or the article's quality in an assertive fashion, they're there to help guide project members, and in the process, to improve articles in the project's area for the benefit of the readers. Personally, I would consider the precise ratings assigned to be of relatively low importance to the overall goal of improving articles.

Certainly from my own experience, it's easy to find ourselves with blinders on about something that we feel is right, and blinders can make even small things seem big if it's the only thing we can see. I would suggest that everyone involved take a step back, perhaps for a day or two, relax and try to look at the debate here in the broader scope of Wikipedia's goals as a whole. If after that you still feel that there's something that fundamentally needs fixing, it might then be appropriate to lodge an WP:RFC and get the input of a broader range of the community. As always, remember to assume good faith and remain civil. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I will do exactly that. Thanks for your input. -- Nczempin (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have taken a step back. The first thing I noticed upon coming back that Dragon Quest is rated "High", and has been so since long before this discussion. I don't know where my impression came from that it was rated Mid; I apologize for the misrepresentation. I think Horii deserves to be rated "High", which is the status quo. However, I am still concerned about Jinnai's behaviour of circumventing the assessment process and proclaiming that "anyone who disagrees is biased". -- Nczempin (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a fair position. Jinnai (if you're still following the discussion), do you have any problems with submitting to the assessment process? Do you think the process has flaws that would lead to an incorrect result? This seems like it would be the most neutral way of moving forward. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind it undergoing another formal reassaement.

As for as any issues, i think it may be flawed with regards to favoring western media to use to backup Yuji Horii's importance as Final Fantasy has been clearly evidenced as being favored (check both Dragon Quest and Dragon Warrior and you'll note that even sites like Gamespy admit that FF is generally given more importance credit and spotlight). This in turn reflects on the games creators. There is also a general dislike for turn-based rpgs in the western media (i can probably find more that Iwata stating this, but ATM i'm busy with RL and a DQ FAC).

The second issue I have is editors seem to want to base the importance only on what they can see on the page. There didn't appear to be any effort to check the content of even Dragon Quest or it should have been apparent immediatly that mid importance was not appropriate for Horii (though not nessasarily top).

Finally, the last issue I'd have is that there does seem to be a kind of double-standard here. Nczempin said he would never question Miyamoto's importance as top even if his article was in the shoddy state Horii's is. I don't know what can be done here though.陣内_Jinnai 02:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The assessment process makes no mention of western media, Yuji Horii or turn-based rpgs. I don't think you've understood what TechnoSymbiosis was asking. You also don't seem to have read (or decided to ignore) what I've read regarding the connection between the stub rating and my assessment. I'll repeat it here: My decision to ask for re-assessment was not based on the fact that it is a stub page; the only relevance the stub status has is that it is what put the page to my attention. There is no double-standard. Miyamoto was used as an example, because not only is he very well known, he is also widely regarded (and this is backed up by reliable sources) as one of the most important if not the most important figure in video gaming history, both by the Japanese and the Western media and industry members. It so happens that I know him too. You are obviously incapable of putting yourself in the shoes of someone who is not a particular fan of anime, turn-based rpgs, Dragon Quest and Yuji Horii. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is biased. That pretty much says it all. -- Nczempin (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you both seem to agree to reassessment, I've relisted this article on the assessment requests page with a link to this discussion.

Summary for reassessment

The dispute is over the importance rating of the subject, with varying arguments of mid and top, and an offered compromise of high. One party has concerns about non-western sources biasing the assessment process towards a lower importance rating, and would like the importance rating of other articles directly related to the subject to be taken into account. Hopefully both parties will abide by the decision of an uninvolved assessor. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

well, Jinnai and I have pretty much settled on High. The original assessor said he doesn't care. The only concern I had left was Jinnai's attitude, and I cannot change that. So I'm not sure we need re-assessment, but if you feel that's the best way, that's fine with me. -- Nczempin (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

By all means, if you're settled on a compromise then please do remove my addition on the Requests page. I wasn't too clear on it from above but if you're agreed then there's no need for the full process. As for other issues, I suggest (to both of you) that this might be an appropriate situation to WP:AGF, put aside and move forward to other tasks. If the two of you run afoul on the same sort of issue in future, it should go through the usual dispute resolution process at that time. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with High. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Special:Contributions/Victory93 « ₣M₣ » 02:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

yeah, what's up with this? -- Nczempin (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that they are off. I appended a note to the previous ones pointing out both this project page and this discussion. Are we ok to begin reviewing and reverting these edits? —Ost (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to hear an answer from User:Victory93 first. -- Nczempin (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I also want to hear an explanation, though I'm not sure that it matters if there is consensus that they are improperly reassessed. I'm fine with waiting, and I may be overeager from trying to help on the cleanup and knowing that after a few hours I likely won't be back on till next week. Cheers, Ost (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, User:Victory93 has stopped his re-importancing activities, but had a chance to read our misgivings, and has so far chosen not to respond. It is time that we decide what to do about his changes. -- Nczempin (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And frankly, I propose we just revert them all, unseen. There's no need for us to review the changes' merits, the onus is on Victory93 to go through the regular assessment process or at least to provide edit summaries, and certainly not to mass-change (AFAIK mass-upgrade) ratings. -- Nczempin (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

idea for checking "Top" ratings

I have just come across some annual Wikipedia editing contest, where people get rated for promoting articles to FA and other things. Unfortunately I have been unable to find again so that I could link to it, hopefully someone else will know what I mean. One of the things rated led me to an idea for sanity-checking the importance ratings of our articles, especially the ones rated "Top": Any normal points you get, such as 100 points for promoting to FA, will get doubled when the article in question appears in 20 other-language Wikipedias. Aside from the fact that 20 is obviously arbitrary (eventually there may be hope that pretty much all articles will appear pretty much in all WPs; then perhaps the threshold should be increased at some point), the idea to include the number of other WPs having the same article as some kind of metric of its global importance is intriguing.

So I went through all the Top articles in order of quality (manually; I really should take this opportunity to find or write my own bot to do this automaticall), and here are the ones that we currently consider "Top" but don't occur 20 or more times in other WPs (pretty much all of the Start articles fall into that category, I was too lazy to extract them all manually).

GA

History of video game consoles (seventh generation)

B

Role-playing game

Sony Computer Entertainment

Video game industry

C

History of video game consoles (fourth generation)

History of video games

Ken Kutaragi

Nolan Bushnell

North American video game crash of 1983

Start

all of them except

Action game

Magnavox Odyssey

Online game

Satoru Iwata

Strategy video game

Stub

none

I would like to start a discussion on whether some of these should be re-assessed as "High" given a glimpse into a global view.

First, the history articles. For some reason, it has been decided that all video game history articles are essential (and presumably by extension, they all have "Top" importance); perhaps this list (more evident in the list of Start articles) is a little bit of evidence that this is not the case. I would say that the main article Video game history is essential, but (as much as I am personally interested in the subject) I don't see why every little detailed history would be essential automatically.

Nolan Bushnell and Ralph Baer, while undoubtedly they are important people in VG history, perhaps it is sufficient to name their accomplishments in the main history article; are their more detailed biographies really essential knowledge to have, the basis of all information? As little as I questioned this when I first saw their names in the list, perhaps we need to re-consider. Something similar applies to North American video game crash of 1983; it seems to be a highly specialized topic that is (should be) treated sufficiently in the more general articles.

Gabe Newell I would have considered "High" at max; it seems to be a case of recentism; Steam, interestingly, does not fall under the category of less-than-20.

Some articles, like Role-playing games or Atari, Inc., seem to suffer from a possible non-unity of terminology; some of the English ones are highly specialized and perhaps the foreign ones are more general, or vice versa. Certainly we should look into making the overall Atari (which includes the Inc.) "Top" rather than just the original one.

So, what do you think? -- Nczempin (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI it was the Wikicup that you found- WP:CUP. The 20 articles thing was new this year; they wanted to give extra points to "important" articles to offset the common complaint that it was incentivizing people to work on dozens of easily-made articles on cricket players or mushrooms instead of the big, difficult ones. Eventually the 20+ wikis/in the WP:VITAL list rule was added as an objective measure of checking. The number 20 was completely arbitrary, and might rise next year if too many easy articles meet the requirements. --PresN 00:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"Future"-class articles

Pardon me if what I'm saying ends up being ridiculous, I'm kinda new. I noticed some WikiProjects have Future-Class articles, and was wondering if there was a way to use it with VG WikiProjects... I tried changing an article from Stub to Future but it ended up as "???" unassessed. It could be useful for games that have pages but aren't "officially announced" with a release date, available pre-reviews or released media yet. In this example I am thinking of Paper Mario 3DS. And hey, I'd rather ask stupid questions than not know, so here I am. :) Salvidrim (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It could certainly be useful, but I think we should look at how other projects are using it and go from there. What other projects are there? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Future-Class_articles (sorry, can't seem to link to the internal page...), it seems the only two areas making extensive use of this class are Albums (post-announcement, pre-release) and College Football Teams (which are not even stubs, but mere placeholders). I believe it would be very helpful to have yet unreleased games be Future-Class (for which not a lot of content is available), so as to not confuse with stubs (for which content is existing, and the article actively needs work). Plus, with game being announced sometimes years before release, it would clearly tag articles that will be updated as news comes out. The example given above (Paper Mario 3DS) demonstrates, IMO, how such a class would help. I also believe that while comparing with existing use can provide a guideline, the fact that this class is seemingly underused doesn't minimize how useful it might be if used in WP:VG. Salvidrim (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Another example would be Super Mario 3D Land, which recently was re-assessed from Stub to Start. While it may be qualify for Start according to information currently available, it wouldn't be much more than a stub was this a released game, and up to that point the article cannot really be upgraded. With more and more articles being made about the pre-release publicity of a videogame (and I could provide lists!), I definitely see the need for Future-class articles. :) Salvidrim (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No input? :( I obviously have no way to add that class myself, so I was hoping someone with a bit more power would take part in the discussions. Salvidrim (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't like Future-class; the classification is supposed to show the quality of the article, but future class instead tells you about the subject of the article. There's a lot of difference between a one-line stub and, say, Final Fantasy XIII-2, and I don't think the two should be thrown into a category together, set apart from the rest of the scale. --PresN 17:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this reasoning, especially that the category would be related to the subject and not the quality. —Ost (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I never liked the idea of Future-class articles. Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment says it's non-standard. I don't think we should support it. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above opposition. Classes are meant to provide direction to editors looking to improve articles, and a future class would run counter to that. I also worry that the class will be used in AfDs as an excuse to keep. Whether a topic is notable or not is independent of its release. Duke Nukem Forever, for example. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC))

Re-assessing articles

Is there a problem if individual editors not "part" of the 'team' assess articles in WP:VG? Of course, if there's an individual problem it can be reverted & discussed, I'm asking more in general, is there an informal policy against that? Salvidrim (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a problem at all. I'm not formally a member and I just assessed 15 articles. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, good to know. I'll certainly start studying criteria for the different classes in-depth so I can assess with more precision. I find I am having a hard time differentiating between Stub/Start and Start/C quite often, and the general guidelines aren't that descriptive. Is there moe documentation, a checklist of sorts, or something of that kind? Salvidrim (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

All articles should define the subject and establish the notability of that subject using reliable sources. WP:VG/A talks about content, but whether or not something is a start or a stub is entirely about proving the subject exists and that it has some notability. The line between start and C is not nearly as bright and there are always going to be borderline cases where people may disagree. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm, most stubs I've seen through Book:Mario_titles should probably be re-classed as Start then. As per WP:WG/A, a Stub "Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition.", so anything with a lead and 2-3 paragraphs (with 2-3 verified sources) is not a stub. Salvidrim (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Trying to quantify the requirements for start class is a mistake. It's an alright rule of thumb, but you HAVE to read the article and ask yourself whether or not the text proves the existence of the subject and shows that it has some notability. There are some long articles with reliable sources that don't satisfy these two basic requirements. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. But in this context most videogames that have stub-class articles do exist (physically or in development, as per sources), and for notability, is there any reason to claim a commercial videogame would not be notable enough to warrant an article? As for reading articles, indeed, but unlesss there is something I am not unerstanding correctly, stubs are a very light overview or mere description of a game, while any actual content about Plot, Development, Reception, Gameplay, etc. that is properly source makes the article Start-class. Salvidrim (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A lot of commercial games aren't notable. See 99% of iPhone games. And it doesn't matter for the purposes of rating whether the game itself is notable but rather that the notability is reflected in the article. As to the idea that some amount of content separated into a coherent structure qualifies an article for a start class rating, again, no. Good as a rule of thumb, bad as an understanding of criteria. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I meant commercial games on major commercial gaming platforms, thus not including the vast majority of online games and other app-based games (such as PSN Minis). And if "some amount of content separated into a coherent structure" with refs and acceptable prose does not "qualify and article for a start-class rating", what does? I'm not trying to contradict you, I'm just genuinely curious and wanting to learn. :) Salvidrim (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Consider this stub. Plenty of content and almost a dozen sources (let's pretend they're all reliable). Why isn't it a start? The references verify that the game exists, but neither the references nor any unsourced text speak to the notability of the game. One of the basic goals of every article is explaining why the subject matters and that goal isn't even close to being met. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not a formal member of WP:VG (I didn't add my name to the list and I don't advertise the userbox), but I still do a lot around the WP:VG project. I see no problem with non-members contributing, and I've assessed articles and plan on doing some reviews of GAN as well. I've even boldly edited the WP:VG portal a bit. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

How to request A-class

Reading through WP:VG/A and other such pages, I cannot seem to find exactly how to request an A-Class assessment. Do I just lodge a request at WP:VG/A/Requests? Salvidrim! 22:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Go here to make a request for A-class. However, the article must be a Good Article or its ineligible. GamerPro64 23:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, okay, that's what I thought. However, WP:VG/A says: "Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class." Are you telling me the WikiProject's page is incorrect? :) Salvidrim! 23:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes because in this project, Good Article status is required. GamerPro64 23:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you point me to the discussion where this consensus you mention was reached, and why the project's assessment guidelines, WP:VG/A, do not reflect that consensus? :) Salvidrim! 23:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Some question about rating.

Hello everyone! I'm from Chinese Wikipedia, and I'm interested in this. But in Chinese Wikipedia, it's not activity. So I don't know how to rating some article in Chinese Wikipedia. I don't know give them B, C, Start or Stub...

There is some article in Chinese Wikipedia, only see in structure and references, presume no grammer error or so...

1. zh:古剑奇谭 琴心剑魄今何在 (running in PC), a Chinese game

   Ch.1=Synopsis-Setting Ch.2=Plot Ch.3=Character Ch.4=System Ch.5=Other Media(Official Instruction Manual, OST etc.) Ch.6=Things about game(two para both tell about bug of game) Ch.7=Reception Ch.8= See Also Ch.9=References Ch.10=Ext links

   I think this article is C-class. to be honest, is a good article about VG in Chinese Wikipedia except the article translate from English Wikipedia...

   But in here, it might be Start Class? (No Development?)

2. zh:任天堂3DS, Nintendo 3DS

   Only Ch.5 (History) is a long para, else either short para or use list. Have feature and technical specifications, but no reception.

   So C-class?

3. zh:星海爭霸II：自由之翼, StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty GA in enwp

   Translate from GA article of English Wikipedia, but have a long list.

   It's also a C-class, cause the list made the article worse?

4. zh:世紀帝國II：帝王世紀

   Many list, and no ref.

   Start or Stub?

5. zh:精靈協奏曲, Japanese Music video game

   Translate from Japanese Wikipedia. Ch1=Synopsis-Setting Ch2=Character list Ch3=Game element list Ch4=Music list (cause a video game)

   Stub? But for short article, the list made the article better?

Thank you!--221.11.26.238 (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Some "Start-class" re-assessment requests

Games (all already released):

• Arthur's Quest: Battle for the Kingdom
• Bad Dudes Vs. DragonNinja
• Battletoads
• Command & Conquer
• Chronicles of the Sword
• Civilization (series)
• Civilization IV: Colonization
• Civilization V: Gods & Kings
• Curse of Enchantia
• Darkstalkers
• Darkwatch
• Drakensang: The Dark Eye
• Dynasty Warriors
• Laser Squad
• Legends of Valour
• Mini Ninjas
• Mortal Kombat (1992 video game)
• Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks
• Mortal Kombat: Special Forces
• Mortal Kombat II
• Ninja Gaiden Sigma
• Red Ninja: End of Honor
• Resident Evil (2002 video game)
• Shadowrun (Super Nintendo Entertainment System video game)
• Silent Storm
• Sniper Elite
• Soul Edge
• Soulcalibur III
• Soulcalibur V
• Sweet Home (video game)
• The Punisher (1993 video game)
• Ultima (series)
• Wasteland (video game)
• Witchaven
• X-COM

Characters:

• Annah-of-the-Shadows
• Avatar (Ultima)
• Aya Brea
• Ayame (Tenchu)
• Cyberdemon
• Dark Queen (Battletoads)
• Dogmeat
• Elexis Sinclaire
• Larry Laffer
• Lili (Tekken)
• List of Mortal Kombat characters
• Max Payne (character)
• Metal Gear (weapon)
• Mona Sax
• Morte
• Scissorman
• Sniper Wolf
• Strider Hiryu
• Tyrant (Resident Evil)

--Niemti (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• There's a plan to eventually burn through all of them, once the Stubs are done. Check out the 2012 Stubcheck. :) Salvidrim! 02:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "once the Stubs are done"? --Niemti (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• The Project is first checking the Stubs; then we'll check the Starts. :) Salvidrim! 02:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

But I just pointed you out to the articles that I think should checked to be higher than Start. Many of them are pretty much complete. --Niemti (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Some now C-class characters to re-asseses

Like, B, A, GA, FA, or whatever (and why not):

• Ayane (Dead or Alive)
• Ibuki (Street Fighter)
• Jade (Mortal Kombat)
• Kitana (Mortal Kombat)
• Kasumi (Dead or Alive)
• Max Payne (character)
• Mai Shiranui
• Mileena
• Taki (Soulcalibur)
• Yuffie Kisaragi

--Niemti (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A-class discussion

I've started a centralized discussion at WT:VG whether we should include the guideline proposal for A-class assessments and update the A-class assessment to delineate this. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#A-class. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Rate Requesting

Do I need to submit a rating request if I added the Wikiproject tag on the talk page of an article without importance and quality ratings? KidXap (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:VG/A#FAQ, either you can assess it yourself (if you're comfortable) or someone will get to it eventually. It doesn't have to be approved or requested unless you want specific advice/help. czar · · 06:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Reassessing a load of Start-Class articles to C or above.

I've started going through the list of Start Class articles, reassessing those that I thought were now C-Class. Could someone take a quick look through and see if they agree with me? If you don't see this for a while, the edits are all made around the time this post was made. (I'm not sure how to link to a time in my contributions.) Samwalton9 (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

High-importance individual games, and History of video game consoles (X generation)

Two questions:

1. (easy one) The importance chart has the "History of video game consoles (X generation)" series split between top and high importance, where fourth gen is an example for "high" but is currently tagged as "top", with the rest of the series. I was going to revert this, but I think it could make sense (as sweeping articles that cover swaths of game history). Thoughts?
2. (harder one) There are a buttload of individual games listed as high-importance, and I'm not sure on what basis. "High" on the rubric refers to major series and industry-changing games, and really popular stuff is relegated to "mid". I think this makes sense, and that Uncharted 2 is a great example of a renowned game that defines a console that belongs at mid-importance. I can see games like the original SMB and others that top "best games of all time" lists getting the high-importance treatment, but what about Castlevania: Symphony of the Night or others on the verge? What is the high-importance cutoff criteria for individual games, and if the boundaries are blurry, would it be useful to make consensus on a list, WP:Vital-style? The high-importance article numbers shouldn't see much fluctuation. czar · · 02:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi, does "we do not assess redirects" mean that WP:VG templates should be removed entirely from talk pages of redirects within the project's scope? Moritz37 (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Previously, yes, but...

See the project's talk page for current discussion about changing this. czar · · 00:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2