Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Thanks for the hold. I haven't been working on this article, but I'll help address the issues and then help with a thorough copyedit. On a related note, the "Brandtastic!!!!" comment made my day. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gary, I improved the article, but I forgot to copy-edit it. I also loved the sarcasm, BRANDTASTIC, I gotta use that. ;) But I responded to your concerns, at the review page, here.--SRX--LatinoHeat17:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the article acording to the problems you told me adress and I think you would like it. I only need people to come through and do a quick copy-editing.GearsOf War12:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brawl FAC
Brawl has been nominated. Thanks for your support and request for a preliminary assessment like last time. Unfortunately, I already listed it on the FAC page... Just leave an assessment there. Thanks! Oh, and on a side note, I'm reviewing your GAN of Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time. There's not any big issues, and they might take probably 10 minutes max. to fix. --haha169 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so! And I think I just broke a wiki-record. I fixed all of Ashnard's concerns in less than an hour. I may find some extensions of his problems later on, but as of now, they are basically fixed. W00t! :) (This also included fixing Eagyldth's concerns. --haha169 (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I'm going to dediacte a lot of time to copyedit the article generally, as well as my comments. Thanks for fixing all of the issues raised. Cheers. AshnardTalkContribs18:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and thanks for your time. I'm going to go take a break right now, and check on the FAC processes a bit later today.--haha169 (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ashnard, I am amazed at the status of the Brawl article. I read the entire development section without thinking a particular sentence felt awkward, and fixing it. In fact, the entire article made me feel that way! I did find one sentence that I corrected myself, but really, good job! I've also done some minor shortening of places in the Gameplay section to try and fix your neutrality in the FAC.--haha169 (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has just reminded me how stressed how I was during the Melee FAC. Anyway, I'm glad I could be of assisstance. In case you didn't know, make sure you cite that quote that Jappalang picked up on. Good luck!!! AshnardTalkContribs16:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ashnard, I have a dream that you changed your stance from neutral to support. Additional copy-editing has been done by Laser Brain and I, as well as fixing some concerns of Sandy Georgia. I must say, the article is now literate to people who don't understand video game jargon. :) Anyway, you should check it out. Thanks!--haha169 (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:) Lolz. I was quoting Martin Luther King, but dreaming about you is good too. Actually, last night, I dreamt I was a werewolf in China, and some guy was after me. Anyway, I'm sure you'll be happy to know that Brawl has been promoted to FA status! Its now at WP:FTC. :) I think our topic dream is coming close... --haha169 (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was advised by User:Jappalang to get a dedicated and capable copyeditor to go over the Crash of the Titans article (currently a GA) and help get it to A-Class or Featured Article, and you seem to fit the criteria. Sorry if you're busy, but could you go over it sometime? Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's probably the best Crash related article I've seen on WP. (Not a good thing, but then again I don't look very hard!) I've done a bit of copyediting and will try and help out some more. —Giggy14:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In many video game articles, the Reception section is the last main section of prose. As its name suggests, within the section you should summarize the critical reaction to the game. The section should provide a high-level overview of what the critics liked and didn’t like about the game; it is a summary, not a repetition of what publications thought. Therefore, don’t put in excessive, long winded quotes or have a paragraph detailing IGN’s thoughts on the game. To prevent cluttering of the prose with scores, reviews table such as {{VG Reviews}} can be used to organize this kind of information.
A good way to lead off the section is a by-the-numbers or at a glance snapshot of the game’s reception; you can use aggregate scores to suggest an overall critical response to the game, and can provide sales figures (if you have them) for the game’s release. Commonly, the rest of the reception is broken into positive and negative paragraphs. Entirely separate ‘Praise’ and ‘Controversy’ or ‘Negative comments’ or the like are strongly discouraged as troll magnets. If the game has won any awards, then listing them at the bottom of the reception section is an option.
Other things to remember:
Don’t list every single review in the reviews table; likewise, don’t mention every award the game has ever gotten.
Generally, talk about what the reviewers say rather than speaking for them; for example, “Reviewer X of Publication Y took issue with elements of the game such as X, Y, and Z” instead of “Review X said that “I took issue with elements of the game such as X, Y, and Z.” If a reviewer has a good comment which sums up the positive/negative/overall reaction, or a particular sentiment common in many reviews, it might be more appropriate to use.
If adding sales data, make sure to provide context; did it sell those 4.2 million units within three months of release or three years? If possible, break down the sales by region; did the Japanese like the game, but Americans not buy it?
Use reviews whose scores are outliers from the average ratings to find key points that were liked or disliked about a game. If all reviews except for one average around a 9 out of 10, and the one is a 7 out of 10, there is probably some clear negative points to be found in it; the same works with very positive reviews.
Perhaps most importantly, give proper weight and keep a neutral point of view. If the game received mostly negative scores, having three paragraphs on positive aspects and glossing over the bad parts in a sentence or two conveys the wrong impression to readers.
Cleaned up the other issues mentioned now. Sorry if this is like pulling teeth, but I really want to get it and some of my other articles to FA. Btw, would you be interested in doing some copyediting on the other said articles if I tossed you links to them?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I plan on doing multiple assessment in a week, so that would just mean that they're all directed your way this time. It's pretty late where I am, so I'll look over Alleyway tomorrow and reconsider. Cheers. AshnardTalkContribs21:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bug you like this, but I was wondering if you could give Alleyway another onceover for a copyedit, since the FA is kinda...sitting there, right now, and I'm at a dead end to see how to improve the article further >_<'--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've copyedited it. Sometimes I've been unsure by what is meant so I've reworded to clarify based on assumption. If I've made a mistake, or you disagree with the alteration, feel free to revert back. AshnardTalkContribs10:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mind having a looky over something for me?
I've been constructing a rewrite for Doom 3 over the last ten days or so here, and I'm nearing completion: just have to do the reception section and the introduction, as well as sort out a few last bits of referencing. I was wondering if I could borrow your knack for reviewing articles at FAC to give it a look over, just to check for spelling errors, bad wording, and other bits that might hold the article back at a good article nominations. I'm hoping to have it at GAN fairly soon after its been completed. And do you think the plot section is too long? I wanted to do it in three or at most four paragraphs, and was rather disappointed when I couldn't get it to anything less than five. Thanks, Sabre (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. I'll give it a lookover some time this week. Do you want it to be a general look over, or a detailed review, like for an FAC? Cheers, Sabre. AshnardTalkContribs19:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article to mainspace, if you wouldn't mind running through the version there rather than the one in sandbox. Don't worry, I've still got your tweaks you made to the intro a few minutes before, I didn't notice that you'd made them until after I'd copied the article! -- Sabre (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh darn, I wouldn't have moved it out if I'd known you were doing the review at that moment - as I said, I didn't notice your edits until afterwards. Well, since its out, I'd suggest moving to the mainspace one, leave any comments on the main article's talk page. Since you're doing the full review, ignore the tweaked comment I made earlier. Sorry if this messes things up a bit, I do apologise! -- 15:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Ashnard, just wondering if you have the NOM issue decribed here:[1]
Based on your userpage and this it "ONM" or "NOM"? « ₣M₣ » 13:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. I only have ONM, which is 2007 to present. NOM was the official Nintendo magazine in the UK before that. Technically, ONM is the successor to NOM, although there is a different editorial team and publisher. Sorry. AshnardTalkContribs16:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was planning on getting Super Paper Mario and Paper Mario to GA at some point. However, our major stumbling block is a lack of info relating to development of the games in general. Without this, I can't see any of them passing FA. Thanks for the note, Judge. AshnardTalkContribs17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought, is that you should do a draft of what the four Mario RPG articles (main one, characters, music, and world) would look like merged together and polished up. I think that one article covering all aspects of that game would be a Featured article, instead of 4 articles that keep stretching to be notable. That would help build the topic I think. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. The only problem is that Super Mario RPG is the only one of the GAs then I didn't write (User: Kariteh). I haven't played the game too, which could make things difficult. However, the actual information seems to exist already so we could work on the idea of a merge and then a big charge to get it to FA standard. It may be worthwile getting a collaboration between myself, Kariteh, Guyinblack and you on one of the user sandboxes to see what it would look like. The only problem remaining then, however would be that alone wouldn't be enough for a featured topic, I think. But yeah, I'd be prepared to give that a go. AshnardTalkContribs23:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SSBM
I've been bored, so I was checking the external links checker for FA VG articles, and leaving comments on the talk pages of articles with excessive amounts of dead external links. SSBM, though, only has one. But I'm unable to fix this one since Edge seems to have taken Melee off its site completely. Its current ref 52. Do you know anything about it? --haha169 (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bug ya again, but I could use a copyedit on Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) to tidy it up and improve its legibility. It seems I've exhausted all the information I can about it (given Square Enix seems to be actively sniping auctions of it [2] and sent me a rather blunt "don't step on our copyrights" letter when I asked them about the game, I can safely rule out EGM or such ever covering it o_O') so the only thing left is to improve what I have and try to get it FA quality with that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey now don't say that. I'm very thankful you took the time and effort, I just wasn't sure what you were planning to do since that was the second time you altered the sentence to read like that. You're well aware of what others such as David think of your copyediting abilities and that's the reason I asked you. I really couldn't put it any better myself [3]. I guess your done now, so thanks and if your willing, I look forward towards your assistance again in the future. Cheers, « ₣M₣ » 15:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
How did you like them can of worms about the list of events? Took forever to get that to FA... Anyway, congrats on having the 100th VG-related FA. « ₣M₣ » 00:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was unlucky. I probably would have offered some form of opinion but I avoid such types of discussion when I can nowadays. Anywho, congratulations on Mario & Sonic. As for the hundredth, I didn't know until you told me:-) Thanks!!
Two things: Ike is cheap and I need you to C.E. F-Zero whenever you can. « ₣M₣ » 19:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Say that again and I'll e-Falcon Punch you in the face;-). Anywho, you've caught me at a good time. I've just got a week off from college, so I should be able to give it a once over by the end of the weekend. Cheers. AshnardTalkContribs20:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Peer Review
Thanks for the Wipeout 3 review. I'm going to get to all your concerns and such. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find sales data via the interwebs or from a newspaper, maybe there is some old sales charts page but for right now I'm not sure. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)22:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's annoying, especially as I keep on seeing the sales data for the older, original version. The only thing I got was a GameSpy page saying that "And though it didn't help make Wipeout 3 a commercial success, it was no less an example of uncompromised, artistic game-making. " from here. Anywho, good luck at FAC. AshnardTalkContribs07:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list of almost 700 articles has been checked and updated. Special thanks to MrKIA11, Dukeruckley, JFlav, FMF, and several other editors for checking the large number of articles.
Inactive project cleanup Proposal to consolidate inactive projects and taskforces. Project page can be found here.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indie Game Developers deleted.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Arcade games moved to page under WP:VG. See new Arcade task force page.
Feature: Reliable Sources
A common issue with writing video games articles is that it's often natural for editors to turn to the internet for all their information. However, using only online sources can be problematic, especially if editors are not familiar with Wikipedia's sources guidelines. First off, for every notable, reliable web site about gaming that exists on the web, there are twenty-five fan sites or personal blogs. As per Wikipedia's, content guideline about reliable sources, a proper source that should be used in an article must meet the following criteria:
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
How do you determine if website X meets the criteria? Look around for information on who owns the website or if the website has a staff and established editorial processes; if the site doesn't have information posted online, send an email to the webmaster or editor. It can be hard to definitely prove the a website has a "reputation" for accuracy. Thus, it's probably easier to go with established sites to begin with, such as IGN or GameSpot. If you use a source with borderline qualifications, be prepared to justify the site at content review or to other editors. WikiProject Video Games has a partially-complete listing of vetted sources in print or online at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, as well as more detailed information on what constitutes a reliable source.
To find sources on the internet, checking Google News as well as simple web searches can help spot references you might have missed. Often, however, older news articles are locked behind pay gates or subscription services. A workaround is using a service like ProQuest or LexisNexis, although unless you have access to these through a college or education institution it will likely cost you money regardless. Libraries can have old newspapers and copies of magazines; to assist in finding print sources online, WikiProject Video Games has a Magazines Department where you can contact users to get copies of certain reviews, previews, or features from old magazines. If you have gaming magazines of your own, add yourself to the list!
I thought it was highly probable that you'd be watching or at least checking the page. Anyway, it was only a passing comment, and I hope you didn't take too much offense from it. Cheers. AshnardTalkContribs17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Special note: The naming convention for the newsletter has altered. Instead of being labeled the month it is delivered, it is now labeled the month the content applies to. See discussion.
Assessment Department: This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's video games articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 program, and more specifically in the Video games essential articles page.
Two new quality ratings have been implemented into the Assessment Department's scale. The new Wikipedia-wide C-Class rating (see category) has been added to the scale between Start-Class and B-Class. Because of this, the criteria of the B-Class has been tweaked to better illustrate the difference between a B-Class and C-Class article. An older rating, List-Class (see category), has been added to the scale as well. It is mainly used on pages that have very little prose and are primarily tables and lists of information.
Editors are encouraged to submit articles for assessment if they feel an article has made significant progress up the assessment scale or has gained importance within video game articles. Assessed articles generally receive some feedback to further improve the article. Experienced editors are also encouraged to help with assessment of articles when the number of requests gets too large.
Peer Review Department: The Peer review process for WikiProject Video games exposes video-game-related articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a Featured article candidate. It is not a academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other.
Editors are encouraged to use the Video game peer review process, as well as the regular Wikipedia-wide process, to improve the quality of articles. While a peer review can be done at any time, it strongly suggested to use this process before an article goes up for Good article nomination and Featured article or Feature list candidacy as articles cannot be a candidate for GA or FA while at peer review.
Editors are also encouraged to leave feedback for articles undergoing peer review. A process such as this will not work if editors do not give as well as take. Feedback can range from brief comments after skimming through a page to a full blown dissection of grammar, structure, and references. Either way, every bit helps.
Since you featured Mario Power Tennis, I suspect that it's then that much easier to do a featured topic. I think that starting on the first two Camelot Mario Tennises would be best, then Power Tour, then the series, and finally, Mario's Tennis - if we can't GA it, it still counts if we do a successful peer review. - A Link to the Past(talk)00:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to do that although my time's being cut short since I've just started college, so I can only work on weekends. Since I haven't played the rest, it would probably be easiest if you research/write the gameplay mechanics, and then we can strike a balance about who does what. As you'll know, whether we can take any to FA will depend on any development info available; I can almost always manage to scrape some form of it together to be enough for GA though. But yeah, just let me know when you're ready. Cheers, Link. AshnardTalkContribs20:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39 of 393 articles have been prepared and submitted. Come help us prepare more at the workshop page.
Feature: Wikipedia 0.7
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of articles taken from the English version of Wikipedia, compiled by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is designed for a DVD release, and the selection was put together using a Selection Bot, based on the quality and importance assigned by WikiProjects.
The Video games Project and its daughter projects have multiple articles among the selection and are currently working on cleaning up the articles to improve their presentation. A workshop page has been set up that is designed to assist and coordinate the effort. The status of and recommendations for articles is listed on the table. Discussion about which articles should be kept and removed from the list have been taking place on the talk page.
If you have assisted in working on and improving a current Featured article, Good article, or A-Class article, please check the workshop page to see if the article is recommended for inclusion.
Articles will need an id version submitted to ensure it is included. They will also need to be cleaned up if maintenance tags and other issues are present. Participation is not restricted, and if you can assist with the preparation effort, it would be greatly appreciated.
Things to remember for preparation
The workshop page has a notes section for each article. Clean up suggestions have been left for some articles.
Do a light sweep of the article to address any vandalism andclean up tags: citation needed, more references, lengthy plot, etc.
If you need help with an article, post on the talk page.
I'll follow up to notify you if some amendments haven't resolved the original issues, but these again are only recommendations, and definitely not things that have to be followed. I'll be pretty busy over the next few days though, so I may not have time to look back any time soon, though. Thanks. AshnardTalkContribs19:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some time now, the Video games project and the Military history project have been cross listing their articles undergoing peer review in an effort to improve the quality of articles, as well as the copy editing skills of editors. The idea was first proposed by User:Krator as a way to better prepare articles for Featured article candidacy. After being approved by both projects, the idea was implemented under a trial period, and eventually approved as a standard practice.
New, cross listed military history articles are announced on the Video games project talk page, and listed on the Video games Peer review page under a special section. Video game editors are encouraged to leave any type of comments that come to mind. If you don't know anything about military history, that's perfectly fine because that's the point. An editor lacking knowledge about the particular topic can provide a helpful point of view as a general reader—the intended audience.
A peer review process such as this will not work if editors do not give as well as take.
Peer reviews are meant to examine not just the prose, but the sources and images used in the article.
Feedback can range from brief comments after skimming through a page to a full blown dissection of grammar, structure, and references. Either way, every bit helps.
Reviewing another editor's article can help sharpen your writing skills, which in turn can improve the articles you write.
My pleasure. As for my status, I can just about manage a single review on weekends if needs be, but I won't be writing or featuring any articles during this period. I may not respond to feedback on the review immediately. Cheers. AshnardTalkContribs12:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article importance is an assessment of a topic's importance in understanding a specific higher level topic. Assessments are maintained by WikiProjects and reflect the project's view of what is essential to understanding their scope. In the VG Project's case, all importance scales are in terms of understanding video games.
Recent discussions at the VG Project's talk page have called for revisions to the practice of assigning article importance. The discussion began in mid-November with the goal of clarifying what level of importance should be assigned to certain type of articles. It eventually expanded to creating a standardized table of importance to serve as a guide for current and future editors.
The discussion has focused on and shifted to several topics including flaws of previous practices, new ways to view assessment, other project practices to emulate, and specific articles which are exceptions to proposed guidelines. A brief pole and discussion determined most editors felt that the bulk of some topics—specifically individual video game, series, and character articles—were not essential to understanding video games, making them ineligible for top importance. The discussion then shifted to tweaking the wording and layout of the table.
The current proposed table is being discussed on the project's talk page, and the issue of whether some topics—specifically character articles—should be allowed to be rated importance has also been brought up. As always, member are encouraged to voice their opinions and engage in discussion to determine consensus so the new assessment scale can be implemented.
The only way that it was actually ever rated A-Class is if there was an off-article discussion, which certainly does not qualify. I don't understand why you continue to revert - A-class needs a review just as much as GA-class. Hell, MORE. There was clearly no review on the talk page, so it shouldn't be A-class. A-class can't be slapped onto the talk page anymore than GA or FA. - The New Age Retro Hippieused Ruler!Now, he can figure out the length of things easily.19:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just think you should have queried this with User: Kung Fu Man first. If an established user has rated it that way, then there must be a misunderstanding or mistake, either with you or with him. Anywho, are you not curious as to why this happened? Because I certainly did not request assessment. I'll happily revert myself once the thing's been explained. If you have no intention of asking KFM, then I will. Cheers. AshnardTalkContribs19:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty much indifferent to A-class—I don't really care whether this article is stripped of it or not. I suppose I should have followed this one up when it first happened... Cheers. AshnardTalkContribs20:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can see it here. To my understanding of policies (and apparently everyone else given recent ratings), it takes two reviewers to agree to grant an article A-class quality. In this case, it was myself and SomoneAnother. I don't know what all this discussion hoopla is, but I don't think we've ever discussed A-class rating for an article. Just used two editors on the assessment request page.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just writing to confirm that Kung Fu Man had supported A-class promotion, I in turn read through the article, agreed and then countersigned it. There was no talk page discussion on the article because this was done via signature on the assessments page. If A-class remains operational then the project needs to lay down exactly what is expected in terms of documentation and participation. Someoneanother00:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I hope I didn't come off as accusative or anything, it's just that Link questioned the assessment without a formal review, so I neededto follow it up. Thanks. AshnardTalkContribs17:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you, I know you're semi-retired and all, but I need a copy edit on the article...it's up for FAC, and an editor brought the prose in question. You're one of the best people I know to turn to for help :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in a position where I don't know if I can accept such requests any more, given that things are really intense with the work load. I definitely won't be able to do it this week, but will probably be able to squeeze something in at the weekend, but no promises. I'm not being rude, it's just that I have three exams in January, and five mock exams in that period. But yeah, in summary: this weekend, but not 100 percent. AshnardTalkContribs17:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon, and a little something else
Hey. I seem to recall you were busy with other things. However, I was just wondering if you were planning, at all, to work on getting the Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon article to GA status? Since it's been out in Europe for a while, although the NA release is still a few months away.
Also, is there any way I can contact you outside of Wikipedia? Since I don't want to spam your talk page. I was just wondering if you were interested in writing a Fire Emblem-based article for my site ^^
Yeah, I'm really busy with my AS-levels. I'm currently playing through Shadow Dragon, albeit very slowly due to work. I was planning on helping to take it to GA once I've completed it, but I'll probably hold off until after my initial exams in January. Regarding your site, it sounds really interesting, and something that I'd be happily prepared to commit to once my schedule loosens up. It's probably best if you e-mail me now regarding specifics and then we can decide what to do. Contact me via my e-mail, which can be accessed via the "e-mail this user" link on the lower left-hand toolbox. Don't worry about the talk page and spam—I enjoy getting messages. Cheers. AshnardTalkContribs17:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not acknowledging sooner, if you're busy don't worry about it - I managed to find a fair few sources to use. Good luck with your exams (noticed the previous discussion). Guest9999 (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I haven't forgotten. I will almost certainly get it to you, although I don't know when exactly. I finish my first exam on Friday, so I should be able get it to you by Friday night, if that's okay. AshnardTalkContribs19:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the information, sorry if it was any hassle. I'm going to blank it on my userpage just in case there's a copyright issue but it will definitely be useful as a source to improve the article. Thanks again, Guest9999 (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For your impressive dedication to improving Wikipedia's coverage of video games which seems to span content contribution, reviewing, copy editing and providing sources to those in need. Keep up the good work. Guest9999 (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A search bar has been added to the archive box on the VG project talk page. Searching the discussion archives is now much easier.
Feature: Video game notability
Video game related articles fall under niche categories on Wikipedia: "Culture and the arts" and "Everyday life". Because of this, they are often required to demonstrate notability more than other topics. Wikipedia defines notability as "worthy of notice", and considers it distinct from fame, importance, and popularity. Though it is acknowledge to be related to fame and the like, it is important understand that being famous, important, or popular does not mean a video game article should be on Wikipedia.
Being notable means that a topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Wikipedia's policy also stipulates that this only presumes to "satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This means that though an article may meet the criteria on paper, it is up to the community to decide if a topic truly is notable and/or violates other policies such as WP:NOT. In short, just because a video game, character, or related topic exists, does not mean it should also exist as a Wikipedia article.
Dealing with non-notable topics
Articles that do not meet the criteria are either deleted or merged into a relevant topic.
WP:Articles for deletion (AfD) handles the deletion of non-notable articles, among other types, and has an established process to begin discussions about reasons for deletion.
If an article is a subarticle of a larger topic, merging it into the larger topic article is a more desirable action. For example, the main character of a video may not be notable, but has received some mentions in reviews. It would benefit both topics, the character and its video game, to include the content into the article of the video game; essentially using a small, weaker article to strengthen a larger more notable article.
Things to remember
The best way to show notability is to provide reliable sources about the topic.
Notability is less about keeping articles out of Wikipedia and more about making sure readers are provided articles about significant, quality topics.
While you may think a topic is notable, others may disagree. Try to keep a clear perspective when assessing notability so discussions can reach a consensus.
AfD is more of a last resort and is not always the best course of action to take.
Consider starting a merger discussion first, as some editors may not fully understand why an article they started is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Sorry I was just wondering if I could get the title and page number(s) of the Super Mario Kart piece from issue 15 of ONM you sent to me. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This issue we are trying a new type of newsletter feature: "Featured editor". This is a chance to learn more about the various editors who contribute to the Video games project as well as the roles they fill. If you enjoyed this new feature and would like to see similar interviews in future issues, please drop us a note at the VG newsletter talk page.
David Fuchs (also known as Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs), is a long time video games editor that has written a large number of the project's Featured articles. He has been ranked high on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, and has assisted in reviewing and editing more many. Recently David has begun to assist with image reviews for Featured article candidates, and branched out into other types of articles in addition to video games. He can normally been seen on the project's talk page offering advice and his input on the various discussion taking place there.
What drew you to Wikipedia, and what prompted you to begin editing?
I got involved due in part to (I believe, my memory is fuzzy) finding the site while doing research for Advanced Placement Europen History during high school. My earliest contributions (in December 2005) were creating topics based on what I learned, as well as creating an article for my high school with another friend. I soon became involved with editing topics related to Halo video game franchise, specifically the article on the parasitic Flood.
What got you involved in writing Featured articles?
I think for most editors it's a shiny accomplishment you are striving for, and natural for most editors to try and get an FA. I first nominated an article for FA in 2007, after about a year of inactivity onwiki; it didn't pass as it was poorly written and didn't follow our guidelines for writing about fiction; I also took a couple of tries to get my first video game FA (Halo 2).
What article(s) are you most proud of writing or exemplifies your best work?
I suppose Myst is a sort of accomplishment I can point to; I started work on the article on May 2 2008, when it looked like this, and submitted it to Featured Article Candidates one day later. I think that's some kind of record, but I dunno. In terms of being a good read or something I'm very happy with, however, I'd have to look at my more recent work, specifically Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Bone Wars.
How do you pick the articles you work on?
Whatever hits me. There's many articles I haven't gotten around to editing and improving as planned because another article has caught my fancy.
What advice would you give to editors seeking to write quality articles?
In the words of one of my favorite cartoon characters when I was a child, "We must do reeea-search!" Even in video games, online sources don't usually cut it. Even after getting an article to FA, make sure you continually trawl the internet and elsewhere for more information to add to the topic.
Note: This is an abridged version. To read the full interview, click here.
Hello Ashnard, can I ask a favour of you, provided you're not too semi-retired to do it. Could I request that you give Sam & Max: Freelance Police a copyedit for me, to try to sharpen the prose as much as you possibly can for the ongoing FAC? My experience with the FAC has reassured me that I'm a rubbish copyeditor for getting criteria 1 satisfied. Gary King's kindly given it a run-over already, I'd just like to have another editor give it a look over to make it as watertight as possible. Its a rather short article, so it shouldn't take you to too long. Thanks! -- Sabre (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've given a copyedit to the prose only. I won't comment at FAC as I have not given an exhaustive critique of every aspect of the article. Feel free to revert or modify anything that you disagree with. Good luck. AshnardTalkContribs19:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I do not spell favor with a 'u', I still need one: [4]. You added Mario & Sonic, so you know what I want. Thanks, « ₣M₣ » 18:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yup, I'm so excited it took me this long to respond. So to compensate I'm working on Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All Stars and randomly...Nintendo DSi. Hopefully getting DSi to a higher status is pretty easy since its not a home console, [insert minor/gimmicky differences between Lite and DSi here], probably cannot writeup a sales section and it doesn't need a lengthy reception like Mario & Sonic. I think its now ready for a copyedit. « ₣M₣ » 01:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
So, are you wanting me to copyedit Nintendo DSi? I finish my last exam on Thursday, so I should be able to lend a hand on that weekend. Mind you, I've never written a console article, so it's not my forte. Anywho, I'll do my best. AshnardTalkContribs13:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just followed the article structure from other consoles. Besides grammar, I've reached a point where I do not know what else to alter before reassessment. :/ « ₣M₣ » 17:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks and a request
Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch><>°°03:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there!
Hi there! Looks like you've gone thru the classic Wikipedia life cycle. Good job on all your works. Hope things are going well for you in all aspects of life. See you round. Peregrine (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yeah, college is keeping me very busy—too busy in fact. I haven't got bored of Wikipedia, it's just that there's not enough time in the day anymore. I've barely even got time to play my beloved Fire Emblem anymore. Anywho, I hope things are going well for you. Cheers. AshnardTalkContribs17:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The VG Project Collaboration of the Week is a new effort to improve important video game articles of low quality. Every week, an article is random selected by AnomieBOT from the Stub-, Start-, and C-class categories that are rated either High- or Top-importance. Such topics can offer a reader a good deal of encyclopedic information about video games, but are often too underdeveloped or lacking the proper level of writing and sourcing to accomplish this.
All editors are welcome and encouraged to participate by offering their insights and suggestions. Having a pool of different editors, both old and new, will help maximize improvements to the articles as well as our editing skills.
History
Collaborative efforts have come and gone within the VG project several times before. The first such effort, the "Gaming collaboration of the week", began in October 2004 as a result of the several otherweekly collaborations popping up on Wikipedia. It proved to be quite successful at improving articles to meet Wikipedia's standard at the time, but the effort eventually saw less and less participation. A second effort, the "Improvement Drive", began in August 2005 with the intent of improving articles to FA-quality. However, few nominations and articles were selected. The decline in participation in the collaborations and peer reviews resulted in a third effort. It began in February 2006 as a workshop, but never got off the ground.
Numerous discussions have taken place on at WT:VG to jump start collaborations and improve the process to prevent its decline again. While previous collaborations selected any video game article, most editors felt focus should be on video game topics more encyclopedic in nature—topics that are also generally in poor shape because of lack of attention. A common problem mentioned was that previous nomination processes were lengthy and hindered participation. The current idea to automate the process was brought up by JohnnyMrNinja, which was further discussed to iron out the details.
Current collaboration
The current collaborative efforts began in mid-January 2009, and several articles have been improved by editors. The random choice is intended to minimize the selection process, which allows editors to focus on article improvement. Improvements include better organization of content, massaging and copy editing the prose, removing excess non-free images, and much more. The random choice is also meant to encourage participation from editors of varying interest and help prevent burnout. If the present selection is not to your liking, wait until next week. Editors are encouraged to add Template:Collab-gaming to their watchlist to see which article is selected. Recently selected articles are:
I am currently gauging the active membership of the Nintendo task force. I have split the members list into an "active list" and an "inactive list" and have moved all members (except myself) to the "inactive list". To confirm that you're still an active participant in the task force, please go to the membership list at WP:NIN and simply move your name from the "inactive list" back onto the "active list". If you no longer wish to be a member, simply remove your name from the list. After two weeks (around 23 March 2009), I will remove all names on the inactive list. Thank you, and hope you're still interested, MuZemike20:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is a generic message, but I'll just say that I won't be adding my name to the "active" list as I consider myself inactive in regards to Wikipedia as a whole, being semi-retired and all. I just didn't want to give the impression that I was defecting from the Nintendo Wikiproject to go to Microsoft's, or something similar. Cheers. AshnardTalkContribs22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject Video games Newsletter released its first issue a year ago. The newsletter is meant to help connect editors, keep them up-to-date with the activities of the VG project, and improve the knowledge of our members. We've compiled a list of questions to help gauge the effectiveness of the newsletter's first year.
Answers will be accepted for a three week period following the deliver of the March 2009 issue on Wednesday, April 1, 2009. Just to clarify, this is not an April Fools' Day gag, and we would really appreciate honest criticism. Information obtained from this poll is intend to alter the newsletter for the better. So don't feel you should hold back or give answers similar to everyone else.
The VG Barnstar is an award given to Wikipedians recognized for efforts and contributions to improve and develop video game related articles.
The VG Barnstar is one of many Wikipedia Barnstars designed to be given to editors that have helped further the overall quality of Wikipedia. It was created in February 2006 by Jacoplane—see past discussion for details—and has been given to numerous editors since. Sometimes editors with multiple Barnstars use an alternative way to display them: ribbons.
Barnstars are designed to be given by anyone, so don't be shy as everyone enjoys appreciation. If you have noticed or have been impressed with the work of an editor, feel free to let them know by placing {{subst:Barnstar VG|"message" ~~~~}} on their talk page. The template uses a parameter to include a message expressing the reasons behind the award.
Hiya Hannah. The problem is that WP: EL specifies that the number of external links should be kept to a minimum, and must contribute substantially to the knowledge of the subject beyond what the article would offer at FA. By a cursory glance at the web page, I just don't think there's enough useful info to warrant its inclusion in the article. There is only the voice acting cast that is not included in the Wikipedia article. Cheers. AshnardTalkContribs11:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to an apparent lack of interest, the WPVG Newsletter will be switching from a monthly publication schedule to a quarterly one. The next issue be delivered on July 1, 2009 and will pertain to the second quarter of the calendar year. If you have any comments regarding this, or suggestions to improve the newsletter, please post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter.
The supposed issues that you raise are a little vague and don't seem to warrant a whole GAR. Anywho, I'm virtually retired now and don't have the time or motivation to remedy these problems. I'm sorry I can't help. AshnardTalkContribs19:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I contest that the graphical update has a fairly poor fair use rationale that would not stand up under scrutiny if it ever were brought to FARC. The connection between the two games can be demonstrated without the image, in such examples as simply using a reference to verify the connection. That the graphics were enhanced is another element that can be adequately summed up in text, and the recurring stage is another element that can be adequately summed up in text. For a featured article, an image requires a strong fair use rationale - basically, without the image, people would be confused as to the statements that discuss the contents of the image indirectly. As such, the rationale either needs to be strongly improved or the image should be removed; one example of how it can be condensed is to replace the current image used to demonstrate the gameplay mechanics is to use a Melee image that depicts the stage in question. However, when we already use three other images, which all have weak yet stronger rationales, it's very hard to justify its use. This is not a critique against you, as you obviously write very god articles; however, this image was not judged in its FAC, and if compared to a more current FA's image's fair use rationale, it's decidedly weak. - The New Age Retro Hippieused Ruler!Now, he can figure out the length of things easily.06:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was something that I did that was tongue-in-cheek. Don't worry about it -- I'll revert it back. It's nice to see that you're keeping up with your strong contribution to the VG project. One day I'd like to help all of you guys write video games articles again, but it will be a long time before I have enough time for this. Happy editing. :-) AshnardTalkContribs10:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I'm virtually retired now. I've been out of the loop for so long that it would take quite a bit of time to reinitiate myself with all of the article guidelines. I would love to contribute to the project again at some point, but the degree I'm studying for is pretty much exhausting all of the time I have. Anywho, good luck on the featured topic. Happy editing. :-) AshnardTalkContribs08:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
video games
Thank you, once voracious editor, for quality articles on video games, such as Mario Power Tennis and Fire Emblem, for assessing and impressive reviewing, for your peace appeal on top, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list. (Delivered 08:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC))
Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
