|
Please feel free to leave me a message. If you leave me a message here, I'll reply here. Thank you!
|
Archive
|
[edit] Good luck with your research!
I wrote this at WT:RFA, in case it gets lost in the shuffle. It contains a lot of nonense, but once in a while, it shows a bit of the community's general vibe towards RfA/adminship type things. Also links to past polls for historical reference going back to 2004. In case you weren't aware of them, tis all. "Gazimoff, a potentially good reference point from about a month ago would be WP:AMP." Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the additional info, I appreciate it. Early indications are encouraging, although I'll probably wait a day or so before putting up a dedicated page to hold a framework. After that, we'll see what the contributions say.Gazimoff WriteRead 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] LaraLove's responses
- Candidate selection: Is the current process of invite or self-nom appropriate?
- I think both are fine. Some editors gnome and don't really make friends or get noticed. They're no less valuable than other types of editors, but less likely to find a nom. If we were to switch to a nom-only system, one way to help such editors would be through editor review. It currently reads "If you are here because your goal is to become an administrator, you should direct yourself to Wikipedia:Admin coaching." I know it has been, at least in the past, used to gauge an editor's readiness for adminship. For anyone who doesn't care to participate in coaching and thinks they are ready, one could express their desire for nomination through this.
- Admin coaching: should it be disbanded, maintained as optional or made compulsory? Should some kind of pre-nom mentoring scheme take place?
- I don't think admin coaching should be compulsory or disbanded. There are some very good coaches out there, and plenty of candidates that don't need it. This should remain optional, I think.
- Nomination: Should the current nom+com be kept, or should something else such as a debate-only phase or a support and oppose declaration be considered?
- I suggest running RFA much like board elections. Have the first, say, four days be for questions and discussion only, then three days of voting. The problem with this is that for people who only log on once a week, they would not get the chance to participate in both phases. More fair for participants would be a week of questions and discussion followed by a week of voting, but do we really want candidates to go through two weeks of RFA? It's daunting enough as it is, but then, as many point out, adminship can be stressful, so it's not really unfair to put pressure on candidates to see how they react. So, at the very least, it may be worth doing a trial.
- Advertising: Should canvassing for input be encouraged or discouraged? Should input come from a jury-selection system or similar?
- I think on-wiki neutral canvassing should be allowed by everyone. As we leave notices for Wikiprojects when related articles are up for deletion, I believe a simple "User:Example is requesting adminship" with a link to the request should be placed on all projects for which the candidate is an active member, as a standard. I believe they are often the best editors to contribute to RFAs, as they have often had the most interaction. I also believe that anyone, including the candidate, should be able to inform others of the request, however, I think it should be limited to allowing nothing more than the link to be posted. No debate on whether an accompanying message is neutral if there is no accompanying message. And, as is currently the policy, if anyone is canvassed in a non-neutral way, then the same measures that current stand should be taken. I am wholly opposed to any sort of "jury" process.
- Election: Is it better to have a pure vote, a pure debate, a debate then vote or a concurrent debating and voting process?
- See my response to question 3. Questions and discussion/debate followed by a vote.
- Declaration: Should an RfA be closed through a simple summing up or an interpretation of the election? What rules should be used? Should an Arbcom style process be used?
- I think the current process works well. I think I share a trust with the majority of the community in the bureaucrats determining consensus. The idea of running RFA like ArbCom is an interesting one... A nom statement could be made, those who agree could endorse the statement. Those wishing to point out other things could make their own statements. Users only permitted to endorse one statement... I don't know. A viable option that could be built upon and possibly built into something worth trying.
- Probation: Is this a good idea? Should it be considered? Should any conditions be attached? Should it have a minimum/maximum length?
- This has been suggested before and I agree with those that oppose this idea. New admins would simply mind themselves until the probationary period is over. If such a provision was added to adminship, there'd have to be a process set up in which the new admin would be reevaluated and then either officially granted the tools or have the bit removed. It seems to me a better process would be to create a viable community desysopping process. But, as we know, this has been discussed at length on a pretty regular basis to no consensus.
- Recall: Should it remain as an optional process? A condition of an RfA?
- This goes back to the previous question. You could make it mandatory, but what's to stop admins from imposing completely impossible conditions? There would have to be some sort of standard set. Not necessarily one set of criteria for all, but something to keep it realistic. And I can't envision the community coming to a consensus on that.
- Omissions: Anything that isn't covered by the transition from editor to administrator.
- Can you clarify this question, please... perhaps I'm too blonde. :p
- Lara❤Love 23:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The WPVG Newsletter (June 2008)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Video Games Newsletter |
|
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.
|
- Project at a Glance
As of 2008-06-04, the project has:
- Changes to Featured and Good articles, lists, and topics
|
Promoted FA/FL:
 The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, List of acquisitions by Electronic Arts, List of Harvest Moon titles, Riven, Myst,
Topic:
 Characters of Halo, The Orange Box
Demoted FA/FL:
 Devil May Cry series (FT)
|
Promoted GA:
 Air (visual novel), Crash Boom Bang!, Driving Emotion Type-S, Einhänder, Half-Life 2: Episode Two, Metal Gear Solid, Off-Road Velociraptor Safari, Team Fortress 2, Grand Theft Auto (series), Kratos (God of War), History of video game consoles (seventh generation)
Demoted GA:
 Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Sonic the Hedgehog (character), Cloud Strife, Super Smash Bros.
|
- News
There were 203 new articles in May 2008
Current proposals and discussions
- Well, gee, thanks 1up!
1UP.com has recently changed their rating scale. A list of affected articles can be found here. See discussion for details.
- About 28% of the articles on the list have been checked and updated.
- Inactive project cleanup
Proposal to consolidate inactive projects and taskforces. Project page can be found here.
- WikiProject Dragon Quest has been redirected to WP:VG.
- WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games Guild Wars task force has been deleted.
Interested in a specific video game series or company? Check out some of our task forces to help improve the related articles.
|
- Feature
Writing about Development
Development content is very important to include in an encyclopedic video game article. It provides a history of how the game came to be and provides real world information needed for an article to claim comprehensiveness. However, writing this section can be difficult because the amount and type of information available will vary for each game. One of the best sources for such information is a developer interview. These can provide insight into the thought process of the designers and give examples of influences and obstacles encountered. Previews can also be helpful by giving a snap shot of the game before it was released and may mention development issues that were still being addressed.
When writing about development, common sense should be used to organize content to maintain a sense of flow for the reader. Most times, it is best to give the information in a somewhat chronological order—though information can also be grouped by topics like audio, promotion, graphics, etc. If one such topic gets large enough, it can be split off into its own subsection or regular section. For example, Kingdom Hearts#Audio is a separate section from the rest of the development information because it focuses on the game's musical score and voice acting. Portal (video game)#Soundtrack, however, does not have as much content and is a subsection of the main development section.
- What to include about development
- Who are the developers? Which company or studio developed the game, and are there any prominent designers involved?
- When did development begin?
- When and where was the game first announced? (e.g. Tokyo Game Show, E3 Media and Business Summit, etc.)
- What influenced the game's story, characters, music, and/or gameplay ? (e.g. past games, movies, books, etc.)
- Were there any delays?
- Was anything excluded because of time or technological constraints? (e.g. extra levels, game modes, characters, story arcs, etc.)
- Things to remember
- Avoid proseline. Though maintaining a sense to chronology is important, this section should not read like an ordered list of events.
- Images in this section should be relevant to the information given and should add on to it.
- Source everything to avoid information being tagged as original research.
|
- Things you can help with:
- Project Navigation
- VG Project Main pages
- VG Project Departments
-
|
|
[edit] Image:Portal screenshot.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Portal screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Establish the scope, baseline, question, reflect, recommend, collate, present ... an interesting approach. As a systems thinker, I prefer the Deming Cycle, but good luck! Neıl 龱 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your comments. Effectively, what we're doing here is the Check part of the Deming cycle, as the process has already been in place for a number of years, with any outcomes from this review forming the Act part. Instead, I'm using something similar to the Information technology audit process to verifify an existing process. Part of that involves establishing the terms of engagement or scope, then performing a preliminary review. Part of that review will be ensuring that the information on the current process is correct, while anoher part will focus on the problems with that current process in order to asses risk. Once we have that, we can then focus on the areas requiring revision before developing a set of reccomendations. Although the very first thing to do is make sure that the review process stands up to scrutiny. Hope that makes sense, Gazimoff WriteRead 18:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
|
