Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Improvement drive

This week's computer and video games improvement drive voter template[edit]

I have created a template, based on the Gaming Collaboration of the week voter template, to be used to remind voters for This week's computer and video games improvement drive that they showed support and that their participation in the project would be appreciated. The template's name is {{CVGIDvoter}} and it produces the following message:

You showed support for This week's computer and video games improvement drive.
This week N/A was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

~~Grumpy Troll (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC).~~[reply]

Excuse my ignorance for I had not noticed such a template had already been created under the name {{CVGAIDvoter}}. Grumpy Troll (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Wikiportal[edit]

If you look at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Computer and video games (which is linkted to from Wikipedia:Browse), I have placed the current GCOTW... would we also want to place this improvement drive there to raise awareness? I'm thinking that having two such bars at the top might make things too crowded. Thoughts? Jacoplane 23:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a template consisting of the current GCOTW and current improvement drive messages placed alongside each other, which upon inclusion produces the following (it may be summoned and edited at User:GrumpyTroll/Template:GCIDOTW):

{{CVGIDRIVEtopic}}

(I have little experience of tables in Wikipedia and, for this reason, would appreciate the layout to be corrected by someone with greater knowledge of their use.) Do you believe this is a possible solution? Grumpy Troll (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I changed the controller in one of the templates; it's a simple matter of editing the template, and c/ping the controller over the current Wikipedia/shovel icon. Could you do the rest? -- A Link to the Past 15:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if the Computer and video games improvement drive template included a see how it improved (before | after) set of links like the Gaming Collaboration of the week template... just a suggestion ;) analoguedragon 09:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3 votes[edit]

Considering the newness, I think we should start off with three votes. Comments? -- A Link to the Past 15:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Pushing to FA[edit]

I think for articles that we elect in this improvement drive we should make a concerted effort to try and get them to be Featured articles. With the GCOTW, we work on it and then everyone kind of forgets about the article, so it never quite reaches greatness. So I'm thinking that every article we have for this improvement drive should go through this process:

This seems to have worked well for Wario, which was not close to being a featured article not long ago. It had the CVG Peer review, the WP:Peer review, and is now well on it's way of becoming a featured article. I think this process should perhaps be formalised in the description page of this page, or perhaps the general Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games page. In that case, add having a WP:GCOTW to the top of the list.

There seem to be a lot of people helping out in this project now, we have 45 participants listed. I think we can pull this off and increase the number of CVG Featured articles exponentially... Thoughts?? Jacoplane 01:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also think articles picked for this improvement drive we could attempt to push to Featured Article status. As you have said, we are not lacking manpower to do so, with 45 alleged participants in WikiProject Computer and video games. The process you describe is a coherent one, and it would be more so if articles were first picked for the GCOTW, as you suggest. I too believe it should be formalised, as it would remove any ambiguity as to the purpose of each procedure (i.e. GCOTW, IDOTW and Peer review). Overall, I see only advantages to this method of collaboration. Grumpy Troll (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I'm gonna get back on this in a few days. Having some personal issues right now. watch this space. Jacoplane 01:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've had 2 articles complete the a weekly improvement drive. Are they going to be nominated for CVG peer reviews? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Name change[edit]

I want to suggest changing the name of this from "Wikipedia:This week's computer and video games improvement drive" to "Wikipedia:Computer and video games improvement drive".

Update I think we all know where this is going, so we might as well move it right now. Havok (T/C) 20:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page and fixed double redirects. Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 20:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Yes[edit]

Havok (T/C) 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Grumpy Troll (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
K1Bond007 19:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amren 02:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

Needs to be updated more[edit]

Counter-Strike and Perfect Dark are being pruned (although CS should've been pruned a long time ago). Technically, Goldeneye 007 should've been the week's CVGID almost a week or two ago; since it's Monday, I'll change Goldeneye to the current CVGID for the week. Thus leaving two potential candidates. Also, may I make a suggestion? If we changed the selection date to Monday, it would match GCOTW (sort of like the sister collab to this one), which is also on Monday. -- gakon⁵ (talk)

Removals[edit]

Why were several nominations removed that were not yet over for voting, such as Escape Velocity (computer game) that I nominated ? — Wackymacs 09:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Push for more top level articles?[edit]

I think a toplevel article like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_%28first_generation%29 would be easy to expand and would generate some more time in the spotlight for the project.--Technosphere83 20:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]