Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Initial discussion

I'm going to write down some ideas here for this idea of a newsletter, but by no means should be considered final. Feel free to expand and discuss these points further. --MASEM 14:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Goals

The goals, as I see them for this, are:

1. Provide a clean quick summary of what the state of the project is, with changes/notes from the last week, with links to more detailed "stories" in the full edition
2. Provide a quick "at a glance" vital numbers for various tasks in the project.
3. Allow editors to be aware of events that happen week-by-week for them to participate in (such as FAC, AFD, etc.)

Content

Each newsletter edition should include:

1. Vital project stats: number of FA/GA articles, number of pending FA/FAR/GA articles, # of articles for assessment, for peer review, new articles created, etc. Straightup numbers so that if one sees that 100 articles are pending assessment, they need not read any further and can jump to it. This would be the only part that in the deliverable page to each user would not require a click-through to see, those numbers would be delivered to the user
2. More detailed outline of the above: list those articles and results if any.
3. Welcome to any new editors (even if they don't get the newsletter)
4. Any significant changes or events in WP space that the project should be aware of. (such as the current ArbCom case)
5. Ideally a "feature", which I can see being an informal Q&A with an editor that's done good for the VG project, maybe a summary of a major convo that affects the style or approach to video game articles, or maybe further discussion of a new idea for the project.
6. If we get the collaboration of the week/fortnight going again, status of those. (Maybe this is how we get interest back in that)

Discussion

On #1, I'd rather see something akin to the milhist newsletter, where they only list new high quality articles. New editors would be nice, but hard to keep track of. Something I would like to see: recent WPVG barnstars awarded. A significant change or event is indeed good to have in a newsletter.

I could do some kind of editorial every month, would be fun. In assessments and general discussion trolling I do pick up something nice to think about every once in a while. Interviews and such as nice too, but that would have to be someone else as I can't do that well. User:Krator (t c) 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the goals seem reasonable and I like the stats idea. I like Krator's suggestion of emulating the Military History newsletter, though I think ours should be more condensed. Listing new editors would be difficult, if not impossible. I think recent barnstars would be the same way; a good idea, but to difficult to track. There may be a way to easily pull it off that I don't know about though. I think recent GA/FA achievements would be good and maybe highlight the major contributors as well. The editorials sound like an interesting idea. I'm no writer, but I'd be willing to contribute some to help share the load.

I also hope that some major discussions from the talk page or game talk pages will sometimes be included, possibly in the "feature" section. I know a lot of times, we've tried to reach a consensus on a single article that should also affect numerous similar articles. But word doesn't always spread and we end up fighting the same fight multiple times. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

I'm not sure what to add, apart from maybe a tip of the fortnight, maybe a VG based Did you Know? or similar encourage editors to read outside of their particular sphere of interest. I agree though that the milhist template is a good one to use. Gazimoff (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Should we make a draft of what the first one should be like to get some more feedback? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Krator, what did you have in mind for the editorial? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

Delivery/Presentation

The newsletter will have a opt-in signup list for users to receive the shorten "front page" on their talk page (much like the current WikiSignpost). This post will include how to opt-out, in addition to instructions on this page.

New editions are created as subpages under this, as "YYYYMMDD" for the date of delivery; this project page would display the same "front page" that would be delivered to users as well as the links to the archives.

We can use AWB to distribute this to the list of opt-in users, so a bot is not necessary at this time.

How often do should this be distributed? Biweekly or monthly? I think weekly would be a sizable workload to maintain. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

I would almost start monthly if only to see what the interest is. If more people are willing to help, we can make it more frequent. --MASEM 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Monthly sounds like a good idea. Do you want to shoot for April as the first month? Also what day do you think would be a good delivery day? The first calendar date of the month? The first Monday of the month? The second Thursday of the month excluding leap years, international holidays, and presidential dog's birthdays? Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

I'm thinking the Weds or Thur of the first full week of the month. That way, there's a weekend for editors to contribute something and a few days for copyedits. --MASEM 15:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wednesdays sound good. Want to shoot for April 9th? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

Sounds good. We'll want an announcement for the message (including how to opt-out if one finds they don't want it anymore) and then have a sign up page. --MASEM 19:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Draft of newsletter

I've created a framework for the newsletter (borrowed from the Good Articles project, which I have modified and started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/draft. Please hack at it at you wish for whatever content you feel is appropriate so that we can present a draft to others and see if there's a strong interest in keeping this up. --MASEM 23:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good Masem. Though I'm sure we'll get all kinds of disagreement on the color and borders. :-P I tweaked the layout a bit by putting the featured content section into two side-by-side lists within the column. I really like the hide/show function too. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, I'm going to have to say toning down the colors a bit would be nice... other than that it looks fine. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of content, maybe we can have short little articles or tutorials- e.g., 'how to write a good vg article', 'fictional character', et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions on which colors to use? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

The ones we have aren't bad, maybe lighten up both of them so it's a bit paler? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Draft looks good. I say tweak the colours a little, perhaps just use the scheme from {{WPCVG Sidebar}}. This is a good initiative, by the way. JACOPLANE • 2008-03-12 23:48

Using the same colors as the sidebar sounds like a good. Also, I like the feature Masem. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

I'll tackle the colors in a bit. And I have to apologize to whomever had the idea for VG Leads that I borrowed, as I know someone mentioned doing something along those lines somewhere and I can't remember where, but whoever it was, feel free to add more to it. --MASEM 15:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Colors are updated. --MASEM 23:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got no complaints now. But what exactly are we going to put in the newsletter? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

One more question, what will the VG footer be? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

Well, from the Good Articles projects newsletter I stoleborrowed this from, it was more typical end-of-page navbox in that case organizing the project pages in that fashion. Easily something can be done by condensing the current VG sidebar to a navbox. --MASEM 15:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, I added a quick little something in there just so there's something to work with. Please feel to alter it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

David, the general outline of the proposed newsletter content is above. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

Righto. So then, I'm assuming someone pops up here with an idea for the feature, it gets discussed and drafted, et al? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like as good an idea as any. If there are multiple good ideas, we can always just prep them all for future newsletters too. That might make the workload easier. Did you have an idea already in mind? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

Maybe. In any case, the lead article is a good idea, and we should prolly talk about other aspects of an ideal vg article, such as reception, balancing criticism, et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So will we be using the draft as the first newsletter this April? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Regarding David's update- I like how it gives an update to the achievements of the project, but still think we should list the current FAC, FLC, GAN and FTC to encourage member participation. Also, should we still include the "New articles". There is normally a large amount of new articles created every month. I'm not sure how we'd reasonably limit the listing without bloating the newsletter. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

Finalize draft for April 9th

April 9, 2008 is a week away, so we should try to finalize the draft to get it ready to send out. I did a little tweak to the "Project at a glance" section, hopefully it covers all basis. Also, how should we spread the word about signing up for it? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

Can we change the talkpage banner template to add it? Something like "WP:VG Newsletter - Last Edition Jan 01, 1901 - Signup Here" perhaps.--Gazimoff (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean the "To-do list" at WT:VG? That shouldn't be too hard. It beats spamming everyone with the {{User WPVG}} on their userpage. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

It's looking great overall. I think for the first issue you should send to everyone with the userbox, and then leave a (relatively large) note saying that in future, only those who sign their name somewhere will receive it. Since not everyone is aware of this page (and not everyone watches WT:VG regularly). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the list of FACs etc. is out of date. Better just to transclude the project's to-do list (the one at the top of WT:VG) somewhere. That's done on the WP:BIO newsletter, etc. - it's always up to date that way. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the plan is to have it up-to-date on the day newsletter goes out. Mainly to give people a snapshot of how the project is doing and try to get members more active in FAC, GAN, and Peer Review. Though we could make a regularly updated subpage of the newsletter that can be transcluded.
I kinda like the idea of sending out the first one to all members, it would definitely get the word out. But I'm worried some people will see it as spamming. Let's see what others think. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

Ok, as we are two days away (and thanks to that sharp stick in my side from GIB :-) here's what we should or decide:

• Initial delivery? Do we want to put a list of people that want to get it (located on the non-talk page here), and then also "deliver" it to WT:VG, with the notification that subsequent issues will be delivered to the user? (Deliver, here, would be that a teaser box would be linked on their talk page, not the whole thing). I will do the delivery if the list is large enough through AWB, but if like only 10 people show up, well, then... that's not that hard :-).
• Move/copy the draft to "/20080409" just prior to delivery.
• Get word out about this. Again, WT:VG will be known, but we may want to put an announcement at the Pumps or the like.
• Teaser box. Should state date, issue #, etc., and a teaser of the feature(s).
• Finalize "stats". When I stated the first Wed of the first full week as the suggested target date, that would mean that all business up to the start of the week should be included, that means we should update the states as of the 7th. This gives two days to do this, incase of future issues someone doesn't update it.
• Teaser for next issue? Anyone have a topic they want to write about to give a preview for next time? (and I see no problem with two or more such "features") Actually, I'd like to see a "state of the VG project" statement, and then something about improving articles. But this is not high priority for the 9th, though again, if anyone has any ideas, let's set what May's issue will have to include that.

--MASEM 22:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think delivering to the WT:VG is the safest thing to do. That way we don't come across as spammers. I'm not sure where else to get the word out; I belive Kingrock left a note on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions.

I updated the stats over the weekend, so they should be pretty close. Though I don't know how accurate the "Changes to Featured and Good articles, lists, and topics in March" section is. I also just added the todo list at the bottom. Don't know if it really adds to the newsletter, or if it just makes it longer. Feel free to remove it.

One quick question; should the newsletter be collapsed by default?

As far a teaser for the next issue, we can take a snippet from the hopefully soon to be finished how-to guide. I suggest something about doing proper research. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

As for delivery, are we delivering to everyone in the project member cat? I'd be in favour of that. We might just 'reactivate' some people. User:Krator (t c) 20:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the idea. I kinda just don't want to us to rub people the wrong way and be accused of spamming. I agree that it would be effective in getting people's attention and drawing in wanning members. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

I say we go for it, and if people accuse us of spamming, we can easily point out to them that if they don't want to be notified of changes to our WikiProject, they can easily remove the {{User WPVG}}. That userbox does after all state "This user is a member of the Video Games WikiProject." If someone no longer wishes to be a member, then that's up to them. We should put in a bot request to post the newsletter. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-8 22:20

sound good to me King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 22:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How to spread the word 101

I know that one of the hardest things you can do with something create is getting the word out. I think Guyinblack25 suggested that we send it to all the users of the project but there is alot more things we can do. For one, someone should make an add to post on the WP: VG project page, that will make things much easier. I then think we should announce it on the project page talk page. Then work as hard as possible to get it in the signpost and to try to get as many users to know about the letter. Whoever responds should give more info on the project and then try to get them to spread the word. In a matter of time you guys will have so many responces you'll be shewing them away with a stick. Once u guys get that far, I'll help you with the second step. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant to leave a post on WT:VG, but got bogged down yesterday. I'll leave one later today, hopefully after we get the initial delivery method sorted out. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

sounds great to me tell me if you need some more tips on spreading the word King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 21:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Like Gameinformer?

Will the magizine be like Game Informer with teh preview of games and the responcibility of people making their own reviews of games. If thats what the newletter will be like I would be happy to give a review on games-- King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 03:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say pretty much not. This is not a newsletter for video game players, it is for editors of video game articles on WP on how to improve vg-related articles. I don't know if this necessarily restricts specifically taking about VGs directly, though I'm very tempted to say yes it does. --MASEM 03:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks 4 the info-- King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 03:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Spread the word

Do you guys mind if I spread the word about the newletter-- King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 04:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No of course not, you don't have to ask :) WP:BOLD !! JACOPLANE • 2008-04-8 22:09

Signing up for the newsletter

How do we want to handle this? Are we going to have a sub page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter that people will leave their signature on to receive the monthly updates? Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

The Signpost has a /Suggestions subpage or something like that, or it could be /Workshop, whatever verbage fits your bill. Someplace to discuss changes and new items is a good idea. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week

I remember there used to be something like this. Never was involved in it though. Either way, I'd like to bring it back. And focus on our essential articles too, if we can. (I know somebody mentioned it. But just want to throw some more weight behind it to get it going.) Randomran (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, the inactive page is Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week. This was an idea a lot of members wanted to bring back. I believe the general consensus was leaning towards a monthly collaboration for essential articles, and maybe a second collaboration for articles with lower priorities. Getting it started is high on our list once the newsletter gets up and going; it'll make a great item to include in it as well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

I might forget about something important like this. So if you guys even mention starting it up again and I'm not around, come and find me :) Randomran (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

I'm happy to help out with a collab of the week, especially with some of our higher priority articles.--Gazimoff (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to get this going again, see: Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week/Update guide. If this were to become a bi-weekly collaboration, probably {{GCOTWcount}} would have to be somewhat tweaked. I'll help out setting this up, but I don't want to be the one in charge of maintaining pruning nominations and updating the templates, etc. Shouldn't we be discussing this over on WT:VG, though? Maybe we should cut/paste this discussion there. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-11 08:14

GAN

The newsletter doesn't list GANs... --Mika1h (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm..... by golly you're right. I'm not sure how to include it, but we can try to get them in for the next newsletter. The draft will remain up to make edits for future editions. If you have any ideas, we're certainly open to input. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Handing out

I'll distrubute the newsletter King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 11:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

2nd Edition Plans

So, what are the plans/thoughts for Edition 2? Any content to cover off, an article to describe, etc?

Also, any thoughts on archiving this talkpage? --Gazimoff (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I figure we can archive the talk page as needed. I don't see this being as active as WT:VG and probably won't need a bot to archive discussion.

As far as what to cover next, I'm not sure. I'm all for another section about how to write like the last one. I believe Krator and David had some ideas too, but I don't think mentioned any details. Something I'd like to do is maybe create a short list of drafts to include. If 4-5 editors contribute something, then we're set for 4-5 issues, and only the "at a glance" section will need to be updated. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Not for the next issue but something that has just flashed across my brain. How about a constant section detailing the life of an article from its creation? Showcasing the various aspects, finding source material, improving refs, adding templates, etc? As I said, this is off the top of my head this very second so I haven't thought it through, but it seems a good idea at the moment. - X201 (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Like you said, it sounds good as it can provide insight on how to really improve an article. But I'm not sure how to do it in a format that will fit into the newsletter. The idea seem worth exploring though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

My thoughts were since we had an article about the lead, go into all the sections of an article- next would be how to summarize gameplay, i guess, then a good plot section, et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Any other ideas? If not, I say we get the various sections written up here and get them ready for future issues. It would probably be best to keep it to the major sections; gameplay, development, and reception. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Allright. I'll draft a copy for gameplay in userspace, and you guys can decide if you want to use it or whatnot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could have an update on initiatives or departments? FInd out what's going well and where help is needed? Maybe we could inspire some more editors to join up and help contribute to departments in need or with backlogs? Gazimoff (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also sounds like a good idea. Highlight all our various departments, et al - Magazines, Cleanup, Task Force cleanup, et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That'd work. You'd only need a paragraph or two for each. Would you want it every month or intersperse it with article suggestions bimonthly?Gazimoff (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I'd say a little bit every month isn't bad. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing you could add is how many new articles there were. Something like "In March, there were 57 new articles". JACOPLANE • 2008-04-20 16:34

Another thing I could do is create a "WP:VG Top 10" list, based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Traffic statistics. Let me know if you guys are interested. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-20 22:34

Maybe we should all just write up what we want, then just present our drafts here, and we can decide which to develop from there? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for that. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

I like the idea of the top ten visited articles a lot. Someone might've already suggested this, but I think like a little help wanted section, where editors request help on articles they're trying to beef up, would be cool too. Evaunit♥666♥ 00:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Here's a possible feature about writing development for a future edition of the newsletter. Though I think a gameplay feature should probably go before it. It's taken word for word from the still in progress guide, so it may need some tweaking.

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.
• Do the best you can with the available information.

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

Proposal 2

Did someone say 'Gameplay'? It's prolly riddled with errors, I haven't had time to read your guide, i just followed a formula like above.

Writing about Gameplay

The Gameplay section is a crucial component of a good video game article. Although it may be relatively easy for an experienced gamer to write such a section, care must be taken to maintain an appropriate focus and balance. The section should be written for readers with little or no knowledge of video gaming and should not be filled with detailed information about weapons, levels, or other such topics that are only of interest to the video gamer or that might be found in a game guide. Your goal for crafting a good section is to have people who have never picked up the game understand the basic mechanics. Do note, however, that it's safe to assume the reader has at least a minor knowledge of what a video game is.

This section often begins the body text after the lead, but is sometimes placed after the Plot section. Games with little or no story can cover the plot in the Gameplay section. When writing about a game, use your head and common sense about the ordering. Generally, start off with a broad stroke—is the game a RTS or an FPS, etc. Don't talk about why the gameplay is like it is; generally, that is better placed in the 'Development' section later on in the article.

Images can be added to better illustrate some aspects of gameplay. Generally, a single screenshot will suffice. Because screenshots are non-free content, usage should be minimalised. Multiple images can be used, but all images should add something to the article beyond what the prose states. All non-free images require a fair use rationale to be used on Wikipedia.

Things to remember

• Don't add in cruft about weapons, levels, and minute details of trivia; gameplay sections should serve as a primer to the game, not an exhaustive list of every facet of the game.
• Don't use gaming jargon which can be confusing to readers, such as "NPC" or "MMORPG". If you use these terms, state the full name and the abbreviation the first time it appears. For example, "Halo is a first-person shooter, or FPS."
• Wikilink! So you don't have to describe what a god game is, link it.
• Talk about what makes the game different from others; if you only talk about why Starcraft is an RTS, then readers could just visit the article about the game genre and be better served.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's "often overlooked"—in fact, it's often too large, with huge lists of weapons, vehicles, spells, etc. Pagrashtak 23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean in terms of making it accessible to novice readers who don't know about the game- but reword it if you think it's confusing (joy of the wiki and all that!) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How about something like, "The Gameplay section of a video game article is a crucial component of a good video game article. Although it is relatively easy for an experienced gamer to write such a section, care must be taken to maintain an appropriate focus. The section should be written for readers with little or no knowledge of video gaming and should not be filled with detailed information about weapons, levels, or other such topics that are only of interest to the video gamer or that might be found in a game guide. etc." (Rough draft there—I've written quite a snake, which I tend to do in first drafts.) Pagrashtak 00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's fine with me. It's not sacred scripture, Pagra, you can edit it :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, but I gave a shot at combining the content together. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 08:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

I did a little copyediting and added that games with little or no plot can cover the plot in the Gameplay section. Pagrashtak 15:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) I added some info about adding images to the gameplay section, and copied the content to the newsletter draft. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Proposal 3

Top 5 new articles

These are the top 5 best new articles out of 57 new articles created this month (These articles were selected by a vote on WT:VG):

1. Article A, created by Jacoplane

   Winner of the new article of the month award.

2. Article B, created by Jacoplane
3. Article C, created by Jacoplane
4. Article D, created by Jacoplane
5. Article E, created by Jacoplane

I think it would be a good idea to give a spotlight to new articles, and to give some incentive to people to create great new articles. If we manage to get a good competitive "best new article of the month" competition going, that would be fantastic. I propose that we have a poll (aka ZOMG polls are evil) once a month where people could nominate their new articles.JACOPLANE • 2008-04-23 22:24

Sounds like a good idea, would we just run it off a section on WT:VG? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would imagine so. I think we would get the most participation from the community there. I don't think we should make any decision on whether to include this without getting the input of MrKIA11 first, though.JACOPLANE • 2008-04-23 22:46

GUIDE ON HOW TO AVOID PROSELINE. Please. For the love of Duke Nukem, I need to know how to reduce the proseline...I will love you forever if anyone can help me on that. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick question, as I'm probably being either 1) blonde or 2) needing mroe coffee, but what happens if someone creates a stub to say "this game exists", then some months later someone else comes along, cites it, cleans it up and makes it encyclopedic. Does it count as 'new', as it's new content, or are we just focusing on the new entries into the system? I'm just trying to work out what behaviour you're trying to drive - people who create great articles as a new page, or people who take what's there and add flesh to the bones? I'm just curious - not having a dig or anything. And yes, I have just come out of a 2hr process meeting...Gazimoff ^Write_Read 12:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like the sound of proposal three. It sounds like it can too easily turn into a backslapping fest between only a small number of editors of the VG project, and if that happens, it won't have a positive effect on the project. That, and not all editors know about that page: me being one, or Species of StarCraft would be on there. I'd prefer to stick away from anything that involves that sort of participation and particularly things involving voting. -- Sabre (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I also think this proposal has the chance to turn sour. I can see how it could propagate quality in the spirit of competition, but I'm afraid of the amount of cruft that could come with it and the lack of participation from members over time. As an alternative, I was thinking of maybe starting up a "Did you know?" on the Portal. But not restricting it to just new articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

Newsletter bot

Though i dont mind distributing the newsletter, how about we have a bot made especially for the newsletter to distribute the newsletter to those people on the list. Feel free to use my bot User:KingRbot as the bot, just tell me what you think(but my bot has yet to be approved so we would have to go through the process and I have no experience with bots at all) King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 01:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Where to link FA / GA

I noticed that the current issue links to Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles. Wouldn't it be more relevant to link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Featured articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Good articles? Also, I think something like the newsletter could be useful to put a spotlight on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Essential articles page, which for some reason gets almost no views. Most of our essential articles suck badly. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-6 11:28

Makes sense, I'll edit the draft to include the VG links. Though I'm not sure where to put the essential articles link. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Let's decide on a distribution method

Let's get this sorted out so we don't have too many lose ends. The membership list is currently 51 editors and I'm sure it'll only continue to grow. Does that sounds like enough to get a bot to automate the process? Kingrock has offered up a bot and I believe another editor did as well, but I forgot who. Any thoughts?

In the mean time, do we have any volunteers to distribute the second issue tomorrow? I remember reading AWB could be used for something like this does? Kingrock took care of it last time, but 51 repetitive edits like that is a lot for a single person (I'm assuming he does not have AWB, correct me if I'm wrong Kingrock). Any takers? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

I've got AWB, and I can distro it. I've been looking into getting bot approved as well, but 51 users is not overwhelming for an human-driven AWB distro. xenocidic (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'll transfer the draft over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20080507 this evening—to give some time for last minute changes. Feel free to distribute it anytime after that. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Shall do, cheers. xenocidic (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. May is delivered. Thanks for adding those subpage delivery instructions GIB, I was going to, but then I got lazy and figured people who are meticulous enough to create subpages would figure it out for themselves. ;> xenocidic (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for delivering the newsletter. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

Redirect "current issue" talk page

I've redirected the "current issue" talk page to this talk page, here was the only comment on that talk page: JACOPLANE • 2008-05-9 20:42

I've created a separate page for the current newsletter. This way, people who want to keep up but don't want to suscribe (like me) can simply watch /Current and know when it updates. This is similar to how the Signpost does it, at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

3rd edition

I've done a partial update of the draft for the next newsletter. Any ideas, comments, and/or suggestions are welcome.

Delivery via AWB worked pretty well last time, so we might as well stick with that until the delivery list gets too big. xenocidic was kind enough to distribute the last newsletter. Do we have any other volunteers? I think if a group of 2-3 editors take turns doing this, the workload won't be too big.

Also, is there anyone who would like to do the final updates for June 4th? If someone is aprehensive about doing it, I'll watch over it to make sure everything is in order. I'm a firm believer in sharing responsibilities and having redundancies built into a system. I figure the more people help out, the less each one has to do. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

I guess I could do "final updates", what exactly does that entail? Adding the final GA/FA passes, that sort of thing? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. Basically all the info in the "Project At a Glance" section needs to be current. The number of FAs, GAs, FL, PR, etc.; list of promoted and demoted articles; the number of new articles in the month of May. I left some hidden comments in there to let others know when I stopped counting/tracking some things.

I normally did an update two weeks from the delivery to make it easier on myself, and then a final update the night before. The only other major thing is to switch the class from "navbox collapsible" to "navbox collapsible collapsed", and copy it over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20080604. Someone else will deliver it and that's pretty much it. Thanks for volunteering. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, ok, that's simple enough for even me to remember... but I prolly won't, so when the deadline comes, send me a message 'cause I'll have forgotten. When are we planning on shooting this out? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave you a note on your talk page the day before. The scheduled delivery date is June 4th. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

← I don't mind delivering it again. It really didn't take that long at all. (And will take even less time since the readership list is prepared all good-like) xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 15:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated xenocidic. I just don't want editors to feel burdened to do this because they're the only ones doing it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

Oh god, don't deliver it manually mate! Giggabot is ready to go for this sort of thing. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Or KingRbot is always up for grabs.Gears Of War 01:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That bot has not been approved. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So then you guys could help me get it workin. Also I have some thoughts for future editions. Instead of just telling the susribers how to make a article. Maybe we should actually write articles about the way the Projects works(Task Forces etc.), maybe even tell them about some of the Projects best articles and stuff like that.Gears Of War 13:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Also I will archive the talkpage everytime it hits 80 kilobytes

I kinda like the idea of having a feature to explain the features of the Project. Maybe that'll get members more active in stuff like AfDs, task forces, etc. Let's wait until we've finished cleaning up the inactive ones first though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC))

Lets talk about distribution...(again)

Okay there are multiple proposals for distribution of the newsletter. Our current way is a user using AWB. dihydrogen monoxide offered Giggabot. I offered KingRbot, so whats it gonna be? I personally think we should have a vote. You know the usual:

Either:

• KingRbotWith your reason here

• User with AWBWith your reason here

or

• GiggabotWith you reason here.

Gears Of War 00:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think any of the three ways would be fine. But the path of least resistance would probably be best. And with the number of readers steadily growing (almost 70 now), I think a bot would be the best choice. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

again, it doesn't really matter to me. right now, clicking a mouse 70 times isn't that bad, but it makes no sense not to let GiggaBot go for it as it is approved for this task.(KingRbot is not approved). xenocidic (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, he makes a good point that with a click of a button 70 times the task is done, but still, when the newletter recipiants starts hitting the 100-900 what then, just asking but hpow will you feel about hitting a button 900 times?Gears Of War 01:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I've no objections to running it (I've delivered 200+ newsletter batches so it's not a big deal at the moment), and I also have no objections to an approved newsletter bot doing it. KingRbot can have a BRFA if it likes, and the BAG may then approve it (part of the BRFA can be this newsletter). I don't care which bot does it, I just want to see the newsletters delivered on time. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. June 2008 is delivered. xenocidic (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

4th edition

Okay plai and simple...this newsletter is awesome, but it could be better. I have already mentioned that I think we should write articles in the newsletter like the signpost talking about the way the projects works. I think we should do that. Also, in the news why wasn't the issue with MGS4 and EGM not mentioned.

For those of you who dont know MGS4 has a 90 minute cutscene in the middle of the game. That is horrid and of course any reviewer would want to mention that in their review of a game. But when EGM prepared to review the game, the got a call telling them not to mention the fact that the game has REALLY long cut-scenes in their review. Thus, EGM's review has been delayed and they will now make another un-truthful review of the game. other reviewers have also been asked not to mention those problems. (Just thought that should be in the news).

Any other suggestions.Gears Of War 23:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Also note that when you make a draft, make sure you stay current with events. While the newletter said 0 article were under GA review, I was reviewing an article, so everyday we have to update that list.Gears Of War 23:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the purpose of the newsletter is not really to keep current with video game and video game industry news. It's main purpose is to be a tool for members and help keep them up-to-date with the workings of the project. That's why features on how the project works is a good addition, but a feature on a website or magazine doesn't really fall into that same scope.

In regard to the GA review, it doesn't refer to the number of reviews on Wikipedia:Good article nominations, but it refers to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment where articles in GA status are reviewed to see if they still meet the GA criteria. At the time of the newsletter, there were no VG articles at WP:GAR.

For the next issue, we should probably finish up the series on "how to write" article sections, then move on to features about the project. Any body feel up to writing a draft for a "How to write about Reception"? If not we can always take it from the writing guide draft. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

Eh, I'll take a stab at it and then post it on the draft for editing/hacking. 138.88.250.248 (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is that masked IP address? Seriously though, I like it. It's well-written and to the point. I'm going to have to steal some of it for my draft. Thanks for taking the initiative. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

Oh, I wasn't logged in... that was me :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, good work.Gears Of War 13:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have a section on finding refrences and properly formating a ref. This will help many editors learn about adding refs which should help alot.Gears Of War 13:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

←There's no "proper" way to format a ref, they just need to consistently do it. Finding refs, on the other hand, would be good material for I think an entirely different dispatch; we could talk about digging up print sources and reliable gaming sites and such. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How about a feature that deals with the Magazine archive and some basic search tips? Or maybe a two parter: What are reliable sources and how to research content? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

that would also work. I'll start a draft in userspace and then post it here for editing, I guess. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

Great.Gears Of War 17:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's a really rough 5-minutes' worth of thought... I'm too lazy to finish it right now :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I added something to the section. I added some advice about getting refs from the game itself. Feel free to edit it.Gears Of War 17:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Signage

Can whoever distributes the newsletter please put their signature underneath it? It just means that archiving bots will move the newsletter into the archive depending on the user's archive settings. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be xenocidic. giggy _(:O) 09:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it need a signature or a date? If the bot only needs a date, then "~~~~~" can be used too. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

Bot practice is to use four tildes (at least, that's what I do), and it's probably better if an AWB guy does the same (so you can report issues if necessary). Either way should work for archive bots, though. giggy _(:O) 01:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that next time; I realized this problem after becoming better acquainted with the Miszabot. –xenocidic (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Another way to handle this would be to include a UTC datestamp in a hidden comment within the newsletter. Something along the lines of

<span style="display:none;">01:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)</span>

...but Giggy makes a good point about knowing where to report issues if the bot does something wrong. –xenocidic (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Delivery Part Three

Okay, if some of you have noticed, this week, a bot delivered the letter. Were there any problems during the dilivery. King Rock (Gears of War) 12:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, Xenocidic informed me that his bot just got approved, so he used it for delivery. It looks like it delivered just fine. We'll have to wait and see if archive bots have any trouble archiving it. But it should ok. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

Good. King Rock (Gears of War) 18:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

Do you guys want to have either of these useboxes for the letter:

This user writes or helps with the VG Newsletter.

This user reads the VG Newsletter.

King Rock (Gears of War) 16:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the second one; I think it could be popular. I'm not opposed to adding into the newsletter to advertise it. Let's see what others think. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

So do you want me to create the template page for the second userbox? King Rock (Gears of War) 17:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's get some more feedback first. The newsletter won't go out for a month, so there's no rush. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

5th edition

Plans? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bonk:I got nothing. King Rock (Gears of War) 19:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What about User:David Fuchs/scratch? If not that, then I recommend either a feature about the various task forces to maybe drum up interest or an update of common MoS practices for video games. I also remember Jacoplane suggesting a new article highlight. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

If we use my RS thing, I'm going to have to put some work into it. Then again, I've got a month :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the Wikiproject:Novels newletter for some tips. King Rock (Gears of War) 20:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Anybody feel like doing the updates for the fifth edition? I'm available for questions on the update process if anyone is interested. I'd like to get more people involved in the whole newsletter process, plus a little redundancy in participation is good. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

Proposal 2

Here's something about task forces. We don't have to use it this time though, maybe wait until the project clean up effort has made some more progress.

Task forces

The Video games Project has smaller subgroups of editors (task forces) that aim to improve specific, related articles within the project's scope. These task forces are different from a WikiProject in that they do not have their own style guidelines, peer review, assessment, and other administrative processes. Such processes are handled by their parent WikiProject, the Video games Project, leaving editors to collaborate and focus on the actual improvement of their articles.

Because video game series sometime expand beyond the video games medium, some task forces fall under the scope of other WikiProjects and should adhere to the appropriate guidelines for that project. For example, the spin-off anime series, Devil May Cry: The Animated Series, should follow the common practices of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga.

Below is a list of video game task forces. If you would like to participate and collaborate with like-minded editors, follow the appropriate link and sign up.

• Arcade Task Force: Dedicated to better organize information in articles related to arcade video games.
• Atari Task Force: Dedicated to better organizing information in articles related to Atari and the works of all related companies. This includes making sure all related articles are of high quality and accuracy. They also focus on Atari owned or published characters, games, systems, people, and distinctly related third party entities.
• Command & Conquer Task Torce: Dedicated to ensuring that all Command & Conquer related articles are of high quality and accuracy.
• Devil May Cry Task Force: Dedicated to organize, expand, clean up, and improve articles about video games, manga, novels and television series related to the Devil May Cry series.
• Destroy All Humans! Task Force: Dedicated to improving the Destroy all Humans! articles, and creating useful and informative articles and categories.
• Gears of War Task Force: Dedicated to improving coverage of topics related to the Gears of War series by creating, expanding, and maintaining such articles. It also serves as the central point of discussion for issues related to the Gears of War series on Wikipedia.
• Grand Theft Auto Task Force: Dedicated to improving coverage of topics related to the Grand Theft Auto by creating, expanding, and maintaining such articles. It also serves as the central point of discussion for issues related to the Grand Theft Auto series on Wikipedia.
• MU* Task Force: Dedicated to covering all MU* games by improving, expanding, and assisting all articles under it's scope. The task force was originally created to help decide what MU* games are and are not notable.
• Silent Hill Task Force: Dedicated to ensuring that the Silent Hill franchise is factually accurate and well-organized.
• Suikoden Task Force: Dedicated to improving and consolidating articles pertaining to Suikoden, a series of role-playing games developed by Konami.
• StarCraft Task Force: Dedicated is to organizing, expanding, cleaning up and improving articles related to Blizzard Entertainment's popular StarCraft series.
• Valve Task Force: Dedicated to organizing, expanding, cleaning up and improving articles related to video games and products created by the Valve Corporation.
• Visual Novels Task Force: Dedicated to organizing, expanding, cleaning up and guiding articles related to Japanese visual novels.
• Warcraft Task Force: Dedicated to organizing, expanding, cleaning up, and improving articles about video games related to Blizzard Entertainment's popular Warcraft series.

Please feel free to make changes/edits as you feel are necessary. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

Looks good, but I agree that we should wait until the Inactive projects get deleted or folded into our scope. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Here's something about the assessment and peer review departments. Hopefully it can drum up some more participation in them as well. If we don't use it for the next issue, I figured we could for a later one.

I mainly took the intro paragraph from the department pages and added some extra info I felt editors should know about. We may want to get Krator or one of the other long-time assessors to take a look at this section too.

Departments

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.

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 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, Featured article candidacy, and Feature list candidacy. 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.

Please feel free to make changes/edits as you feel are necessary. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

I went ahead added this proposal as the feature to the draft. Feel free to switch it out with something more relevant and/or copy edit. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC))

Proposal 4

I got this idea from WP:Novels newsletter. Okay how about we have a current discussions section. This section will describe and talk about the current lenghty discussions going on at the WP:VG talkpage.

Example from WP:Novels newsletter:

Current debates

• Lengths of bibliographies are discussed.
• Discussion about WP:FICT has spilled over to an RFC for the general notability guideline.

King Rock (Gears of War) 16:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently, we have a section like that, but it has been filled with "Well, gee, thanks 1up!" and "Inactive project cleanup". Some different news items or at least a new one in addition to what's there would be good. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

I see we keep the "continuing mission" type stories like the 1up until the task is completed. It seems to be due to timeliness, it's best to have long-standing items noted (perhaps given more prominence as well, or at least a jump to link?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they should stay up. My only worry is that readers will get a bit desensitized to constantly seeing it. The inactive cleanup notice changes some, but the 1UP notice only has an update on the percentage complete. I guess we can see if there's anything worth mentioning closer to August. What about the recent changes to the article guidelines? (D'oh! That probably would have been a good news item for the last one.) (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

Or we could talk about the new Assement Scale. King Rock (Gears of War) 15:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good one too. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

• I don't think we've ever had a discussion go for a month. Hmm... actually, there have been those gamecruft discussions, come to think of it - did the last newsletter mention those? If not, the next one could try and say something based on project consensus about the whole issue. That's if you like opening cans of worms, though... ;-) —Giggy 09:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put those in, however, because a) I think they've run their course, and b) nothing really occurred. Cruft was dealt with, the same people showed up here and there, the same arguments rehashed... unless that stuff resulted in a big change (i.e., FICT) then there isn't much to say. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So we'll need to make some new dramatic discussion for this month, then? ;-) (Agree with you about the other one. Hence my staying well out of it.) —Giggy 15:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we could do without that... :P My thoughts are for ongoing stuff like task force consolidation and the 1UP list, we simply have a running tally and link to it to free up space for other announcements or whatnot. To aid access to this part of the newsletter, we add nav links up top for below-the-fold content like News, Tasks and Project Navigation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

New articles count

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements has been tweaked so it's now much easier to count how many new articles there were in the latest month. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-16 02:19

Oh that is super awesome and a big help. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC))

Thank MrKIA11, who has been super awesome in maintaining the page. I might have helped in setting up some of the tools that filter out the new articles, but MrKIA11 has just been incredible in maintaining the page. At this point, we catch virtually every new article that gets created. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-16 03:13

Should the count on the newsletter also include categories and templates, or just articles? MrKIA11 (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say only articles. If there are enough new templates and categories being regularly created, then it makes sense to mention them separately. If you don't think it's important enough to mention though, then I see no problem excluding them. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

A-Class

Everything about Good and Featured articles is on the newsletter, but what about A-Class articles? There are currently 17, which I think should be included somewhere. MrKIA11 (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I'll put it in this week. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Not sure how you want to add it, but the only article that was promoted to A-Class was Gradius V. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added the A-Class count to the overview. I think listing A-class promotions is a good idea too. We'll just include it into the rest of the promoted list.

A quick note on Gradius V. It was promoted without the normal process by a single editor. See edit. Someone familiar with the assessment process may want to look into this. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

Issue Date

I think the newsletter should go out on the first of every month, that way everything can concern a full month. For example, should Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, which was promoted to GA today be included in this issue? IMO, this issue should only include changes in July. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In regard to the Pokemon article, I've generally included anything from when the last newsletter went out til the day before the current one goes out.

I've thought about the timeframe too, but am on the fence. The only issue I have with it being the first of the month is it would require an update soon after the month has ended. While this is possible, it puts an added amount of pressure on the editors updating the newsletter. Also, I like the idea of it going out in the middle of the week. It gives people time to address concerns before the weekend. Though, I do agree that it should focus on mainly a single month.

How about the first Tuesday or Wednesday of the month instead of the first Wednesday of the first full week of the month? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

Besides the numbers, what has to be accurate to a couple days? Another option that I think would work is if even though it goes out a couple days in to the month, it should have the last month as the date. (i.e. Even though this one goes out on the 6th, the header should be Volume I, No. 5 - July 2008.) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically everything in the left column is time sensitive: article counts, changes to quality status, and news items. The feature is written beforehand and rarely changes, and the "things to do" is transcluded from the VG Project.

In regard to the new header. That seems like a very reasonable and good idea. It would help give a better sense of content to the reader. I think the delivery date should still be included though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

My intent when I suggested the W of the first full week was that the newsletter would cover up to the last day of the previous month and nothing in the next month: by setting the date on that Weds, we would have have at least 4 days to make the final preps on the newsletter including a weekend. --MASEM 16:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So we include everything just from July, change the header to say July 2008, and deliver on the Wednesday of the first full week? Sound good? Should we include the delivery date? MrKIA11 (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So it sounds like everyone wants all content related to the current month excluded. Makes sense to me. If there's no opposition, let's make that the practice from here on out.

In regard to waiting for the full week, I think if there are multiple people handling the updating, then having enough time to do updates is not that big of an issue now. I'm fine with releasing it the first Tuesday or Wednesday of the month. Anybody else? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

Sounds good. JACOPLANE • 2008-08-4 16:25

I just realized that the headers that the bot is placing is technically also wrong. (i.e. Today's issue says (August), even though it should be July.) Can this be changed for next month? MrKIA11 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure can. Sorry, didn't know you guys had made a change =) –xeno (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, thanks. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Xeno, I forgot to mention the change to you earlier. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC))

6th edition

Just to get the ball rolling... Any special plans or ideas for the next one? We still have some excess feature ideas we can use, unless someone has a better idea or a more pressing issue has come up.

With the 1UP references finished (thanks again MrKIA11 for blasting through the bulk of it), we've lost an item in the news section. Any ideas what could be added there. Leaving it with just the new article count and Inactive project cleanup updates is an option also.

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

Have we already done a newsletter talking about how to wright the lead section? Gears of War 2 15:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the feature for the first issue. Though admittedly, I'm not sure how many people know about it since readership was low when it went out. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

Okay so thats out the window. Lets see...should we talk about the new assement scale? Gears of War 2 15:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A feature about just the new assessment scale? That's not a bad idea, and I'd say it takes precedence over the other features we already have written. I'm not entirely familiar with it myself, so someone more involved in the assessment process should probably write it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

I actually experenced alot of the conversation about the new scale head on, so I would like to write it, what should I write about. Gears of War 2 15:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Without being too familiar with it, I'm not exactly sure. I guess mention the new class rating and how it effected the other ratings. Not sure what else. Put down what you think is important and we can trim, expand, and/or copy edit as needed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

Okay I have started the page here. Gears of War 2 16:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also see: this. Gears of War 2 16:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay I really dont have time to finish this. I need to work on a article in my sandbox right now, can someone else take over. Sorry and cheers. Gears of War 2 16:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll see about tweaking and finishing (or at least helping it along) tomorrow (EST). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Time for the next issue. Is it being delivered on Wednesday, September 3? MrKIA11 (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe so. I don't see any need to wait longer than that. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC))

Proposal 1

New quality scale

Starting on June 4, 2008, a vote began at WT:ASSESS to add a class between Start and B class. The proposal was to add a "C Class" to the grading scheme to close the huge gap between Start class and B class.

Number 7

I guess it's time to talk about the next feature. The only thing that comes to mind is the about all the task forces to help drum up participation. Any other ideas? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

I'm not sure. Maybe something about prose? Or maybe a guideline from getting an article to GA or FA. Other than that, I can't think of anything else. Artichoker[talk] 00:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We did some features about writing specific sections in video game articles, though readership was low back then. What kind of prose feature did you have in mind? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

I didn't really have anything specific in mind, I was just throwing a suggestion out there. Maybe some prose guidelines that are helpful for video game articles in particular. Artichoker[talk] 00:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You got the gears turning a bit. Let me see what I can come with next week when i have some more free time. Still open to more suggestions though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Just a little suggestion, but since now that the Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected perhaps that can be discussed too, though I am not sure if it really does worth taking up as the next feature.-- クラウド６６８ 00:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as many of the current selections are crappy beyond belief, and we've only got until the end of October, I think we should focus on the .7 stuff. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What did you guys have in mind, a general announcement and encouragement to spur copy editing? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

I guess... what did you have in mind? :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think, like what Guyinblack said, maybe we can try encouraging copy-editing, and maybe talk about what would make an article not-suitable for 0.7 and therefore should be removed. But yeah I am interested to see what Guyinblack has in mind too. :) -- クラウド６６８ 08:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm... I didn't have any thing in mind because I'm not familiar with the guidelines for 0.7 :-D

I can try to throw something together about copy editing. But I'd have to read up on the inclusion criteria first. I assume sticking close to the current FA criteria will work as a base. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

I started a feature about Wikipedia 0.7 on the draft. Feel to expand and edit it. I'm not sure what else to include other than a list of recommended preparations. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

Issue 8 feature

I know we've had some past ideas that have yet to be used, though they escape me at the moment. :-p Is there a current and pressing issue that should be brought to more people's attention? The only thing that comes to mind is maybe a feature on the GAN or FAC process. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

Well, I guess I am too late for suggesting one since you have already started one on GAN, I was thinking though that maybe we can also have a feature that encourages people to submit articles to PR, or participate in it too, but I guess that gotta wait for the next one if it can be used. -- クラウド６６８ 16:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You must be psychic or something. I'm typing out a second proposal along those lines right now. It should be posted in about 10-20 minutes.

We did have something similar before, but it was about the assessment and peer review departments. Hopefully this second idea will accomplish the same thing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

I guess if I am psychic I would already have won a first prize for a lottery. -- クラウド６６８ 18:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal1

A common practice on Wikipedia is improving an article's quality rating. Several processes are in place to facilitate this, one of which is Wikipedia:Good article nominations (GAN). Editors put articles up for review to obtain the Good article (GA) rating. Reviewers compare the article against the Good article criteria and provide feedback and suggestions to help improve the overall quality.

What makes a Good video game article?

Like other articles on Wikipedia, a good video game article should meet the Good article criteria. To summarize, it should be a well-written and factually accurate article that covers the major aspects of the game: gameplay, plot, development, reception, legacy (if applicable). Researching the topic will go a long way in writing the article.

Things to remember

• The goal of GAN is to have an article of good quality, not receive a GA Star .
• There are numerous examples of good video game articles that can serve as a template to work from. Examples can be found here.
  • Note: Be sure to take into account the date the article passed GA. GA standards have become progressively more strict.
• Past issues of the newsletter have features that can be helpful in writing the article, such as writing the various sections and picking proper sources:
  • The lead
  • Gameplay
  • Development
  • Reception
  • Reliable Sources

Be prepared to accept criticism. It is meant to improve the article.

Learning to review nominated articles will help you better understand how to write a Good article.

I'm really drawing a blank this month. Here's a draft about GAN. Not sure what to do with it, but input or an alternative would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC))

Yeah it seems good ideas run out fast. If nothing better can be thought up, then this looks like a suitable feature for the next issue. Give them tips on getting an article up to Good status, describe the nomination and review process, and encourage them to review articles themselves. Just some brainstorming ideas. Artichoker[talk] 20:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from my talk.) I suppose there's only so much we can say as a monthly feature. I haven't been active around GAN in ages but at a glance this seems like an OK start. Giggy (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal2

Partnered reviews

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.

If you have a video game article undergoing peer review that you think would benefit from an outside view, post the following boilerplate at WT:MILHIST: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Toolbox/Partner peer review notice|Name of article|Raw link to review|Video games}} ~~~~

Things to remember

• 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.

See past discussions for details: VG discussions and MilHist discussion

Here's another idea that I think is more fleshed out. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

I'd suggest prop 2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Future features

Try saying that three times fast
It feels like coming up with features is getting a bit more difficult, at least for me. Personally, I don't like trying to come up with something a few weeks before, especially when there are other things going on. Anyway, I'm hoping we can get some proposals worked up so we can coast for while, and just update the project numbers (which MrKIA11 has been doing an excellent job of I might add) and news items. I think working on several at a time with less time constraints could get some creative juices flowing.

Here are some ideas I think have some potential:

• WP:GAN: About the process from a video game perspective. The first draft didn't really grab me, but I think the idea can work.
• WP:FAC: Same as GAN
• VG task forces: Describe the various task forces in an effort to boost participation.
• Portal:Video games: Describe the portal and its purpose. Not sure what else.
• Video game article notability: A touchy and grey subject, but something I think not everyone is aware of.
• Featured editor: Every so often highlight the accomplishments of hard working editors. Like David and Masem's work with Featured articles, Krator's work with assessment, MrKIA11's work with new and deleted articles, and many, many others. Maybe something for newer editors to aspire to? Could even lead to some mentorships.

Any thoughts would be appreciated; expansion on the ideas above or entirely new ideas. Hopefully we can get some usable drafts out this. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

As self-appointed video game maestro, I'd be up for writing the FAC bit, but what exactly would you be looking for? -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Check out Proposal1 under the "Issue 8 feature"discussion above. It was meant to be about the GAN process from a VG editor's point of view, familarize editors with the process, and encourage their participation in either writing or reviewing. I guess try to do something similar with FAC. Feel free to run with the idea and see what you can come up with. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

Alright. I'll post something here when I've got a draft. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts about some editorials? I'm not sure what about, but I think the views of a long-standing VG member could be something interesting. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC))

Task forces

The Video games Project has smaller subgroups of editors (task forces) that aim to improve specific, related articles within the project's scope. These task forces are different from a WikiProject in that they do not have their own style guidelines, peer review, assessment, and other administrative processes. Such processes are handled by their parent WikiProject, the Video games Project, leaving editors to collaborate and focus on the actual improvement of their articles.

Because video game series sometime expand beyond the video games medium, some task forces fall under the scope of other WikiProjects and should adhere to the appropriate guidelines for that project. For example, the spin-off anime series, Devil May Cry: The Animated Series, should follow the common practices of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga.

Below is a list of video game task forces. If you would like to participate and collaborate with like-minded editors, follow the appropriate link and sign up.

• Arcade Task Force: Dedicated to better organize information in articles related to arcade video games.
• Atari Task Force: Dedicated to better organizing information in articles related to Atari and the works of all related companies. This includes making sure all related articles are of high quality and accuracy. They also focus on Atari owned or published characters, games, systems, people, and distinctly related third party entities.
• Command & Conquer Task Torce: Dedicated to ensuring that all Command & Conquer related articles are of high quality and accuracy.
• Devil May Cry Task Force: Dedicated to organize, expand, clean up, and improve articles about video games, manga, novels and television series related to the Devil May Cry series.
• Destroy All Humans! Task Force: Dedicated to improving the Destroy all Humans! articles, and creating useful and informative articles and categories.
• Gears of War Task Force: Dedicated to improving coverage of topics related to the Gears of War series by creating, expanding, and maintaining such articles. It also serves as the central point of discussion for issues related to the Gears of War series on Wikipedia.
• Grand Theft Auto Task Force: Dedicated to improving coverage of topics related to the Grand Theft Auto by creating, expanding, and maintaining such articles. It also serves as the central point of discussion for issues related to the Grand Theft Auto series on Wikipedia.
• MU* Task Force: Dedicated to covering all MU* games by improving, expanding, and assisting all articles under it's scope. The task force was originally created to help decide what MU* games are and are not notable.
• Silent Hill Task Force: Dedicated to ensuring that the Silent Hill franchise is factually accurate and well-organized.
• Suikoden Task Force: Dedicated to improving and consolidating articles pertaining to Suikoden, a series of role-playing games developed by Konami.
• StarCraft Task Force: Dedicated is to organizing, expanding, cleaning up and improving articles related to Blizzard Entertainment's popular StarCraft series.
• Valve Task Force: Dedicated to organizing, expanding, cleaning up and improving articles related to video games and products created by the Valve Corporation.
• Visual Novels Task Force: Dedicated to organizing, expanding, cleaning up and guiding articles related to Japanese visual novels.
• Warcraft Task Force: Dedicated to organizing, expanding, cleaning up, and improving articles about video games related to Blizzard Entertainment's popular Warcraft series.

Here's an old one that never got used. I think we wanted to wait until the inactive project clean up was done. This listing is missing a couple of the newer task forces too. Either way, I think this is something that should be used eventually to spur participation in task forces, many of which are inactive. Feel free to tweak, edit, trim or whatever to it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

Video games portal

Portals are pages intended to serve as "Main Pages" for specific topics or areas of content. They are subject to Wikipedia's five pillars, and feature various types of content intended to further the understanding of its dedicated topic. The Video games portal is a portal dedicated to video games and the related sub topics. It was started in March 2005 by Jacoplane and included Selected pictures, Featured articles, and interesting bits of video game information. The portal has since expanded to include current events, more history information, Selected topics, and more quality articles and images.

Several other portals also exist which are dedicated to video game subtopics. Subtopics include from video game series (Final Fantasy, Mario, Pokémon, Sonic, and Zelda), companies (Insomniac Games, Konami, Nintendo, Sega, and Sony), and consoles (PlayStation and Xbox 360).

Video Games Portal Content

• Selected picture: Free picture which helps illustrate an aspects of video games: games, consoles, individuals, etc.
• Current events: Interesting bits of recent news related to the video game industry.
• Featured article: Synopsis that give a brief introduction to the respective featured article.
• This month in gaming history: Interesting bits of video game history.
• Categories: A listing of the various video game categories on Wikipedia.
• Things you can do: Various Wikipedia tasks needing attention. Feel free to help out.
• Selected topic: A group of related articles of good or featured quality.

Here's something on the portal. Feel free to edit or add to it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

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 do not mean a video game article deserves to 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 has does meet the criteria one 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 exist as an article on Wikipedia.

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 article for the larger topic is a more desirable action. For example, the main character of a video may not be notable, but has received some mentions in reviews. I 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

• 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.

Feel free to edit or add to it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

VG Barnstar

		The Video Game Barnstar
		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. Editors with multiple Barnstars sometimes use an alternative to displaying them: ribbons.

Barnstars are designed to be given by anyone, so don't be shy as everyone enjoys appreciation. If you've noticed or 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.

See also

• Wikipedia:Service awards
• Wikipedia:Other awards
• Wikipedia:Personal user awards

Something kind of different. Feel free to edit or add to it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

Issue 9

Am I forgetting something...or does the newsletter go out in 3 days and we don't have a feature yet? MrKIA11 (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got an idea and will get it ready later today. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Feature added. Please feel free to edit for grammar and content. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

A-class changes

Just a thought- What about adding a section for new A-class articles under the "Changes to Featured and Good content" section? I know there are very few, but it's something to give them a bit more exposure. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

I have no problem with the idea. If we do do it, I think it should be on the left side to balance it out, as there are usually more good article changes than featured changes. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Related newsletters

The Project cleanup has uncovered some older, related newsletters.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/Outreach/Newsletter/April 2007
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sega/Newsletter/Issue1
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sega/Newsletter/Issue2
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sega/Newsletter/Issue3
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sega/Newsletter/Issue4
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sega/Newsletter/Issue5

I feel like we should either list them on the main newsletter page or create an archive page of some kind. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

sure, list them under archives and just have a footnote or something for explanation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How about:

Current Issue

2008
March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

Other related
MMO: April 2007 – Xbox: April 2008 – Sega: Issue 1 • Issue 2 • Issue 3 • Issue 4 • Issue 5

Thoughts? MrKIA11 (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Maybe have the MMO and Sega on the same line to save space. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

I changed it above. Are there any other stray newsletters? MrKIA11 (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

None that I'm aware of. If there are, we can add them as they're discovered. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

Dang it. No sooner do I post I find one. Wikipedia:WikiProject Xbox/Newsletter shows only one issue. I added it above. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

I updated the main page. If we find others, they can be added as you said. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Sounds like a plan. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

Pat yourselves on the freakin' back

		The VG Barnstar
		I'm awarding this barnstar to everyone who contributes to the WikiProject Video games newsletter (past, present, and future). You guys have done excellent work! Keep up it up in 2009 fellows. Game on! =) –xeno (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated Xeno. I hope you don't forgot this includes you too; our awesome delivery editor. :-D (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

Right, I will assign myself this barnstar immediately! ;> –xeno (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue 11

Next issue is ready except for the feature. What are we going with? MrKIA11 (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Guy knows what it is. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just added it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Should this have been the first issue of Volume 2? For a new year? Otherwise, when does Volume 2 start? MrKIA11 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I assumed vol 2 would have started in March to complete a year of 12 monthly issues. But doing it by calendar year makes sense too. The newsletter is transcluded so we can change it even though it's been delivered. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Feedback on new type of feature

A new type of feature was used for the January 2009 newsletter: "Featured editor". Any thoughts about it from our readers would be appreciated.

• Was learning about another editor informative?
• Where there other questions you would have asked?
• Would you like to learn about another editor via an interview in a future newsletter?

Let us know what you think. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps you should put a link to this on the feature itself, so the readership can just click away and respond. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's on there at the end of the first paragraph. "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]."

However, it may need some rewording to make it more accessible and apparent. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

Not really. As long as there's some kind of referrer. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Index page

Just throwing out a thought- How about creating an index page listing the features of past newsletters? Not sure what else could be on it, but it could be linked on each newsletter to provide easier access for those interested. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

v2no3

We have anything on tap for the March issue? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well... since it marks a year, how about something to gauge its effectiveness, like a simple poll or something? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC))

Good god, it's been a year? I suppose that works, but I wouldn't think it would make a good feature... what about having a pool or RfC on a sidebar? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea; a half and half feature or something. I'll either pull an old draft from the talk archive or maybe write about some new topic that pops up at WT:VG. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps we might want to draw attention to dead links in our FAs? [1] --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a feature on the upkeep of FAs? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

I suppose that's a better, more broad feature. Should I start drafting something? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, feel free. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

I roughed up some general copy on FA maintenance with an emphasis on VG issues. You can see it at User:David_Fuchs/draft. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Poll

Just trying to get the ball rolling on this- here are the kind of questions I was thinking of asking.

1. The VG newsletter was created to help keep members up-to-date on the efforts of the VG Project, encourage participation, and offer lesser known editing tips. Do you think the newsletter meets these goals?
2. If not, which specific areas does it not accomplish the intended goal?
3. How helpful have you found the past features of the VG newletters: helpful, neutral, confusing?
4. Which past feature do you think is the best example of the description above and why?
5. Are there specific features you would like to see that have not been covered, or maybe expansion on a previous feature?
6. Do you find the monthly updates of the article statistics informative?
7. Do you find the monthly news items informative?
8. Is there anything you think should be done differently in, removed from, or added to the newsletter?

Just throwing out some ideas, feel free to tweak/rewrite/edit/whatever the questions. Also, where should editors respond to the questions; on this talk page or maybe a subpage? Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

Subpage, as the talk is a rather disorganized place to throw it all. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. How about WP:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/Poll? If we ever have similar polls in the future, we can create dated subpages under that one, and use it as a generic index. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

The poll page has been created. Feel free to tweak and edit the content there. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

The lack of responses to the poll is very telling to me. I wonder how many editors are reading the newsletter and if it's worth continuing? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

I wouldn't be too discouraged by the lack of response to the poll. I'm sure most users gives the newsletter a cursory glance but may not read everything in depth (I myself missed it, apologies =). Nevertheless, the newsletter is like the pulse of the project... Perhaps bimonthly or quarterly? –xeno ^talk 03:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so much discouraged as much as I feel that my time could be better spent on writing articles instead. To be honest, one less thing to worry about would be a big relief to me. MrKIA11 keeps up with the statistics and I try to keep up with the news items and features, but if they aren't serving their intended purpose, then I think it's time to reevaluate the newsletter. See if it should continue—whether it be monthyly, bimonthly, or quarterly—and if it does continue, what format should it take on? I'll start a discussion at WT:VG tomorrow to get more feedback. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

FYI- See discussion at WT:VG. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Removing names from the list

Thought we'd better start a thread on this seeing as how people inexplicably removing people from the list... I don't understand why... And some of these people have even edited just over a month ago. Anyhow, don't remove people because you don't know they don't want these to still be delivered. –xeno (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps sometime soon (and eventually on a regular basis) we should send out a message to have readers verify they still want receive the newsletter. Maybe once or twice a year? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

I can add something to the bot's signature if you want, so the note comes alongside an issue. –xeno (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. How about something like "Special Notice: If you would like to continue receiving VG newsletters, please [Insert Recommended Action] before the next issue delivery date. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

“ Special Note from the Editors: Users who have not edited in over six months as of 3 June 2009 will be removed from the newletter distribution list. To prevent this, simply make any edit before that date. Alternatively, you may email xeno (the delivery bot operator) to advise him you still wish to receive the newsletter. If you are removed, you may re-add your name at any time. Newsletter delivery by xenobot 00:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC) ”

Hows that? ^ –xeno (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Today's delivery

I just realized the next issue is scheduled to go out today. I will clean it up, update the counts and info, and move it to the new location, if someone else wants to check over the feature one more time and make sure it is ready to go. Please don't move it yet, as the counts need to be updated first. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No rush. Delays on the firsts that fall on Wednesdays is to be expected. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

Newsletter evaluation... again

Well, the discussion at WT:VG didn't really garner much of a response: one reply at the discussion and one at the poll page. In light of that, I suggest we discussion the issue here among the newsletter contributors, which at this point includes MrKIA11, xeno, David, and myself.

So to pose the question again, should we completely revamp it to suit the needs of members (whatever that is), reduce the frequency of delivery (to bimonthly or quarterly), or discontinue it all together? Personally, if no one is really reading or interested in it, I'm fine with discontinuing. I could spend that time working on articles instead. What does everyone else think? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

My part isn't difficult at all. If it's taking a lot of your guy's time and no one seems to be reading it then it may be best to let it go into the dark cold night, or do it quarterly. –xeno ^talk 16:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, really. I mean, we can always just reduce it to a quarterly thing or even semiannually (it's worked for WP:FCDW.) Guy, you're really the pusher here so if you'd rather discontinue it it's fine with me. I'd rather publisher when we need to rather than struggle for arbitrary deadlines. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm flexible with what we end up doing. It's just that with my limited time, I'd like my edits to count for something. If I have a choice between writing an article about a piece of video game history or writing a feature that will hardly get read, then I'll certainly pick the article.

Scaling it back to quarterly seems like something worth trying first. We can reevaluate it again down the road. But let's see what MrKIA11 thinks before we do anything. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

Sorry guys, I was on vacation. Can you believe there are still places without internet? Anyway, I really doesn't matter to me. I'm just gonna keep updating the numbers as necessary. With the lack of responses to any of our discussions, quarterly would be the most logical to try. Should we name the subpages /2009Q2, or continue with the publish date? I will be working on the draft today for it to be published tomorrow. Someone might want to put in a note that the newsletter will now be published quarterly. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries, everyone deserves a vacation without distractions. I think keeping the date format we've been using should work fine; I'm not married to it though.

I'll add a note before tomorrow. Just to confirm, the next delivery date will be July 1st and will cover May and June? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

Correct. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice added.

Xeno, could you mention the change in frequency when you deliver this issue? Something brief to tell them to read the notice in the issue.

Something we can talk about later, but since the time frame will give us more to work with, perhaps a change in format is in order. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

Should we not even put out the current draft, that way all of Q2 is included in the next issue? MrKIA11 (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. However, I worry that stopping without any kind of notice or readily available explanation would cause confusion. Do you want to send out a notice instead of the next issue? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

We could put out a notice with a note about it moving to quarterly and also asking for feedback on whether the newsletter is helpful, etc. –xeno ^talk 02:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How about

"Due to lack of interest, the VG Newsletter will be switching from a monthly delivery to a quarterly one. The next issue be delivered on July 1, 2009 and will pertain to the second quarter of the year. If you have any comments or suggestions to improve the newsletter, please post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter."

Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

Great. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Made some slight pedantic CE's , but it's going out now. (delivering with my alt account instead of xenobot as I have an extended task ongoing I want to all be in one contrib sequence) –xeno ^talk 15:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done [2], wonder if anyone will drop by... =) –xeno ^talk 15:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I hope we get some feedback (not holding my breath though), as it feels like we're flying blind with this thing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC))

The way I see it, the newsletter is something that helps raise the visibility of the project. It's difficult to judge its impact. –xeno ^talk 16:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we reconsider in light of the response, or is there not enough to change things? MrKIA11 (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be the bad guy in all this, but 4 out of 170+ readers in favor of monthly isn't enough to sway me. :-\

Let's see what Xeno and Fuchs think. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

I count 5 sir! Again, since my part is so easy I am not going to force you guys taking time away from other pursuits to write a newsletter. But it seems some of the below folks might be willing to lend a hand, so... *shrug* –xeno ^talk 15:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

*shrug* indeed. This is a curious situation…. I really wish more people weighed in on this matter; for better or for worse. Because right now, the only conclusion I keep drawing from the number of responses is a lack of interest. Am I being too pessimistic or do you guys see this too? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

Maybe slightly pessimistic. =) As I commented above the newsletter to me is a bit like the 'pulse' of the project. Having it delievered monthly raises our visibility and may keep people in the fold. If this makes sense. –xeno ^talk 16:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I does make sense. I see that having a newsletter is a marketing tool to help the project gain and retain members, but I'm not certain it really does that job if few people read it. Maybe I'm being too pragmatic about this. Let's see what David thinks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC))

Regarding the quaterly move

Hi just some feedback for you about the change in schedule for the newsletter. I for one believe it is a valuable tool for the project and belive for an active project like ours I it should definitely be monthly. If you don't have the time/manpower quarterly is better than none but it is important to the project and being quaterly I think is not enough. Thanks ISmashed TALK! 17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I just got the notice. I don't have much to contribute to this discussion other than quarterly is fine with me. If that provides the people who write the newsletter with more time to work on articles, then all the better. Artichoker^[talk] 18:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, quarterly isn't enough. I enjoy being in the know about what is going on with the project. Bimonthly would be better, although I prefer to get it every month. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree as well. It should be monthly. If there is not enough people to work on it, I'll join in. I already work on WP:PW's newsletter and I can always take on another.--WillC 00:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding to this, I read the newsletter every month and also believe it is a valuable tool to the project. I'd be willing to help out with this newsletter in any way I can to ensure that it remains monthly -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If I have time, I'll contribute to the drafts. Tezkag72 (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So what's happening with this? I stand by my offer to help out, just point me at what needs done Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 22:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Some help thinking up feature ideas and writing them would be appreciated. The most difficult part to a monthly schedule—in my opinion—is coming up with the feature. We started to run out of ideas after a year. They included mini-writing guides, an editor interview, and information about the Project's departments and new proposals. Some were more time consuming than others, and about half were difficult to even conceive.

I still believe quarterly will meet the newsletter's intended goals and a new design/format will help give the content more umph. But it seems like there's a enthusiasm to keep the newsletter going monthly. If enough people want to do it monthly, I certainly won't stand in the way. I worry, however, that the same problem will occur down the road; trouble writing features and a lack of readers that actually read the newsletter. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

I want to get involved in the project, and I am definitely willing to help with the newsletter to keep it monthly. By the way, I have  Done a couple of updates for the June issue. MacMed^talk_stalk 01:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Listen new guy, its not June issue. Its the second quarter issue. We stoped doing monthly issues. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, won't happen again. If you could give me some guidance, please do so, and I will try to contribute constructively. Feel free to undo any of my edits to the newsletter as you see fit. MacMed^talk_stalk 01:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, we learn by doing, and we can always use the help. If you have any questions, just ask :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The new "Reference library"

Hello everyone. I say we should mention somewhere in the upcoming newsletter that the Magazines department was expanded into the Reference library, which includes strategy guides and books in addition to magazines. Specifically we should ask everyone to add their guides/books/magazines to the listings. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 12:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan (delegate to Guy :P) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do I always miss important news like this? Thanks for bringing it up.

I'll add it to the news section with some special notice about usage. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

Format change

Even though there's some difference of opinion about being quarterly or monthly, I was hoping to get some input on a change of format. Admittedly, I thought this would be something suitable for a quarterly format, but maybe it could be applied to a monthly or bimonthly newsletter too.

Anyway, I was thinking of copying The Wikipedia Signpost's format and have links to subpages for each issue. This could be used to expand the type of content as well as help track the number of views for each subpage (see example below).

If we stick with quarterly, the content changes and news items pages can have headings to divided them into months to accommodate the large amount of content that will surely accumulate over three months. The features will not have to worry about length either, and two different ones should provide people with something different each issue, especially if it is quarterly. The whole package will be more compact and allow readers to chose the content they are most interested in.

Any thoughts? While we're at it, the color scheme and table's appearance can be tweaked/changed for a change of pace. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

If we're going to rip off adapt the Signpost format, I would say making it a less garish color and layout would be nice. My only issue with subpages is that it makes it harder to keep track of everything at once. And that requires a more sophisticated archiving/indexing system for old features and such. On the other hand, if we're moving to a less frequent/more meaty newsletter, I suppose it's a good idea... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions for the color scheme and layout? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

I am famously bad at messing with templates... I'll get back to you with some tinkering :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm pasting my first attempt below... basically I axed the wikicode and did a hard css variant. This means that there's no collapsing, but I figured with all the other space-saving this isn't really a big deal anymore.

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 4 — 2nd Quarter, 2009
Last issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2009, the project has:

• 122 Featured articles
• 26 Featured Lists
• 15 Featured Topics
• 1 article in Featured Article Review
• 12 articles for Peer review

• 26 A-Class articles
• 320 Good Articles
• 2 Good Topics
• 2 articles in Good Article Review

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: How to write a newsletter
• Featured editor: That guy you know

---

Project Navigation

Full listing

• VG Project Main pages
  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Peer review – talk
  • Magazines – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the inactive cleanup department, and tweaked the columns of the project links to save some space and look more organized.

Looks good. I'm cool with this. I'm willing to brain storm too, just to see what we can come up with. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

actual content

going along with the above, what are the plans for this newsletter, whenever it comes out? Are we going to keep our list of featured content promotions/demotions and move it to a subpage (Content log or something?) I'm guessing that the content in the draft were ideas: what did you mean by "Writing a newsletter" and "Featured editor"? Also, do you just want to link the featured content changes to the signpost stories? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking with the content changes. Create a listing of promotions and demotions organized by category and month. Same with the news and announcements; list the major project changes on a subpage in greater detail along with appearances on the Main Page.

I just randomly filled in the feature examples. "Writing a newsletter" came to mind because we've been discussing all these changes lately. Nothing I think we'd ever do. And "Featured editor" sounded to me like something we could do on a regular basis. Something that some people showed some interest in and would provide variety to the issue.

I don't handle that part of the newsletter (MrKIA and GamePro have been doing that), but it sounds like a good idea. At the very least, I think links to the signpost articles somewhere on that page would be helpful. Let's see what they think. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

Well, it's getting to be that time and that means we need some features. I'm kind of at a loss right now so any ideas would be appreciated.

Also, if we are going with the above format, we need to pick an editor to interview. Any suggestions? I recommend either User:Masem or User:MrKIA11; both have been around for a long time and contributed a lot to the project. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

You're the gregarious go-to man... pick someone :P Either of them are fine choices. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Last minute checks

I've created the subpages to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20090701 and a Header for navigation. The only thing left to do is update content changes, quarter stats, and news items with final June updates. Anything else I'm forgetting? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Not to my knowledge... when did you want to have this ready for? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Either this evening or tomorrow morning. That way it's ready to go for July 1st, the first Wednesday of the month. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

It looks fine to me content-wise. I wanna tinker with the header a tad, and the FA stars are all pixelated as we're using PNG rather than SVG, but those are just style concerns. You did a bang-up job with the layouts and subpages :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just pointing something out: yesterday Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen was promoted to GA status, yet it's not listed in the "Changes to Featured and Good content". -sesuPRIME 22:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Added, thanks. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)