 | This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  Project | This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. | | Things you can help with: | edit · history · watch · purge  | A membership list has been started. If you are an active member, be sure to list yourself as such. |  | - Good content candidates: Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King, Scribblenauts, A Boy and His Blob (2009 video game), Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura, Izuna 2: The Unemployed Ninja Returns, Guitar Hero On Tour series, Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest, Steins;Gate, Saw, Brütal Legend, Tifa Lockhart, Xenogears, Warcraft: Orcs & Humans, Michael Salvatori, Mario, Final Fantasy II, Defender (video game), Sword of Aragon, Final Fantasy IV, Aquaria, Hildegard von Krone - Music: Yasunori Mitsuda, Takahito Eguchi, Hiroki Kikuta, Noriko Matsueda, Jeremy Soule, Inon Zur
- Remember to add {{WikiProject Video games}} to every video game article, template, category, image and project Talk page.
| | | | [edit] Current article does not appear to be high-importance Joust (video game) doesn't seem to meet any of the importance ratings for high video game and I doubt it's even mid as it's entire legacy is based on ports or remakes of the game itself, which qualifies for low-importance (a game is always assumed to have some legacy when it spawns ports/remakes and sequels. The "In Popular Culture" section is trivial information.じんない 03:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC) - Are you sure it doesn't set any precedents? The article doesn't mention any, and every old game isn't automatically of higher importance. Unless importance is found, it should be rerolled.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Here's the edit that reassessed the article FYI. Gary King (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I rated it before the assessment system changed, I would say it's more of a mid-importance now. --Mika1h (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I re-rated to Mid since the original assessor also agrees. I still think it may not be even mid given what info, but I'll give a benefit of the doubt before lowering it to low.じんない 22:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the process is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If we're going to tackle high-importance articles, which are invariably more difficult to source and complicated, then enough time has to be given to actually do that. If articles are only given a week, then regardless of anything else they must be easy to edit up a grade or two, which invariably means something low or mid importance. Case in point: it's now 3 or 4 days since this convo started, the collaboration has been active at least as long, and all that's happened is a trivia section and fair-use gallery have been nuked and the poster's been uploaded. Which is all good and appreciated, but it's not the most enthusiastic response. We still haven't decided whether this is an appropriate article or not and the collab.'s due to switch in a few days. We really need to sort out what the priorities are with this system. Someoneanother 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC) - There is really no point in re-rolling. If we don't like the choice, deal with it. I didn't do any more editing because I wasn't sure what people were going to decide, but what's the point? It's only a week. People wanted to re-roll last week, and that turned out to be really awesome. We should re-roll if the article is Xanadu or something, but if we can improve it let's keep it. If you're worried about the selections, go through the High and Top categories beforehand. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, let's not keep changing things. I think it's pretty good how the collaboration is setup right now. There will be articles that you some won't like, but others will. Gary King (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
|
