Template talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 1

Non CVG paramaters?
Link (The Legend of Zelda series) has an old, non-CVG peer review. How can this be incorporated into this navbox? Hbdragon88 22:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to restrict additions to the template to operations of WikiProject CVG.  Pagra shtak  00:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

New parameter?
I've seen disputes over the exact meaning of the parameter, since the criteria are for Wikipedia 1.0 context but the template also said "within gaming" context. For example, users arguing that the Wii is a topic of high priority within gaming (which it kinda is, it's the #10 most revised article ever), against users arguing that the article is still about a current event and not stable enough to be compiled to WP1.0.

Maybe we can have a separate importance parameter discussing the topic's importance (or at least interest) within its own project's context? E.g.

}}

Would that be useful, or would it just get abused? --Stratadrake 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've readded the "within gaming" bit for now. If there's consensus to remove that then we'll change it. As far as I'm aware, ratings given by WikProjects are according to the importance of the topic in relation to the subject area of the WikiProject. Truly core topics are listed at Core topics - 1,000. By changing this parameter to not specify that the rating is related to gaming, you kind of messed up a lot of the ratings. Shigeru Miyamoto is clearly very important in the history of CVG, but for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0 it might not be so important. I'm sure that many people would argue that most video games are not exactly very relevant in the history of the world. One glance at Category:High-importance computer and video game articles should tell you that these ratings are definitely "within gaming" and not Wikipedia 1.0 ratings in general. jaco ♫ plane  17:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating what I said earlier, that's part of where this confusion comes from -- users don't understand how the parameter works, and specifically, those arguing that topics like the Wii are of very high importance in the videogame context (they are certainly of high visibility and high interest), despite that said articles are still current events and not stable enough for the traditionally-historical viewpoint of an encyclopedia. --Stratadrake 02:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is essentially a question for whenever the 1.0 project decides to start publishing stable Wikipedias on a semi-automated basis. Since that isn't a very close date, I'm comfortable leaving current events as whatever their hype-meter is at right now and future events as low or simply unassessed-importance. Nifboy 19:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Shorter
I don't see why this template needs to have functionality that most other templates do not need. It is long enough already, and it is not important to most readers or editors that a particular article is in the Sega Work Group etc. If it needs to be in the template as some sort of information, there can be a brief short-hand note in a right column. Talk page headers already crowd the talk pages, sometimes to the tune of two screenfulls. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Needed" or not, that functionality is already in widely accepted use. As much as the categorization can get the job done by itself, having a message saying that at the top is also quite useful as well.  Maybe if we had a "show/hide" type link on the stats to toggle the panel on and off...?  --Stratadrake 08:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That would certainly be much better, though I do recall there are problems with it on certain browsers. —Centrx→talk &bull; 12:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hide/show
The show/hide link shows "hide" initially instead of "show". I'm not sure why this happens, but this seems to fix it (also bypassing a template redirect):

Current code: CVG To-do: [ edit]&amp;nbsp; 
 * Gaming Collaboration of the week:

New code: CVG To-do: [ edit]&amp;nbsp;  --- RockMFR 02:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Gaming Collaboration of the week:


 * Done. Proto ::  ►  18:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Should this template be modified or should the editors use subst?
I noticed that the talk pages using this template are listed in the categories:

Video game templates | WikiProject banners | Templates using ParserFunctions

That can't be right, so either the template itself should be modified (I can't do this because it's protected), or the usage information on this talk page should state that editors need to subst the template.

--Pizzahut2 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Change (at the bottom of the template):

To:

WOSlinker 16:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Infact you should very closely review what Cyde's bot did to the template, looks like it messed up a couple of things more. :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACvgproj&diff=108999982&oldid=105845430

--Pizzahut2 17:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like Cyde has fixed it up. Re-add the editprotected tag if something is still broken. --- RockMFR 21:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

image request parameters
I'd like to have 2 image request parameters added to the template, namely and  so that articles lacking in either can be tagged as needing such. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the code:



It can be inserted anywhere, preferably before the divs. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, a possible move to Template:Vgproj in line with the new name for the WikiProject? Axem Titanium 04:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a point in renaming this template. It would be renaming just for the sake of renaming. Pretty much everything in the project is tagged already, and I imagine any future tagging would still be done with cvgproj. --- RockMFR 06:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made the changes, and I agree that it is not a good idea to rename the template. No real good reason, besides who wants to go and change the 15000 articles that have this tagged.. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-03-8 18:36
 * Could we get Image:Image-request.svg added to it? I've made changes to the code above to reflect this. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Neil   (not Proto ►)  12:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, not done. That change breaks the template (causes a bunch of }}}}'s to appear at the top of the talk page it's used on).  Neil   (not Proto ►)  12:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ugh, for some reason the relevant categories are being populated by articles that don't have the tag. I think it might have something to do with the use of  rather than, like is done for the Category:Old requests for CVG peer review, which seems to function fine. Anyone got an idea?  JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-03-9 18:24
 * I had a look; currently, everything appears to be working fine. Is there currently any problem with this template? – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Devil May Cry taskforce
In accordance with the recently-created Devil May Cry task force, I was wondering if the template could be edited so that the CVG template supports inclusion of a task force variable within the template, to allow members of the task force to tag articles we actively support.

If I'm remembering right, the code would look like this:

Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 03:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Adding a task force variable may be reasonable, but adding a task-force-specific variable is not. How about something along the lines of supporting "tf=Devil May Cry" which would result in code like:

—Doug Bell talk 11:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I only suggested it in that manner because that's how the Konami, Sega, and Capcom task forces are handled in the current template. If that method would be better, I see no problems with it and endorse it fully. However I imagine if it were changed in that manner someone would have to go through and modify all the Konami, Sega, and Capcom articles currently effected by the template. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 11:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, bugger it. Let's do this in two stages: First, the new code is added as you've suggested (but leave the legacy code for now). Then I'll go through all the Capcom, Konami, and Sega articles and change them so that they adopt the new method of task force template adaption. After that's done, we remove the legacy code based around placing "konami/capcom/sega=yes" in the currently effected articles and replace it with "tf=konami/capcom/sega". Sound good? Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 13:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be easy to change all the articles using WP:AWB. I'll add the generic line doug proposed to the template. As the number of task forces increases that is a better solution anyway. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-03-27 14:01


 * The only possible issue I see with this is the possibility that articles might be supported by more than one task force (i.e. the Devil May Cry articles being supported by the DMC task force and the Capcom task force), which this revision doesn't support. Perhaps include the following code?


 * That would allow the template to support a second task force. Thoughts? Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 15:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. You could even allow for three task forces.  I would think that would provide all the expansion any game would ever need (series, producer, platform would be the thinking.)  However, instead of listing each on a separate line, I would list all three together like this:

{{#if:{{{tf|}}}| {{!}} {{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} This article is supported by the {{{tf}}} task force{{#if:{{{tf2|}}}| {{#if:{{{tf3|}}}|,|&amp;#32;and}} the {{{tf2}}} task force{{#if:{{{tf3|}}}| &amp;#32;and the {{{tf3}}} task force}}.}}


 * —Doug Bell talk 16:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, added that to the template, now we have to remove all the old instances of the capcom/konami/sega task forces so that code can be removed. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-03-27 16:07


 * Actually, slightly better would be:

{{#if:{{{tf|}}}| {{!}} {{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} This article is supported by the {{{tf}}}{{#if:{{{tf2|}}}||&amp;#32;task force}}{{#if:{{{tf2|}}}| {{#if:{{{tf3|}}}|,|&amp;#32;and}} the {{{tf2}}}{{#if:{{{tf3|}}}| &amp;#32;and the {{{tf3}}}}}{{#if:{{{tf2|}}}|&amp;#32;task forces}}}}.}}


 * which doesn't repeat the "task force" text. —Doug Bell {{sup|talk}} 16:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not sure why, but these changes are causing some problems, with them showing up by default, so I've undone the changes for now. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-03-27 16:14


 * Two reasons. One is that you should have copied from this page instead of the source of this page (the &amp;amp; entity was in the source to make it display correctly on the page—you didn't want that.)  Second, because I left off a pair of closing braces. —Doug Bell {{sup|talk}} 16:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed the template. —Doug Bell {{sup|talk}} 16:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-03-27 16:29
 * OK, I've replaced all the Konami task force talk pages, doing Sega now. Once Capcom is also complete we can remove the old code from the template. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-03-27 18:01
 * OK all done, did the Capcom links too, so I'm removing the Konami/Sega/Capcom specific code, so only the generic tf parameter will work. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-03-27 19:11
 * Looks fantastic. If I'm reading correctly, the template as written supports three task forces, which should be more than enough for any article. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nested coding
Per the discussion at the WP:CVG talk page, please add the nesting coding that can be seen in this diff. Thanks!!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you give a link to the conversation? CMummert · talk 11:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * editprotected The discussion is here. Suggested and seconded there, edit made here. CMummert · talk 12:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

editprotected
 * Only the first part of the change was done - the second part wasn't added. Could someone review and make the second change?  Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  01:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I restored the deleted page so I could look at the diff again. I added the second part. I wrapped a ! to make it | . Please test and confirm that it works. CMummert · talk 03:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's still a "|-" missing between the first line ("{| class=...") and the second line (" {{#ifeq:... "). That should fix it up :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  03:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That can't be right - that should only be a |- there if the nested parameter is actually set, otherwise there will be two |- symbols back to back. Also, it wasn't there in the diff; the deleted version says
 * {| class="{{#ifeq:{{{nested|}}}|yes|collapsible collapsed messagebox nested-talk|{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|messagebox small-talk|messagebox standard-talk}}}}" id="cvgproj" {{#ifeq:{{{nested|}}}|yes|
 * I added {{!-}} at the place it ought to belong.
 * By the way, please don't keep deleting the diff before the issue is resolved; I can look at deleted revisions but not at diffs between them. CMummert · talk 04:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean the example page? I put the speedy on it when I thought the change was up and working - sorry about that!  Should have tested it before I deleted that.
 * For whatever reason, this diff works - see Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell/Example CVG as an example. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. CMummert · talk 12:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you adjust this template to match that diff? The nested function isn't working the way the template currently is.  Thank! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  13:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's slow this down a little; apparently it isn't working for me to look at the diffs. Can you give me a permanent link (not diff) to a version of the source that you want, so I can just copy and paste it? Then you are guaranteed to get exactly what you want.  CMummert · talk 21:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(margin reset) Yep - actually, Template:WikiProjectBannerShell/Example CVG is a direct copy of this template with the needed change. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I copied that source to this template just now. CMummert · talk 00:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! Sorry to be such a pest &mdash; you've been very helpful! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  02:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

editprotected To fix the bug where the show/hide button jumps around when it's nested, change colspan="2" on line five of the template to colspan="3" An example of the change was applied to his example template. See the comparison here. Thank you. —Disavian ({{sup|talk}}/{{sub|contribs}}) 05:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * {{tick}} Done Harryboyles 09:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection Template
editprotected I request that  be added to this template as it is permanently protected. Thanks! Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The small option isn't necessary for templates; the fact that the template is protected should be made clear. I put the template in the doc page, instead of directly in the template page. CMummert · talk 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed "selected" parameter
The  parameter used to be useful back when it meant that the article had been selected for Portal:Video games. What is the point of having it if it is placed on every featured or good article? The template already tells us if the article is FA or GA.  Pagra shtak  16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Whitespace
editprotect There is some whitespace being added after the template and causing problems when nested inside WikiProjectBannerShell. (ex. Talk:Joe Dever) --Farix (Talk) 19:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you where it is? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not exactly. By best guess is that this line:

}}

should be:

}}

or

}}

Or at least, that is the only thing that jumps out at me as the possible source of the problem. --Farix (Talk) 21:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That newline was definitely bad. I removed it; let me know if that didn't solve the problem. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Change image from png to svg
Change Image:Nuvola apps package games.png to Image:Gamepad.svg &mdash; Bobarino 00:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Greeves (talk • contribs) 02:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh, the SVG is not quite the same as the PNG, and frankly doesn't look as good. I oppose this change. What do others think? JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-08-1 19:46
 * I had to compare them side-by-side to see any difference. The PNG version has some finer gradations, but nothing that a comparable SVG could not also accomplish.  Dim those button gradients, tweak the outline paths, blur the light/dark transition in the controller itself... --Stratadrake 23:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Portal image is broken.
The "Portal" image is showing up as broken. Something in the code needs to be changed in order for this image to appear correctly in the places where this template is being used.
 * I assume you're referring to Image:Portal.svg, which is displaying correctly for me. Also, please sign your talk posts. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Move to Template:Vgproj
The project this template is associated with changed name from WP:CVG to WP:VG ages ago, and the template name should reflect this. --MrStalker talk 08:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WT:CVG is the place is to discuss this first. It's part of their project, and I don't want to do anything I shouldn't. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus says yes. Sorry it's been a while. Axem Titanium 21:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done - Nihiltres ( t .l ) 01:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

editprotected Accordingly, change "CVG To-do" into "VG To-do". User:Krator (t c) 08:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done by CBM.  Pagra shtak  15:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, everything looks good. Axem Titanium 03:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup department parameter
editprotected

There was a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup for a parameter to this template along the lines of the,  , and   parameters that already exist. The appropriate diff may be seen here, or alternatively this version should be simply copy-and-pasteable. Examples may be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Cleanup. Anomie⚔ 05:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done --ais523 09:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Add FL class parameter
There was a minor discussion on the VG talk page about creating an "FL-Class video game articles" category using the class parameter in this template. Since the number of Featured lists in the VG Project has grown some, and I'm sure there will be more to come, this sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Could support for "FL" be added? (Guyinblack25 talk 04:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC))
 * ✅ Happy‑melon 20:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you very much. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

Pageview counting
Hi, further to a request from dihydrogen monoxide, I've written a bot to give details about the number of times pages are viewed over the course of a month. So that this WikiProject can be included on its first full run, please make the following alteration to this template:

Before the line:

Include:

This will let the bot know that it needs to record the pageviews of WP:VG pages. It will also add details of the views of a page to the project box, like the working sample at Talk:Namapoikia.

Thanks.

Verisimilus  T  14:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, seems like a good idea. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2008-04-8 15:09


 * Thanks. Verisimilus  T  15:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the above as the request for approval of the bot was declined. Thanks,   CWii ( Talk  15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also so Category:Pageview bot can be depopulated. Thanks,   CWii ( Talk  15:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Happy‑melon 21:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

List class
I've added support for "list" class articles for this template. (It's one simple parameter). Should be populating Category:List-Class video game articles now. --M ASEM 23:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambig-class bug
Disambig or dab class articles are being put into the default Unassessed videogame articles category. Can a tweak be made to the template to add the Disambig class category as an option? I think the relevant code segment starts here:
 * [[Category:{{#switch:{{{class}}}

Many thanks, Gazimoff Write Read 20:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Category class
In line with the above comment, would it be possible to add a Category class as well? This will also enable us to make one clean, dynamic list of all Categories within the project without fussing with sub-cats and the like (which would help a TON for bot maintenance). This would save NA class for Wikipedia and Template namespaces.  JohnnyMrNinja  10:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's no objections to this, I also want to add a Template class (so we'll have 3 non-article types, disamb, category, and template). Jury's still out on List-class, but I don't believe these three non-article ones are a problem. --M ASEM  16:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me, also means we have a useful way of tracking all of our non-mainspace articles for cleanup purposes. <b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read 16:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't these classes be automatically detected by the template without users having to manually assess them? With some conditional command and I think it could. Kariteh (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I wrong or is it not working? This page is classed as "Template", but there is no visible change. The wording and the categories are the same.  JohnnyMrNinja  05:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not yet, it's not as simple as I thought - but I haven't had a change to delve deeper. --M ASEM 05:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's because the code is written so that only pages within the "Talk" namespace are categorized in assessement categories. That's why the template page itself doesn't appear in these categories by the way, since it's within the "Template" namespace. This talk page is in the "Template talk" namespace so it doesn't get categorized either. Kariteh (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Class space
The class section need to be modified from  to   to include spaces such as Category Talk and Template Talk. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with this. Testing it out in my own sandbox matches this.<b style="color:green;">Gazimoff</b> <sup style="color:blue;">Write <sub style="color:black;">Read 06:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is done, could it also be fixed for Wikipedia Talk (if necessary), so that all internal project pages can be marked as NA. I have no idea if this needs done (I do not understand template code), but I figure while you're in there...  JohnnyMrNinja  06:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ The first request. However, I think consensus should be waited for before the second request is fulfilled. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)  10:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Questions-


 * Shouldn't the category adjust to the class and importance?
 * Could the wording change (as it does with NA) to say "this template" instead of "this article". (not really important)
 * I had forgotten about Image as well. Could this also be added?  JohnnyMrNinja  16:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have created the following categories for use with this template - Category:WikiProject Video games disambiguation pages‎, Category:WikiProject Video games images‎, Category:WikiProject Video games categories‎, Category:WikiProject Video games templates‎, Category:WikiProject Video games non-article pages‎.  JohnnyMrNinja  16:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that Category:WikiProject Video games non-article pages‎ already exists as Category:Non-article video game articles. Kariteh (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we don't have to use the new one, it just seems silly to have "non-article articles". I've also just made Category:WikiProject Video games portals.  JohnnyMrNinja  15:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Could everyone please take a look at User:Kariteh/Sandbox? I know very little about template code but it looks like a marked improvement. Does anyone think that it's ready to go live?  JohnnyMrNinja  05:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks good. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kariteh, is there any objection to using your version of the template at this point? I'd rather not ask a sysop to do it until you're sure it's ready.  JohnnyMrNinja  03:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I tested it on a few pages (with "Show preview") and I think there's no bug, so I have no objection. Just change the few Kariteh (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well actually there's one missing detail: the non-article pages (such as templates, etc.) are properly categorized, but the line "Template This article has been rated as Template-Class on the assessment scale." doesn't appear in the banner unlike in the current version of the banner (see at the top of this page). It's just a cosmetic detail though, since the categorization does work. Kariteh (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But this is only in non-mainspace articles, right? These were already so buggy (see redlink categories below) that exact wording that shows up can be worked out and doesn't really matter. The fact that you got the categories to work right is a feat in itself. And it isn't anything negative, it's just ok wording that could someday be better wording.  JohnnyMrNinja  08:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just fixed this. Now everything is okay and ready! Kariteh (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(un-transcluded Kariteh (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC))

- I don't think it's working...?  JohnnyMrNinja  09:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. I forgot about the Disamb class and I tried to fix it but that made the other things buggy... It's not ready yet. I'm trying to fix everything, but if someone wants to have a look and help feel free to edit. Kariteh (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I truly don't know enough to make it not catch on fire. Couldn't the Dab pages be implemented like regular pages, since they are in mainspace, and not be auto-assessed?  JohnnyMrNinja  09:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't stress about it, there's no time limit or anything. I had brought it up because I really wasn't sure if it was ready. I have requested that David Levy take a look at it, as he is known to have mad template skills.  JohnnyMrNinja  10:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

{{#ifeq:{{#switch:{{{class}}}|Dab|dab|Disambig|disambig|Disambiguation|disambiguation=Disamb}}|Disamb|| Is the word Disamb supposed to be Disambig?  JohnnyMrNinja  10:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be working now. I didn't try to implement the descriptive line in the banner since as you said it doesn't really matter. The categories work fine. Dab pages are assessed manually, but the detail I was fixing about them was to disable their importance ratings. Good idea to ask David Levy to take a look; the code might need some fresh, expert eyes in case I forgot something. Kariteh (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So is this ready to go? Can we implement it? MrKIA11 (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's ready. Kariteh (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please implement the code at User:Kariteh/Sandbox. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Thanks Marasmusine!  JohnnyMrNinja  09:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmh, we could have just took Template:WikiProject Anime and manga as a basis actually... They figured an auto-assessment feature long before us. Kariteh (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * :) Your timing is immaculate. Ours is probably much better anyways.  JohnnyMrNinja  08:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

New categories
There is discussion as to what names the new categories should have. Please participate.  JohnnyMrNinja  08:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please change the template to reflect the new categories -

 JohnnyMrNinja  10:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:WikiProject Video games non-article pages -> Category:NA-Class video game articles
 * Category:WikiProject Video games categories -> Category:Category-Class video game articles
 * Category:WikiProject Video games disambiguation pages -> Category:Disambig-Class video game articles
 * Category:WikiProject Video games images -> Category:Image-Class video game articles
 * Category:WikiProject Video games portals -> Category:Portal-Class video game articles
 * Category:WikiProject Video games templates -> Category:Template-Class video game articles


 * This is what need to be changed:

to
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake, it needs to be:

Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We now have 21,736 articles (real articles) in the NA-Class category. Kariteh (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That was my fault when I tweaked the code for the new categories. The code above fixes that. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk)  23:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When does that clear up? Soon, right?  JohnnyMrNinja  09:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the categories were changed despite Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 24 still being discussed. Kariteh (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That was me... I thought, as I was the creator and it seemed to go against WP 1.0 standard naming, that when I repealed my oppose and supported it could be considered over. When I asked admins to close, it just got another Oppose vote. When I brought it to WP 1.0, it created further discussion. I assumed the CfD would be closed quickly, as it's been open since June 24, with almost no discussion happening. I'm not quite sure what to do, so I figured I'd wait until the CfD was actually closed.  JohnnyMrNinja  09:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP 1.0 post is here.  JohnnyMrNinja  09:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk Space for Categories
The category section need to be modified from  to   to include spaces such as Category Talk and Template Talk. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --- RockMFR 22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding to WT:VG
I'd like to add this to WT:VG as part of the effort to tag every project page, but it would look a little silly without special text. Would there be a way to turn it into a welcome banner, but only when placed on WP:VG? And possibly either un-nest the todo list or remove it (to replace or accommodate the todo that is there)?  JohnnyMrNinja  20:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, I think the best solution is just to create a new template. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

a few optimizations
At User:Izno/Sandbox, I've optimized the switches to use, as well as moved the categories to the /doc page per WP:Template documentation. I also switched the documentation template for documentation. Can an admin help me out with these changes? --Izno (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for your efforts, PeterSymonds (talk)  13:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion
This template appears on all VG talk pages, but when it is nested, it shows up as: "Wikiproject Video Games(""-Class). Can I suggest a space between "Games" and the class for uniformity purposes as well as grammar? Thanks. --haha169 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.  Pagra shtak  17:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please replace some PNGs with SVGs
Please replace Image:Nuvola apps knewsticker.png with Image:Newspaper Cover.svg, Image:Crystal Clear app clock.png with Image:Crystal Clear app clock.svg and Image:Crystal Clear action bookmark.png with Image:Crystal Clear action bookmark.svg (the latter might be in some sub-template, as I couldn't find it in the source code, but the image can be seen here). It Is Me Here (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ The third one was actually on, not this template. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 10:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! It Is Me Here (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fix spacing around "and" when tf2 or tf3 are used.
editprotected The template will currently display "the foo and the bar task forces" (note the missing space before the "and"). This will fix it. Anomie⚔ 18:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ --M ASEM 19:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

request for an infobox flag
a request flag for an infobox would be good like the request flags for screenshot and cover --77.64.134.190 (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

VG importance scale
Can we get the template to link to the new VG importance scale page when you click on priority? じん    ない   23:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Find:


 * Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic


 * Replace it with:


 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment#Importance Scale


 * And you're done! Gary King  ( talk ) 14:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Done.  Pagra shtak  19:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nested importance
editprotected Change the display when using nested in such banners as to display the importance as well in the following manner "WikiProject Video games (Rated -class,  -importance) per the template's talk page since we have our own importance scale.  じん    ない   02:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please give a specific description of which code you want changed. Ideally, copy the template to a sandbox and make the changes there first, so the responding admin can just copy it over wholesale.--Aervanath (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Change: WikiProject Video games to: WikiProject Video games じん   ない   18:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added importance to the banner when nested. In the future, you should put your code in a sandbox so it can be tested first. The code as you have it above does not work well when importance is present but null, and displays a comma and no closing parenthesis when importance is missing. I seem to have lost some white space, if someone cares to try to put it back.  Pagra shtak  21:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Change to use WPBannerMeta
I think this should be the new code. There are a few small differences though. The main one is that the collapsible section and the portal link look different. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can completely understand the reasons for switching to the WPBannerMeta code and almost agree with it, except for a few little things: The portal, I don't like the way the little box squashes all the other text; I prefer how the current version hides unused fields such as rating and importance and hides it when it is set to NA as well; I prefer the smaller "to do" box we have right now on the template. If these issues can be resolved I'd be all for it, but right now the current version is attracting me more. -- .: Alex  :.  17:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the portal link and to-do list can be changed, but I don't think there is a way to hide unused fields. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the portal and to-do list. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this force WP:VG to use things like C-class and List-class if they are implemented project wide, or can we still have our own assessment scale? User:Krator (t c) 18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Yes it will be available as a valid parameter, but if no one uses it, then it isn't used. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder if it's possible to change the WPBannerMeta code to hide those fields? It's worth investigating... Also, it looks much better with the reduced portal box and smaller to do box. -- .: Alex  :.  20:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WPBannerMeta can be great if you're making a new project or for projects whose banners are poorly maintained, but it's probably not needed here. Is there a reason for the standardization? --- RockMFR 02:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason why not, and this is also easier to maintain in the future. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many reasons why not - see above! --- RockMFR 17:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The only still valid concern from above is that unused fields are not hidden. 1≠many. So are there any other reasons? MrKIA11 (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it's the only concern, shouldn't it simply be raised at Template talk:WPBannerMeta to have the template modified? It wouldn't be a very controversial change. Kariteh (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be controversial. I personally like the ???, because it shows that it has not been specified, and it should be. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to bring up this proposal again. Is there a reason not to use it? MrKIA11 (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the only reason against it is the auto-assessing stuff. I still don't see the supposed "many reasons" that RockMFR alluded to. Kariteh (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Change requested
Could anyone remove the old GCOTW tag, since the articles cannot be candidates anymore. Also, keep the "old-GCOTW" tag and fix the part on the front page that says it's inactive.--ZXCVBNM [ TALK] 02:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Categorization of task force articles
Would it be possible to modify the template so that, when the task force designation gets used, the talk page automatically gets categorized just like the WPMILHIST template already does? MuZemike 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Easily done, so more a question of: Would we want to? To what depth? I personally don't see a need for anything past Category:Sega task force articles and certainly wouldn't want anything past that point. --Izno (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I agree. Just a category listing all Sega TF articles, one listing all Arcade TF articles, etc. It doesn't need to go into anything deeper than that. MuZemike 20:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I would suggest asking the rest of the project to see what they want. Two people a consensus does not make. :) --Izno (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration
The template says "Note: Gaming Collaboration of the Week is no longer active, therefore this parameter is deprecated and should no longer be used." Is that true? It seems like the Collaboration of the Week is currently active. — <span style="border:1px solid#000000;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Chicago,sans-serif;"> Levi van Tine  (t – c)  07:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

New Class Images
I hope everyone loves the new class images for template! :D They were for a large update for WPBannerMeta!! I don't think it has ended yet, as it probably will include adding symbols for normal classes a s well.  Dyla nlip  (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. ALL classes now have the icon functionality enabled for them!!! I personally think they look splendid.  Dyla nlip  (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am decidedly not a fan of any of the images. They take up too much space with multiple task forces and are not used except for 'pretty' factor. The same could be achieved with the class images in CSS. --Izno (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

MAIN_CAT paramater
Our previous template did not category every page (see User talk:Xeno/sandbox) into Category:WikiProject Video games as the new code does. If we are going to do this, shouldn't the category be Category:WikiProject Video games articles ? Personally I think the MAIN_CAT should blank, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. – xeno  ( talk ) 19:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this template goes on more than just articles.  Dyla nlip  (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, that's why my vote is for leaving it blank. Right now it has polluted the main project category and I can't even see the subcategories for some reason. – xeno  ( talk ) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why is this template being labeled as a WikiProject Video game article? Look below. You can't blank it. Otherwise, it'll go to that.  Dyla nlip  (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Blanked, and notice how it no longers is in either of the two above mentioned categories. – xeno  ( talk ) 19:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Now the only thing categorizing is the class and importance/priority.  Dyla nlip  (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I could be wrong leaving it blank. Is there a good reason to have every tagged page housed in a single category? (WP Football does, for example) – xeno  ( talk ) 20:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm reverting back to the "...articles" as a main_cat as it seems to be the standard... Other projects don't seem to mind that it's populated by more than just "articles". – xeno  ( talk ) 20:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Other projects don't seem to mind" I mind. I don't like the fact that over 1200 categories under our wing are all now called articles.  Dyla nlip  (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the need for a single category for everything. The categories by class and importance/priority are good as it is. No other main categories are needed.  Dyla nlip  (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (← Unindent) Personally, I think Wikipedia has too many categories. I don't see the need to add another if it is not needed. The quality and importance categories should catch all article pages, and the number of Project pages is small enough we can maintain it with category codes at the bottom of pages. That's just me though.
 * Also, since Template:WPBannerMeta gives the option of having a main category or not, I think the decision is up to us. If it works for them, great. If it's something we want, great too. But I don't think it's anything we have to do. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The benefit I see is that it allow someone to build a list of every single page in the project's scope. – xeno  ( talk ) 14:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A list of project pages or article pages? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Well it would be every single page tagged with WikiProject Video games, which could then be filtered for article/projectspace/etc. Though, I suppose the same thing could be accomplished by simply querying what pages transclude it. – xeno  ( talk ) 16:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess the question is what can we do with such a list; what would we use the information for? If we don't plan on using the category aside from just having it, then I think its best to forgo it and not put the strain on the servers. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Fair enough. Blanked until someone can come up with a reason to have every page under a single category. – xeno  ( talk ) 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What the crap
What the crap happened? Am I the only one who thinks this new code is inferior? For example, why in the hell are templates allowed to have a priority rating? How does that help anything? By the nature of the template we can't stop people from assessing articles as NA, and now we have to dig through that huge category to fix them. It also doesn't seem to sort by namespace automatically, but I'm not an expert. Is this the well-developed consensus? Oh dear... ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  13:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Templates should be assessed as NA and will be automatically if you don't assign a rating (see the top of this page), if someone is giving them a priority rating, ask them to stop... I'm seeking approval for my bot to do WikiProject tagging so if articles get put as priority=NA I can mass-fix them. As far as the new code, I believe most wikiprojects are making the switch to WPBannerMeta... – xeno  ( talk ) 13:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

New Code
'''Okay. This discussion has come to an end. Concensus was to transfer the data along with changing in the below ways. Further discussion, comments and problems should be done below. Thank you.  Dyla nlip ''' (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC) This template needs to be changed to the code found at, as per the consensus here. But first I propose some changes: MrKIA11 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The  and   parameters should be changed from the task force hooks that they are using to the built in parameters, which would save 539 bytes and would only change the size of the pictures slightly.
 * 2) Some of the task force parameter abbreviations should be discussed. Most are fine, but I think there should be some uniformity to all of them. (i.e.  to  ), and possibly change all of the parameters to the full name of the task force, so the abbrieviation does not have to be looked up every time to see how that particular task force was named.
 * Opposition to #1 - Larger and more clear images are better for illustrating a notice. Also, using our own parameters would allow us to customize it when need be.
 * Opposition to #2 - Adding the full name of every task force into the parameters would be counterintuitive to #1, which aims at saving bytes.
 * Those are my two oppositons. Simply transfer the code and get done with it. I got a large project that I'm needing to start. Consensus was already reached for simple transferral. Stop delaying the transfer by making us go through more consensus.  Dyla nlip  (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Achieving consensus now is to prevent problems later. Please wait until more people are able to weigh in on this issue. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm indifferent to the first item, but I agree that the full task force names should be used. Yes it will increase the byte size, but I believe it will be more user friendly to those unfamiliar with wiki code and templates. Templates lose value when only a select number know how to use them. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC))
 * (haven't looked at the meta code) is it possible to use both the full names and an abbreviation? – xeno  ( talk ) 16:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case I think the full names are better. – xeno  ( talk ) 16:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're saying you'd rather have SuperSmashBrothers= as a parameter insted of SSB=? That's plain ridiculous. It's a waste of space, and it's even WORSE for newer members. Besides, newer members don't get involved in this sort of thing. And plus, part of my project includes replacing the old code that still stays in the Task Force pages. That's actually helping the newer members. If you're talking about the name that shows up when displayed, that's already in full. Look at the template. The only thing abbreviated is the parameter, because longer parameters = larger size template takes up = wasted bytes.  Dyla nlip  (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How is worse for newer members? They don't have to find out the abbrieviation. It's always the same as the task force name. Plus you picked the longest one, I'm guessing on purpose. And bytes are not an issue. Usability comes before size worries. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You never answered my first question. Do you support the change of parameter from SSB= to SuperSmashBrothers=? Also, do you think abbreviations are bad for new members, even though new members don't go near this sort of thing?  Dyla nlip  (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of saying everything twice, I'm going to continue this below. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the task force parameters kind of misleading, where it says  as opposed to the current   parameter.
 * We don't have a formal B-Class (or A-Class in that matter) assessment scheme, so I don't know if having the,  , etc. parameters are necessary. just having a B parameter would be I think OK.
 * I don't object to keeping this one, but note that WP:VG/C is inactive, so I don't know if having the  or   parameters are really needed. That is, unless that page gets revived again like GCOTW was.
 * Just some thoughts on. MuZemike 17:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The benefit of using is that all of this is easily changed. I agree with not needing the B-class checklist, and if we ever created a formal B-class process, we could add it back easily. The same thing with cleanup; it is unnecessary now, but if it ever is revived, it is easy to add back. As far as the taskforces go, I vote for the new way. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another point to bring up is that the code is now setup to change importance to priority. I'm indifferent on this, except that it might be odd when there are multiple project templates on a talk page, some of which use importance, and ours that uses priority. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * @ Muze, I believe the reason for the new taskforce treatment is a particular page may fall under more than one task force. – xeno  ( talk ) 17:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the current template supports multiple (I think someone mentioned up to three) task forces, using,  , and   paramaters. I suppose my question is that are we gaining or losing any functionality from going to the new way of designating task forces besides bringing the max up to five? MuZemike 20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the new way makes them more prominent, which could help improve their lack of activity. Other than that, I don't see any article needing more than two task forces looking over it. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Exactly. Task forces can now display logos, will show up seperatly to give more prominence to each one, and can be completely customized.(Using task force parameters to make up notices/alerts) Also, the current template supports three taskforces. The new one supports an unlimited number.(Thanks to the tf hook)  Dyla nlip  (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The new format gains the ability to have as many tasks forces as needed, no limit, and each one has it's own line, unlike before, which was is supported by tf1, tf2, and t3. We also have the ability to have the pages categorized by task force, which I think would be a good idea, as it makes it easier for the task forces to see all the pages that fall under their scope. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is something I fully agree with you on. Everything has been settled and consensus has been reached for everything except for the naming problem. Parameters are not meant to have the full name used. Do you ever see cleanreq= written as CleanupRequest=? Or old-GCOTW= as ArchivedGamingCollaborationoftheWeek=? Shortening the parameters makes everything simpler. This includes task forces.  Dyla nlip  (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't explicitly say it, I thought I made it clear, I support . It is bad to assume what new members are going to do. Someone might be interested in a task force, and feel like making sure all the pages are tagged with the parameter. It's impossible to know what individuals are going to be interested in doing. Those individual parameters are not the same as the 22 task forces that IMO should have some consistency to their parameters. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dylanlip- I mean this in as polite a way as possible, but I think you're confusing shorter more compact coding for simplistic user friendliness. While many VG members are in favor of the new format, very few are actually adept at template syntax and may not be sure what details the change actually entails. We can take some time to get this sorted out right this one time instead of tweaking as we go. You won't have to do all the template changes yourself either; we can help with it. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Can the task forces be associated with two parameters as is done on Template:MILHIST? —Ost (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. doesn't support it, AFAIK. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. doesn't support it, AFAIK. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the template, please change:

to

Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Current Code Discussion
&larr; It's been a while and no one else has really chimed in about the two issues above. Consensus seems to be that the full task force names are better, and its leaning towards using the built-in paramaters rather than a tf-hook hack for the first issue. Have we gotten the list of task force pages yet? Anything else stopping us from implementing this? Standing by to editprotected... – xeno  ( talk ) 18:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:WikiProject Video games banners using deprecated parameters is being populated with the pages using deprecated parameters. This will require us to keep a small part of code for the new template until that category is emptied, at which time the code can be removed. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no one really commented on the 1st change except for me and some other guy who said he was indifferent to it. I don't find that leaning towards the built-in-parameters. My argument still stands that the hook allows for a more prominent displaying of the notices, along with the ability to customize, and the ability to place the notices wherever we need them. If the image is not prominntly displayed, an editor could skip over it without a second thought. It's useful to do it this way.  Dyla nlip  (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it not prominent? With the template fully expanded with every parameter, of course it is just another small line, but in a real article, there will normally be 2-5 lines (class, importance, task forces, and notices) and it will be easily noticeable. Also, why would we need to customize it? And even if we ever did need to customize it, we can change it back to the task force hook at any time. It just isn't worth the extra code right now. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree. K.I.S.S. &c. – xeno  ( talk ) 18:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick question, what is the difference between the two parameters we're looking at right now? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
 * For the  &  ? None. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My main concern is usability. So if the names are the same, the only differences are icon size and a bit or extra code.
 * On one side, a larger icon size would make the items more prominent. However, the size difference is almost negligible, and other icons would draw attention to them just as easily. On the other side, the full task force names do bloat the template more and trimming code here and there certainly wouldn't hurt. But talk pages rarely have enough templates on them to max out the transclusion limits, so template size isn't that big an issue.
 * To be honest, I don't think the pros and cons carry much weight one way or the other. Are there any other factors to consider? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The fact of the matter is, if someone is going to do a major cleanup effort on an article, they are going to trawl through the categories, not by some random-chance of seeing a slightly bigger "needs-infobox" or "attention" icon. Simplicity in our template by using built-in parameters is a greater net benefit. – xeno  ( talk ) 14:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request
The description of the request can be found below. The request is for the code in WP VG to replace the code used by WikiProject Video games, in an effort to get the template to use WPBannerMeta. Full consensus for the transfer was formed here. The need to transfer is very urgent, as it is needed to start a large, 5-month spanning project that will involve fixing 20,000+ articles/pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanlip (talk • contribs) 16:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the rush? – xeno  ( talk ) 16:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you would look at the template you just added, it specifically states to request edits that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus, neither of which apply. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC) I made a request here. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If we replace the code (it actually needs to be histmerged) won't we lose the ability to track down the task force tagged articles easily? We should generate those lists first. – xeno  ( talk ) 17:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll put in a bot request unless yours can handle it xeno. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, that's beyond my limited expertise. – xeno  ( talk ) 17:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. I'm still going through all of the articles. No point in making a bot if someone is willing to do the work themself. And the rush is to get it done quickly. I have the next 3 days free, so if it can be done quickly, I can quickly begin the project.  Dyla nlip  (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just said. There's no point in making a bot if there's a person willing to perform the task, as humans are more reliable than bots, and that I can personally check every article for problems, glitches, changes of class, etc. Bots can not do this.  Dyla nlip  (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems that the Bot request has been . Now onto the real issue of resolving the naming problem and getting an admin.  Dyla nlip  (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't rejected, just answered in a way that at least I did not think of. Let's keep the task force naming discussion in the above section though to make it easier. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that a bot is less reliable than a human. It's noble that you want to sort through all these articles, but it should not be necessary to manually convert data from one template to another.  I understand wanting to fill in and update information in the new template, but this can be done in parallel with the bot. A one-shot bot conversion will get the template in place more quickly and get users familiar sooner than a manual approach. —Ost (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the idea of my project running parallel to the bot makes a lot of sense. The bot could initially replace the code, then I could check each instance for errors, change of class, importance, task forces, etc. I misunderstood before; I thought that the bot would completely replace my job, but this idea helped me understand that. Thanks!  Dyla nlip  (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The bot has ✅ all of the grunt work, feel free to do the stuff that requires human attention at your convenience =) – xeno  ( talk ) 23:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I found something odd. When they transferred over the template, they forgot to replace all instances of Template:WP VG with Template:WikiProject Video games in the Task force hook parameters, which caused the remaining 23 or so task forces and alerts to work only on WP VG, but not this one. Simply replace the instances of WP VG with WikiProject Video games to solve the problem.  Dyla nlip  (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good eye - . – xeno  ( talk ) 12:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge complete
Since the above discussion had gone stale, I've gone ahead and completed the merge, using the expanded task force names, and the built in parameters. I'm going to leave the template unprotected for the time being, in case any changes need to be made. Poke me when its ready to be protected. – xeno  ( talk ) 22:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tweaks, MrKIA11. I've re-established the protection for now (forgot what day it was), so just throw up a edit-protected request or let me know if further changes are neded. – xeno  ( talk ) 05:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In case anyone is curious, there are 8821 transclusions of Cvgproj and 1046 transclusions of Vgproj. Too many to change as there is no visible effect; however, if someone is already re-assessing those articles then it could be updated to WikiProject Video games. Nil on WPVG/WP VG at the moment. I've deleted all other redirects. – xeno  ( talk ) 13:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Opinion: Scrap WPVG and WP VG. I see no reason to add more redirects when the more semantic name is already in use on the majority of pages. --Izno (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've deleted WP VG but I'm going to leave WPVG up for now, because 1) it's been in place since 2006 and 2) it provides easy access to reach this template and talk page, even if it isn't used in transclusions. No prejudice to RFD if someone really wants it gone =] –  xeno  ( talk ) 18:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lost functionality?
It seems that linking directly to the peer review subpage is no longer available (it was before, yes?). Also, the ability to point an old-peer to a different location (as described here) is lost. Fixed at, still in place at Talk:Everybody's Golf (series) (formerly "Hot Shots Golf (series)"), Talk:Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto), Talk:Sega Mega Drive. if you want to try to re-add the functionality. – xeno  ( talk ) 22:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please re-add functionality lost described above by changing: |tf 3= |TF_3_LINK           = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Archive |TF_3_NAME           = old-peer |TF_3_IMAGE          = Cvg peerreview icon.png |TF_3_TEXT           = This article has an archived VG peer review that may contain ideas for improvement. |TF_3_MAIN_CAT       = Old requests for CVG peer review to |tf 3= |TF_3_LINK           = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Archive |TF_3_NAME           = old-peer |TF_3_IMAGE          = Cvg peerreview icon.png |TF_3_TEXT           = This article has an archived VG peer review that may contain ideas for improvement. |TF_3_MAIN_CAT       = Old requests for CVG peer review Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. – xeno  ( talk ) 17:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm doesn't seem to have fixed things (see the three examples above I've now changed to "old-peer"). – xeno  ( talk ) 17:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I inaccurately assumed how the template worked. Apparently no matter what is input for, it is defaulted to yes or no. I will continue to look for a fix, but in the meantime, that edit can be undone or not. No difference. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This should do for now (added paramater "old-peer-location"). – xeno  ( talk ) 19:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the sandbox for a few fixes which include: Not sure if all of these changes are unanimous, but some can be used and others not. And if anyone cares about size, it saves about 1,400 bytes. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The "task forces" that weren't actually task forces (i.e. requests for screenshot and cover) are now considered notes.
 * 2) The peer review parameters now use the peer review hook, and support the specification of a location, by only using one parameter.
 * 3) The collaboration parameters now use the collaboration hook.
 * Seems reasonable to me. What changes will the bot need to make for #2? – xeno  ( talk ) 15:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the reason they were used in the task force parameters was because WPBannerMeta only supports up to 5 notes/alerts. I've actually tried it before in WP VG, and it didn't show all the notes.  Dyla nlip  (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we're only using 3? – xeno  ( talk ) 15:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The bot will not have to make any changes for #2, the three pages that are effected can be changed back manually to . As far as the notes go, there were originally 7, but since the peer and collaboration parameters were changed to their own hooks, there are now only 3. There is also a hook for additional notes if we prefer to go that route. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please copy the sandbox. Also, was the |last edit agreed on anywhere? It basically just made the task forces show up in the template header, but is the general consensus that we want that? MrKIA11 (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done... I'll ping happy-melon if you haven't already. – xeno  ( talk )
 * Thanks for pinging me, Xeno. The sandbox edit included all the fixes I made, as best I can determine, just in a different order. Good work, MrKIA11!  The only thing omitted was, as you say, the tfnested hooks which add the taskforce name to the collapsed display.  If you decide you want them (and of course you don't have to, although the majority of projects do use them) just dig the code out of my version and add them on HOOK_NESTED.  Nice template! <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 14:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Taskforce Names in Header
Great, so now about the nested hook. Do we want it?
 * Neutral - It doesn't matter to me, I just like to have consensus, as not having it can lead to crazy arguments down the road. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Space in Task Force
The newest task force, id Software, has a space in the parameter, but all of the other task force parameters are space-less. IMO, all of them should be the same. Should we change the new task force, or the old ones? MrKIA11 (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would personally prefer "id Software", but that's a lot more work than "idSoftware". For which we could bot it and not have a problem either way, in which case it simply takes extra time. --Izno (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

New task force
Could the new Dungeons & Dragons task force be added to the template? The image could be Rpg_video_game.svg. — <span style="border:1px solid#000000;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Chicago,sans-serif;"> Levi van Tine  (t – c)  06:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I updated the sandbox to add this task force, but should the parameter be D&D or Dungeons&Dragons. The subpage is D&D, but the full name is obviously Dungeons & Dragons. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * D&D should be fine for the parameter, as long as the corresponding title is "This article is supported by the Dungeons & Dragons task force". — <span style="border:1px solid#000000;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Chicago,sans-serif;"> Levi van Tine  (t – c)  12:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please copy the sandbox. It enables the D&D parameter for the task force. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --M ASEM (t) 18:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Priority vs. Importance
The paramater calls for "importance", should we be renaming all the "Priority" verbiage to importance? – xeno  ( talk ) 18:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That problem has to be brought up here. They may be able to make a hook for that.  Dyla nlip  (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the sandbox to go back to importance. I think that is better since all other VG pages refer to it as importance, not priority. As a side note, the sandbox also removes the old parameter checking since the category is now empty. Any problems? MrKIA11 (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please copy the sandbox, which reverts back to importance and removes the old parameter checking. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done it. Please create the categories, thanks. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've created the categories, deleted the old ones, will the bot Assessment 1.0 automatically pick up the new names and fix our matrix? –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 18:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It should do. We'll find out on the next bot run. By the way, do you guys want to define the NESTED parameters, so that the taskforces display on the collapsed version? (Note that the tfnested hook is needed for the additional ones.) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My vote is to not use them. IMO, just the WikiProject should be in the title. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Update link
Small request that any admins can fill—update the link in the "portal" thing from Portal:Video game to Portal:Video games. Thanks. Tezkag72 (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewording the cover request sentences
I was just thinking that the cover request needs to be rewording from "A request for box art or an application icon has been made to help better illustrate the article." to changing the "application icon" part to logo as it seems to be more relavent in what is used as the infobox image. Salavat (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference library
editprotected Please copy the sandbox to fix the following issues: Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Added BioWare taskforce
 * Changed application icon to logo
 * Changed Magazine Archive to Reference library


 * ✅ the request, not sure about the question. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 20:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fastest  response I've ever seen. Thanks. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pays to have an admin on the payroll ;> –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 20:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Should the  parameter be changed to something like  ? MrKIA11 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If no one objects, I'm going to update the parameter from  to  . MrKIA11 (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would that not affect any existing uses? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to find the few pages that use  and change them. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Atlus task force
Please copy the sandbox to add the new Atlus task force. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC) I agree, we should add the task forces. It's been discussed multiple times, and there is at least consensus for that, if that is possible. We don't need a breakdown of the task force's quality/importance. --Izno (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. I just added it to the end, hope that's okay. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think alphabetical is much better. The sandbox is already changed so you can just copy and paste if you don't mind. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Any objections to me removing all the unused parameters from the code? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which parameters are unused? MrKIA11 (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All the ones which are undefined. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, do you mean the ones like task force image parameters but don't have an image? OK, I removed them from the sandbox. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All done. I don't really understand why this project uses taskforce options in the banner, because you don't use them to categorise any of the articles ... &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would we need to categorize via task force? The link back on any given talk page suffices; we use it to pull in contributors who stumble onto the talk pages of our articles. --Izno (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but usually taskforces like to be able to see which articles are within their scope, so that they can prioritise the work, etc. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, here I am arguing against a past self. I have previously advocated for categories based on task forces (only as far as Category:Sega task force articles). Wow, why am I arguing against myself?

&larr; I've seen some projects that use a task-force importance, but I think it's overkill. Categories would be nice... –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 20:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

another new taskforce
Sorry to bother you guys, but could the Soul series task force be added to the template? File:SOUL-taskforce.png should work for the icon.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

new task force
Could you add the Dragon Quest task force WP:DQ to the list? Right now there is no icon. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you guys trying to compete with WPAUSTRALIA for number of taskforces? Added both. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Red Faction task force
editprotected Please copy the sandbox to add the new Red Faction task force. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold. I don't believe that Red Faction was discussed on the main talk page, and should be first before addition. --Izno (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just assumed since it was already added to the sidebar. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ Re-request after you guys discuss then :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Book-class
Could you change all extended to subpage per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. This will enabled the book-class for WPVG. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Grah, e/c. Apparently you missed one MSGJ :D —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You wait all day for an admin and then two come along at once ;) Thanks for fixing my omission! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Retro games task force
A new task force has been created: WikiProject Video games/Retro games. There is currently no designated icon, but the other appropriate template changes would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC))
 * ✅ MrKIA11 (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Retro task force has decided on an icon: File:Retro games logo.png. Could it be added to the template? (Guyinblack25 talk 23:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC))
 * ✅, it can. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested change
I've made a new icon with vector graphics instead of the old bitmapped thingy. So if you please can change to it would be great. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 09:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Task force request
Can someone add the Indie Task Force (WikiProject Video games/Indie) to the list, the parameter we want to use is Indie=yes. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games for more info. Thanks! --Teancum (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

editrequested. SixthAtom (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Um, you need to provide the exact info we need to make the edit. We can't go comb through all the sections of a long talk page to figure out what to do, when that's what you should have done for us. Admins aren't necessarily template experts. As an example, take a look at Template talk:Convert/updates - form your request like that, and we can help. I'll leave your request up - you may get lucky. ;-)  K rakatoa    K atie   05:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

editrequested Here is the exact new source markup:. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Strategy games
Please enable a flag for the strategy task force, so we can get rid of Template:WikiProject Strategy games. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  04:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, once this flag is enabled, we can have a bot set it for articles containing both templates, then removing the strategy template. The rest of the articles will have to be sorted manually. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  05:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Pres N  22:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Please collapse "Things you can help with" by default
Is there any reason why the "Things you can help with" section is expanded by default? When I to go an article's talk page, I want to participate in a discussion about that article, not be spammed with some project's giant task list. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is collapsed by default for me. I'm not sure if that's a preference thing. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. I tried later with another browser and it is now collapsed. Thanks, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, I can see why that would be annoying. MrKIA11 (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

PlayStation and Insomniac
edit protected Please add PlayStation and Insomniac task force so we can get rid of the WikiProject PlayStation banner since I have work some in the sandbox, since both have converted into task forces of WP:VG in February. Also, please remove the Super Smash Brothers task force, since Super Smash Brothers task force has been merged into Nintendo task force. JJ98 (Talk)  21:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I note that two days ago User:Rich Farmbrough edited this template to change the category Category:Video games articles needing attention to Category:Video game articles needing attention. (He should probably have discussed this first.) The last change reverted this; was this intentional? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably, I think this was intentional. No worries. I am off to remove the WikiProject PlayStation and add a task force for WP:VG myself. I am going to add Tdeprecated tag on the PlayStation WikiProject banner, similar to WikiProject Space which was deprecated back in March, fowling the abolishment of WP:SPACE back in December. JJ98 (Talk)  12:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me changing the PlayStation parameter from  to   (capitalize the 'S')? I'll update any existing  calls. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

imagedetails
Could you please add the parameter imageneeded to the template so that cases were a specific screenshot is requested it can be documented without having to duplicate the request with the reqscreenshot template, as for example with Talk:Tetris Attack. Source code done in Template:WikiProject Video games/sandbox.--Traveler100 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Remove two task forces (editprotected)
editprotected I boldly redirected the Suikoden task force as a part of the project cleanup, and the Destroy All Humans! task force was deleted today. I am requesting removal of these two from the template. What should be the correct code can be found in the Template:WikiProject Video games/sandbox, though my second edit there is welcome for review. --Izno (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that Ruslik dealt with one of them, but am still requesting a full sync from the sandbox to remove the other. --Izno (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ruslik_ Zero 18:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Call of Duty
edit protected Please add the Call of duty task force. This image should work; File:CallofDutyTaskForceLogo.png. If you need anything else, please ask :).Cheers, Riley Huntley  (Click here to reply)   23:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Xbox task force
Please add the Xbox task force, along with few portals for each task forces, and MAIN_CAT script to populate any articles. Thanks. JJ98 (Talk) 04:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding to the Xbox part of the request: you can use this image File:Xboxlogo-custom.png and link to WikiProject Video games/Xbox and follow the form of the other task force additions. czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I think I got all the different requests here. Feel free to reactivate the edit protected template if there's anything I missed. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 12:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I uselessly edit around the sandbox myself, looks fine to me right now. JJ98 (Talk) 10:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The Xbox TF is missing its importance ratings. Since the project banner this is supposed to replace supports importance ratings, and the other project that supports Xbox, WikiProject Microsoft also supports importance ratings (|xbox-importance=), this needs to be added here. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: None of the other task forces in WikiProject Video games have individual importance scales, so it doesn't look like there is a prior consensus for this change. This change would have quite large repercussions for the project, so you should probably leave a message on the main project talk page and see if you can get a consensus for the change there. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  (have a chat) 07:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Change "pro gaming" to "eSports"
The pro gaming task force has been renamed to eSports. Can somebody change this template to reflect this? Once the change is made, I can go through articles containing progaming=yes and replace it with esports=yes. <span style="text-shadow:#404 0.2em 0.2em 0.8em;font-family:Franklin Gothic Book, Calibri">—Entropy (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was planning on doing it and doing an AWB run to make sure no article is missed in about 48hrs, if it can wait and it's not done by then. Note the actual parameter us "eSports=yes"  Salvidrim!    &#9993;  08:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem on PES 2014
Hello i have a problem on PES 2014 article, everyone users make fake things cannot be revealed include soundtrack could be included fake title UK as Pro Evo Soccer 2014 Kick Off, can you please fully protect this article please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotsushi-kun (talk • contribs) 11:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Appears to have been posted here accidentally—replied on user's talk page czar   &middot;   &middot;  17:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 June 2013
I would like to have the image for the Sega parameter (supported by the Sega task force) changed from TSPGaogierNonTransparentLogo.svg to SEGA_logo.svg because the logo currently there is outdated by some five years and is currently not used by the project. The current logo used by the Sega task force is the company logo for Sega, which is currently a free image too simple to be protected by copyright.

Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 22:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done! Although wouldn't it be better to simply remove the image, since it now appears twice? Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  02:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Feature brainstorm for Module:WikiProjectBanner
I'm in the early stages of developing a Lua-based replacement for WPBannerMeta, and I would appreciate peoples ideas for features. If there is anything that you have wanted to do with your WikiProject template, but haven't been able to due to limitations in the meta-template, I would be very interested to hear it. The discussion is over at Template talk:WPBannerMeta. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessing redirects
See discussion about changing current practices at the project's talk page. czar  &middot;   &middot;  00:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Draft classification/assessment
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games czar  ♔  15:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Draftspace support has been implemented if someone with the tools is ready to modify our banner czar  ♔  19:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If nobody has done it by then, I might give it a spin sometimes this weekend, like I did with Redirects. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Requesting a change for the Valve task force logo
We've recently redesigned the Valve Task Force page and I would appreciate if its logo were changed to the lambda we're using, rather than the older orange box icon.

Thanks, --Nicereddy (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Portals mess up whitespace
The few task forces with linked portals make the spacing all wonky for those items. I tried messing with the CSS but I can't exactly find why the TFs with portals can't sit nicely inline with the others. Any ideas? czar ♔  22:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: some assessment categories
Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games, can we try adding  and   to give the automatic assessment tables a go? czar ♔  22:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Pres N  23:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Task force cleanup
Part 1: Please push the sandbox's changes (diff) as the first part of the task force cleanup. I need Blizzard and Rockstar parameters (order in the template doesn't matter right now) for me to merge those projects related. In the future and pending further consensus, I'll move to add and remove the other params. czar ♔  04:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  12:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Replacing to do with announcements
Per consensus here, requesting a push of the updates from the sandbox. (diff) czar ♔  01:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  12:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Reassessment param
Please push the "reassess" param update (and minor typo fixes) from the sandbox version (comparison). Relevant thread and growing consensus at Wikipedia_talk:VG. Can always BRD if necessary. czar ♔  17:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done but I left a note at WT:VG -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 June 2014
Can we put this image for the VN taskforce? -- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 19:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * When displayed in the wikiproject banner, it will be scaled to 25 pixels: Visual novel stub icon.gif. I think the image isn't effective at that size; it' very hard to make out what is displayed on the screen. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's better than nothing, though I also think you can do better. I also recommend getting consensus on the taskforce talk page czar ♔   22:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I agree with  here, so there is no consensus for this.  Please establish one. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 22:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Indie task force icon
Please push  as the indie task force icon as tested in the sandbox and per consensus at WT:VG. czar ♔   03:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * After having read the discussion, I find myself unable to ignore Lucia's (however poorly presented) arguments, so I will not personally complete this edit request because I object to using a specific game to represent an entire genre. I won't decline it in case someone else wants to take the responsibility for pushing it through. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  03:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I read the whole discussion (what a waste of time) and find that there is consensus. Lucia may have had a point but I'm not going to let one editor block a broad consensus. Ultimately it's a trivial matter, but some members of this WikiProject obviously feel it's important and if this motivates them then we should make the change. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of deprecating defunct & inactive task forces
WT:VG – czar   18:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

WT:VG – czar   04:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Deprecating the "needs attention" param
WT:VG – czar   02:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Deprecating peer review and GCOTW
<blockquote style="background:#f5faff; border: 1px solid black; padding: 1em;">

We don't do in-project peer reviews anymore (via this template), but by the sitewide peer review process. We also don't have project collaborations (article of the week) anymore because they weren't popular ideas. I propose that we deprecate the peer and GCOTW params. If there is consensus for this, we can then discuss whether we deprecate the old peer review and old GCOTW params (likely by first moving the old peer review pages to match the current peer review page title formats and compiling all old GCOTW entries into a list). – czar   15:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments category
At the moment we have  which requires the existence of  which isn't going to happen per this CfD in November so either this needs switching off or pointing to a more suitable category that begins with WikiProject or similar. Le Deluge (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If Video game articles with comments is blanked or removed, the sole member of the category (Talk:List of Red vs. Blue special episodes) will be transferred to, which is a soft-redirect. Perhaps the content of Talk:List of Red vs. Blue special episodes/Comments should be copied to Talk:List of Red vs. Blue special episodes (plus a suitable heading), so that Talk:List of Red vs. Blue special episodes/Comments can be deleted, which will allow the removal of both COMMENTS andCOMMENTS_CAT - also the deletion of under WP:CSD. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A single comment from 7 years ago is unlikely to be that useful now, so I have just redirected Talk:List of Red vs. Blue special episodes/Comments to the talk page and removed the comments parameters. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * won't prevent other WikiProjects from treating the talk page as having comments though. Indeed, even after a WP:NULLEDIT, the talk page is still in, , , ; this categorisation is dependent merely on the existence of the /Comments page, not on what it contains. In addition, the message "Information icon.svg This article has an assessment summary page." is displayed at the bottom of the box; this message can be suppressed by blanking the /Comments page. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, it will detect a blank /Comments page and treat it as non-existent. But the means of detecting redirects was not available at that time, so it might be a good idea to add this functionality. Better still, would be to abolish these subpages altogether. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would think that the only way to get those banners to stop saying "we have a comments page" is to make similar edits to those banners based on similar consensuses for those WikiProjects. Why would the discussion at TT:WPVG be a consensus for those changes? --Izno (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've made a small change to WPBS so that redirects are not treated as valid pages for these comments. I can make a similar to change shortly to WPBM. In the long term though, I think we should get rid of these pages. If anyone wants to help with this effort, please let me know! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 July 2016
Change Category:Video game articles needing reassessment to Category:Wikipedia video game articles for reassessment, per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_14. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)