Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Workshop

Getting started
Feel free to hack this page in any way you see fit. Jaco plane  18:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My proposal
Here's my proposal for how this Workshop-type thing could work. So first off, I nominate an article, say Dual Strike. It goes in some preliminary section where people can vote for an article to be "accepted" into the workshop. Well, it's more of Supporting than voting, since there would be no competition. You basically have, say, a couple days to get x number of votes (something low, maybe 3-5). I think a voting system of sorts would be important 'cuz otherwise it's more of a noticeboard. After that, Dual Strike is moved to a new page/section where all the other ongoing collabs are. For each article there's this "roster" where people can put their name up, to signify their helping out with this article. Then there's a little place where links of interest might be, like Peer Reviews and FA Nominations (failed) of old, that people can check out.

Eventually the articles would have to "expire" probably, like most article collabs do. After that. it's moved into the archives, where all the other old collabs are. There for each article is a list of the people that worked on it, and one of those links like in the GCOTW box that shows the old and new versions of the article, and how much it expanded (or shrunk, if it was a long article). And that's basically it. I think a system along this lines would be a good idea; feedback appreciated.

-- gakon5


 * How about a separate "vote" to say "This article is Print Quality", both taking it out of the workshop and recording the date of the most recent version (a "Stable" version) for whoever wants to use it (the 1.0 group in particular)? Nifboy 00:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, someone could propose that this article is good how it is (not to discourage further editing, but to signify serious work is over for the most part). Although the articles would probably have to have an expiration date to leave room for other articles.
 * You know, we need to get the ball rolling. You know, identify how the whole admition-to-Workshopness process will work, templates, etc.  Then maybe we can start putting up articles to... work on.  Since it's called the Workshop and everything. -- gakon5

Multiple articles?
When I first saw this, I was under the impression that multiple articles would be "active" collaborations in the Workshop. But then, the wording of the section How to nominate ("Focus of the Workshop") got me thinking then, that it's a one article collab, just like any other. Maybe this will be adressed later, but I figured it was more like Join in than, say, WP:GCOTW. -- gakon5 00:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can do both? I think we should have one focus, lets say for a period of two or three weeks, and then also have a listing of articles (5) that people can feel free to join in on. What do you guys think? --larsinio ( poke )( prod )
 * I like it, maybe a certain collab could be "featured" or something? Maybe because it has a lot of people working on it or something, or some sort of thing called like, "Primary Focus."  Where did I come up with that? -- gakon5 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that a single 'featured' workshop article is too few, and five would be far too many. I have an alternative proposal:
 * Users nominate articles, just as with Peer Review. At any time, there might be 5-10 nominated articles.
 * The top two most supported nominations become the current Workshop articles: that is, we have two to focus on at a time.
 * When an article achieves FA status, or some other ending criterion (for instances, a certain level of inactivity, or another article becomes wildly popular), it is removed from the Workshop and replaced with the next most supported nomination.
 * This idea probably needs fleshing out, but I'm hoping it deals with the issue of multiple nominations reasonably well. What thinks you? RandyWang ( raves/rants ) 23:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Woah, someone edited this page! Awesome!
 * I think the basic concept is that, in the Workshop, you assemble a group of several people to help you improve an article flagged "essential." Because of this however, we'd have to encourage actually taking part in and being dedicated to the imrpovement of articles you vote for.  Not like the GCOTW where only half the people that vote actually do anything; heck, it wouldn't really be a vote anyway, since there would be multiple collabs running at once.  It just boils down to a small group of people who can work together to make an Essential article better.
 * We could probably consider this project live (may need to make a template or two, which I can do), but most people have forgotten about it I guess. -- gakon5 23:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I edited this page ;) We should probably get to it, since we can always alter the process as problems turn up. If you put together some templates, we can get started right away. :) RandyWang ( raves/rants ) 06:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, got two for nominations Cvg-workshop-nomination and active ones Cvg-workshop-active The active template has a little editable member list embedded in it.  If you wanted to get really crazy though, you could integrate a Show/Hide to-do list into it as well... or just use the to-do template.
 * So yeah, it's basically live. I'm going to go put up a notice on the WP talk page and see if we can't get some nominations going.  I'm going to head over to the Essential page and pick something out myself right now. -- gakon5 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we live?
Are we nominating articles for this now? Are people participating in this? Manmonk 02:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at the moment, but I don't see why it shouldn't be. We might need to set up two or three templates maybe (unless it's deemed unnessesery to have 'em or something), but we probably wouldn't need them really.  I've actually got some ready to use if we need to.  -- gakon5 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)