CZ Talk:Video Games Subgroup: Difference between revisions
imported>Nick Bagnall (added plan) |
imported>Jess Key |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
But this is the result of months of (admittedly sporadic, but sometimes laborious) reading and work. The structure/subdivision alone took me quite a long time to finally settle on. I invite anyone to read and comment. Please tell me what you think! Do you think that my proposed changes, when refined, would be superior to the current video game article? (Per CZ policy, huge changes should be discussed beforehand.) [[User:Nick Bagnall|Nick Bagnall]] 12:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | But this is the result of months of (admittedly sporadic, but sometimes laborious) reading and work. The structure/subdivision alone took me quite a long time to finally settle on. I invite anyone to read and comment. Please tell me what you think! Do you think that my proposed changes, when refined, would be superior to the current video game article? (Per CZ policy, huge changes should be discussed beforehand.) [[User:Nick Bagnall|Nick Bagnall]] 12:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
: You posted this at a good time, as I was about to start a discussion on the future of that page. I've taken a look at your work and have made some comments on the more developed sections [[User:Chris Key/Sandbox|here]] if you would like to look (keep an eye out for words in bold and linked ref marks, which is where my comments are. Do I think it would be superior to the current article? Perhaps, or at least it would probably provide a better point to start. The current article is disjointed and has out-of-date information. | |||
: I would say that the best move now would be to go for it. If there are no objections from others then I would suggest that you take out your notes, completely blank out any sections that are completely undeveloped (although leave the headings), and upload the article to the main page. Something like [[User:Chris Key/Sandbox/2|this]]. Then we can begin some real collaborative work on it, and work towards getting it ready for approval. --[[User:Chris Key|Chris Key]] 19:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:18, 29 March 2010
 | |||||||
| Main article | Home | Talk | All articles (85) | Citable (3) | Members (4) | Recent changes | |
| Affiliation: Games (Recent changes)| Computers (Recent changes)| [ e ] | |||||||
Video game/Catalogs/Games by genre
While I like the idea of cataloging games by genre, I don't agree with having one big list that would quickly become huge. Instead I would suggest:
- Video game will have the related article video game genres
- Video game genres will have links to each of the genres, such as Massively multiplayer online role-playing game.
- Each genre could then have a catalog like Massively multiplayer online role-playing game/Catalog/Games within the genre.
--Chris Key 12:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Plan to heavily rework the video game article
You can see some of the work in my sandbox. Obviously it requires a lot of editing--I've left in some large block quotes (some of which have citations noted, some of which do not), there are occasional notes and reminders to myself, there are misplaced paragraphs, and so on. I need to reword a lot of sentences. Some sections need expansion; others require reduction. I know it's not at all complete.
But this is the result of months of (admittedly sporadic, but sometimes laborious) reading and work. The structure/subdivision alone took me quite a long time to finally settle on. I invite anyone to read and comment. Please tell me what you think! Do you think that my proposed changes, when refined, would be superior to the current video game article? (Per CZ policy, huge changes should be discussed beforehand.) Nick Bagnall 12:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- You posted this at a good time, as I was about to start a discussion on the future of that page. I've taken a look at your work and have made some comments on the more developed sections here if you would like to look (keep an eye out for words in bold and linked ref marks, which is where my comments are. Do I think it would be superior to the current article? Perhaps, or at least it would probably provide a better point to start. The current article is disjointed and has out-of-date information.
- I would say that the best move now would be to go for it. If there are no objections from others then I would suggest that you take out your notes, completely blank out any sections that are completely undeveloped (although leave the headings), and upload the article to the main page. Something like this. Then we can begin some real collaborative work on it, and work towards getting it ready for approval. --Chris Key 19:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)