Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

List of projects and taskforces

I guess let's try to pick up where we left off. Here was the compiled list from the previous discussion. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

See Project page for current listing: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup#Projects

Methodology

So what do we do for these projects? Blank them, state they are inactive, and direct discussion to WP:VG? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to blank them. I remember someone mentioning downgrading the projects to taskforces with a subpage on the VG Project name space. I think a simple move should facilitate it. As to what to do for inactive taskforces, I'm not sure. At the very least, they should all be slapped with an inactive tag. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

I'd like to add Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games to the list of inactives. I'd be interested in looking at what the process is for closing some of these projects down, as there's a lot of banners etc on talkpages that would need to be cleaned up as well. My gut feeling would be to take it on a case-by-case basis to see if a project should be downgraded to a taskforce or deleted, as I'm guessing one of the aims is to concentrate discussion to a reasonable level. Maybe we could step through and review each one to decide how to proceed? Gazimoff (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess we can bring each one up here for the case by case... how exactly would we 'downgrade' an entire project to a task force? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure. I don't think something like this has been done before, and if it has I don't know what procedure to follow. One thought that comes to mind is a simple move or putting in a request to move. We may want to get some outside feedback on this too; maybe the Village pump. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC))
I guess I could help move them then. Let's start with Wikipedia:WikiProject Warcraft- we would move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Warcraft, delete the old extraneous subpages, and then tag with a custom tag, saying "This was previously a wikiproject, which is no longer active. Consult WT:VG about reactivating the page" or something like that? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a good place to start. It's been tagged as inactive for almost a year. I guess we'll use this one to test the waters and see what comes of it, and hopefully move forward with the rest soon after. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Warcraft and Starcraft

I created a custom tag and migrated the pages, take a look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC) (outdent) I like it, it's a bold move, although I'd like to clean the shiny new taskforce page so that I can use it for some centralised discussion on the World of Warcraft articles (I know, perfect timing :) ), as we're currently using an article talk page. I'd also like to clean up the WP templates that are on the various article talkpages, as they're now out of date. I'll probably start a discussion on WP:COUNCIL for advice on how to go about this cleanup, but if it gets more discussion and debate going as well as pulling mroe people into WP:VG in general, that has to be a good thing. Gazimoff (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look over the other wikiprojects and start on hacking them up and migrating them when I have time. I'm just deleting the subpages, as (so far) I haven't found anything of worth to migrate all the tiny pages over. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll get on to cleaning up Category:WikiProject Warcraft tomorrow - it'll mean some template changes and tweaks, probably some rename requests too. Shouldn't take long.--Gazimoff (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
All unneeded pages are now tagged at this MfDGazimoff (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

TimeSplitters

Further information: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 40 § Rebooting the Inactive project cleanup work

FYI- MfD page for Wikipedia:WikiProject TimeSplitters. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

Update- Project page has been deleted. Which one next? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC))
I'm for taking on the task forces, myself. MfD all of them; my !votes would lie as follows: Guild Wars: Delete (small scope and no activity; more detail on MfD when we do that), Neopets: Delete (even smaller scope), and Tycoon games: Redirect.
Also, I'd like to propose that we bring the last task force of WP:MMO under VG's tree, as MMO lies abandoned while the TF does not. However, it might be better to address that when we deal with MMO. Have there ever been anything such as mini-task forces? --Izno (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where list came from

But Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Culture/Games#Video_games might be pertinent. I was randomly browsing and stumbled into this; I haven't cross checked for which projects are listed here that aren't listed there (etc etc). --Izno (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks a bit outdated, but it'll help keep tabs on all the various projects. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

Dragon Quest

WP:WP Dragon Quest, I think. All of 6 articles; I'd prolly go with full deletion as with TimeSplitters. --Izno (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it has more than 6; see Template:Dragon Quest series. This might do better as a taskforce, but under Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix instead of the VG Project. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC))
Works for me. I'm sure they'd appreciate it more than their parent will. Drop them a Wikiproject talk page note about it. --Izno (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I left a note on their talk page. I guess we wait and see. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
Interesting update, the Square Enix Project has had a dip in activity. Apparently most members are focusing on the Final Fantasy Project. Suggestions from the two members that responded were to either delete the project altogether or merge/redirect to the SE Project. The other alternative is to still make it a taskforce under the VG Project. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC))
I'd suggest deletion. If there's no interest in the project, there's probably little interest in a taskforce.Gazimoff WriteRead 13:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI: MfD for Dragon Quest available here. Gazimoff WriteRead 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Update- Dragon Quest Project page has been redirected to the VG Project page. Let's start a new discussion for the next one. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Pro Gaming

I'd like to add Wikipedia:WikiProject Pro Gaming to the list of projects to be cleaned up. I'd probably vote delete for this one.Gazimoff WriteRead 13:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the subject matter it seem it would be rather difficult to improve the articles given the limited, but growing coverage of professional gaming. The number of articles and importance of the topic make me think it would function better as a task force. It was tagged as inactive in Nov 07, but three members have joined since then. I'd say at least save this one for last to give it a bit more time. Then we'll see if it'll show signs of life and maybe switch it to a task force. But if it's dead then I guess it should be deleted. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
Agreed. There's no rush on any of these. Gazimoff WriteRead 23:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I feel it is ironic and slightly strange to make this a task force in itself. How about turning this into a department called "Project management" where, along with it's current clean up duties, it can facilitate as a central point for all projects and taskforces related to WP:VG and perhaps even a place where people can ask questions and request task forces here (rather than at the WikiProject Council as hardly anyone notices them there) to help prevent projects being started that are too narrow in scope and other such problems we are currently trying to rectify. We could probably also assist in other things for related projects as well. What do you think? .:Alex:. 11:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A interesting idea. I thought the point of the taskforce was to have a set of objectives with a clear endpoint, at which point the taskforce itself can be archived and closed down. Let me think on it for a while and get back to you. Gazimoff WriteRead 12:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
"Management" would be a good name I think, but that sounds a little cabally. It's a good idea, though I'd like to note that there was other previous to this somewhere in one of the archives of WT:VG: Make this task force an even more general "Cleanup". Either way, something to consider. --Izno (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/Guild Wars

I have nominated this for MfD. You can participate here. --.:Alex:. 09:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

On we go

It might be a good idea to merge Castlevania to a task force, as it's only one person currently. I actually think this consolidation is going quite well... I would say nom Neopets and Tycoon for MfD. Also, we might want to consider adding Pokémon to the list of inactive wikiprojects... --Izno (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with turning the Castlevania Project into a task force, as it'll probably attract more participation that way. How about we tackle it after the MMO Project? If we do try to do anything with the Pokemon Project, we should probably notify the Anime and Manga Project as there is a sizable amount of overlap. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

WP:MMO

WikiProject MMO has been tagged for deletion. The MfD is here. Gazimoff WriteRead 08:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've closed it and redirected. Per closure someone still needs to go through the subpages. The former talk archive is now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, but it should ideally be linked also from somewhere her, but I wasn't sure if it fits into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive index or where else.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll take care of pagemoves and raising the CSD G6's as required. Many thanks for closing the MfD. Gazimoff WriteRead 09:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
MU* now moved to WP:VG/MU*, Runescape and Neopets have been tagged with {{db-xfd}} per the MfD closing statement.Gazimoff WriteRead 10:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted them and moved thte talk pages to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive Neopets adn Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive Neopets. These are linked from the main talk archive Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games which should be linked somewhere from the archives here. There are, however, many more small pages in the project. See [1]. Accinetatally I already moved the Runescpae related talp pages. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh good grief! Right, I'll get on the case checking through them.Gazimoff WriteRead 14:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
All checked now. Most have been db-xfd'ed. Additionally, we need to decide what to do about Portal:Massively multiplayer online games, but that will probably be a seperate issue.Gazimoff WriteRead 14:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Please be careful, when tagging pages that are transcluded, to put the deletion tag within <noinclude>…</noinclude tags. Some welcome-boxes were not tagged this way, so the user-talkpages that had the welcome became themselves tagged for deletion. It's hard to tell sometimes without checking the "What links here" how project pages are used:( DMacks (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
You're certainly right about the nowiki tags. While I am not sure about the welcome messages, user boxes would have been out of scope. Actually {{User MMO Project}} is still there, but a redirect to it, Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/Userbox, was tagged and deleted, but appart from the now-wiki problem it should have stayed with the userbox simply redirecting to the target project. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I exempted some that have historical value, but if something useful has been deleted, in please notify me. In general, I think this was a not the best way to go about it and would suggest to organize it differently, namely with as little invasion as possible. There are too many subpages involved and one should only delete what is really superfluous. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
An additional problem is that a lot of those welcome templates etc should have been in the template space rather than project space. I'll keep an eye out next time for this and include nowiki tags where needed, but in all honesty I think they were in the wrong namespace to start with. Gazimoff WriteRead 19:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm late to the party... :(. Anyway, the portal should probably be redirected; it's not the first time I've said it, but portals serve the function of welcoming people to the wiki, and leaving a "page does not exist" in its place would be poor internet form. Um, not sure about its talk page; either leave it alone or move it to a subpage of Portal talk:Video games in the same vain as was done with the rest of MMO. --Izno (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC))
I think that also, in retrospect, we should have closed down the taskforces first then MfD'ed the project. At lesst then things would have happened in manageable chunks. I agree that we've got some lessons to learn with how this was handled.Gazimoff WriteRead 19:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I advocated for that earlier up in the talk page, but Guyinblack decided to steam ahead no-stop. But yes, it is a definite lesson in taking on the outside non-cleanup minded world. What came out of it was agreeable to me, anyway. --Izno (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Advocate where and steam ahead with what now? I logged in today and saw the debate closed and most of the process already started. Though I did update this project page to reflect the changes. I assumed the matter dealt with and started the Castlevania discussion below. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

Castlevania Project

I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Castlevania should be handled like the Warcraft project was handled; switch it to a task force under the VG project. It currently has only two members, only one that I think is active, and the scope is certainly big enough to warrant some kind of collaboration page. It'll be easier to handle pages because all policy and most administration will be handled by the VG project, and it'll be easier to drum up interest. I remember Sephiroth BCR mentioning a Castlevania task force during his Sorrow quality run, and I'm sure there are other experienced editors willing to help out. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

I think we need to take this to the singleton editor. He may think otherwise; I would suggest leaving a comment on either the wikiproject talk page or on his personal talk page.
That said, I think this would definitely be a good one to bring under the task force umbrella. --Izno (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
A message has been left on the Castlevania Project's talk page. User:Fallen Reality has also been notified. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

WP:Dynasty Warriors

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dynasty Warriors has been tagged for deletion. See MfD. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

FYI- A similar project has been started: Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Koei Warriors Games. However, it looks like it's been created in a wrong location. Perhaps we should offer some help, maybe suggest it become task force since there are some interested editors. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC))
Follow up- The page has been moved too Wikipedia:WikiProject Koei Warriors Games and has grown to four members. They seem to be making some headway, but have adopted a very large scope for a group their size. Should we leave this alone for a while or suggest for them to become a VG task force? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

Add Wikipedia:WikiProject The Elder Scrolls

I was looking at some of the other projects and noticed Wikipedia:WikiProject The Elder Scrolls hasn't had any activity for about six months. Should we add this to the list? (Guyinblack25 talk 04:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

"WP:WikiProject Tales of" up for MfD

Please see WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tales of. --Izno (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Strategy games

I was looking over Wikipedia:WikiProject Strategy games, and I'm not so sure this should be on our list. Mainly because it focuses on more than just video games. All our previous efforts have focused on projects that related to video game franchises and fall almost completely under the VG project's scope. But this one only partial falls under our scope and I worry that we don't have much ground to do anything with it. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

Legitimate thoughts, I think. Hold off on a decision regarding it until after the others are done. --Izno (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. Currently the WikiProject Arcade games, WikiProject Mortal Kombat, and WikiProject Castlevania have been asked if they want to become task forces under the VG Project. See Arcade talk page, MK talk page, and Castlevania talk page.
There's been no response at the Arcade talk page. WikiProject Mortal Kombat looks to be active again and has declined to switch to a task force. Fallen Reality is willing to switch the Castlevania Project to a task force, but has asked for some time to get the project going again. He hasn't been too active lately and being the only active member, may not have the free time to accomplish this.
That leaves WikiProject Pro Gaming, WikiProject Pinball, and whatever inactive task forces there are. Where to next? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC))
I think Pinball suffers the same as Strategy games does. Let's go with Pro Gaming next. --Izno (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Pro Gaming

Next up is Wikipedia:WikiProject Pro Gaming. It looks like it has had some editing history, albeit minor. So I guess the question is whether or not it should go to MfD or switch to a task force? If it goes to MfD, my guess is it'll probably be redirected to WP:VG. And I'm not sure if there is enough interest for it to be sustained as a task force. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

It doesn't currently have interest, but it's something that could definitely use interest, as that zone is a lot worse off than most of VG's area.
I would probably be bold in this case and redirect to VG, as I would agree that it isn't likely to be deleted. --Izno (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave a note on the talk page to give some forewarning, and redirect in a few days if there's no response. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC))
Note left here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pro Gaming#Inactivity of project. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC))
It looks like no one has responded. I guess we should redirect it to WP:VG. My only question is what to do with the talk page? I assume we should archive it somewhere. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC))
It's still attracting new members, they're just not doing very much. I'd be tempted to taskforce or redirect it, possibly closing it down if it doesn't generate any activity.Gazimoff 20:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
How about we move it to a task force for now, just to get the ball rolling? We'll see where to go from there. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC))
Update- The project has been moved to a task force page under WP:VG.
What should be done with Template:Wikiproject Pro Gaming? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

Pinball

Perhaps a merge to the arcade games tf? Pinball has the rare video game modeled after the craze, but it's much more commonly found in the variety of arcades still in existence. All that's needed would probably be a redirect, but we'd also need the relevant projects' cooperation also. Thoughts? --Izno (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with this one. Redirecting it the Arcade TF does make sense. Let's see if we can get some more input from others. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mortal Kombat

I believe in both cases: they have been tagged as inactive, then the tag has been removed (at least once, if not more). I believe the tag removal was incorrect. If the talk page has little activity, it's safe to say the project is inactive and basically dead. I think it's wrong to assume it's indeed active, just because a few people comment on the talk page. Projects are meant for regular activity, aren't they? A few people hanging around to discuss things on the talk page isn't much of a project, and is better suited if a merge happens. Then they can discuss issues at the video game project, where many more people will respond and be able to help. I suppose a task force wouldn't hurt: if there is enough members willing to participate in it. In the case of Mortal Kombat: it does cover more than gaming, but it simply isn't very active. There was this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mortal_Kombat#Inactive.3F, which got one response. If you look at the history of the project page and talk page of both Mortal Kombat and Nintendo: there has been little activity for a few months at least. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that both projects have minimal and sporadic activity. The low activity means that the remain members have to shoulder a lot responsibility in maintaining the project and its articles. They would probably function better as task forces.
Given that the MK Project has already declined a switch once, I think it would be best to assume good faith that they can get the project going and wait a while before suggesting it again. I'll drop a note on the Nintendo project page similar to how we've done with other projects.
Also, we have two other projects we are examining right: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pro Gaming and Wikipedia:WikiProject Castlevania. Any thoughts or comments you have would be appreciated. Please see the threads above. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

Note: The Nintendo has project has been notified. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nintendo#Inactivity of the Project. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

As I mentioned on WikiProject Nintendo's discussion page as well as the WPVG discussion page, I would support making WikiProject Nintendo into a task force as we do follow the same procedures/manual of style as WPVG in general. If we cannot get more participation at that point as a task force, then consider redirecting. MuZemike (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Old talk page

I stumbled across this old talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Animal Crossing. I assume it should be deleted, possibly a candidate for speedy delete. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC))

I tagged it as G8. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC))
There are a lot of subpages we missed with the initial set of cleanups we did. I think we could MfD the most of them. For example, see special:prefixindex/Wikipedia:wikiProject Warcraft. --Izno (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I've MfDed many of the Warcraft pages in question. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/WikiProject Warcraft pages. --Izno (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of loose pages, what do you think should be done with this: Template:Wikiproject Video games/Grand Theft Auto/Announcements? I'm thinking move it out of template space and tag as historical? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC))
Move it to a subpage of GTA and let them handle it, with whatever suggestion you might want. --Izno (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

New "wikiproject"

Just a notification on the existence of a new project namespace: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports video games. « ₣M₣ » 21:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. We'll keep an eye on it should it become inactive. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC))
Creator has been asked to comment on the project's progress. This may be something we send to MfD. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

FYI- MfD has been started. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega

I personally feel it should be made into a taskforce. Activity is basically dead right now. Main page: only a few edits the past few months, the talk page isn't much better. It should be noted, the founder of the project seems to be one of the active editors. See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sega#This_Wikiproject_Is_Dying. He doesn't think it should be a task force, but frankly he doesn't own the project (even though I think he assumes he does, since he created it). I think if no major activity happens by October, it should be made a taskforce. We could wait even longer, but I doubt activity will just suddenly pick up. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You have no right to do that. The Sega Project has about fifty members already, but our scope of things to work on was cut short because of the Sonic character merge. So in other words: there isn't anything that really needs fixing in our scope.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
And what makes you think you have the authority to take such actions on other projects? Nobody owns them, and there is no superiority in any user, IP and admin alike.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The Sega Project is basically dead, and it wont do any harm to make it into a task force instead. So stop taking offense to some cleanup. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Cleanup? This project has done alot of good. And where is there a policy stating that WikiProjects should be cleaned up? Where is it stated that WikiProject Video games has the authority to decide what stays and what goes? You might have alot of admins here, but being an admin doesn't give you anymore authority than the next person. I'd be willing to take this up with Jimbo Wales myself I feel so strongly towards it.Fairfieldfencer FFF 21:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
You're taking this too personally FFF. See my comment at WT:WikiProject Sega. --Izno (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The project has been switched to a task force. The various leftover redirects are up for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega & Nintendo. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia:WikiProject PlayStation

A merge with the video game project, or possibly just a downgrade to a task force. It's had little activity for quite a while now. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We'll add it to the list. Right now, we've got a couple of Projects that discussions have begun with. We're try to get to this one soon. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC))
What would constitute enough activity? I am a member of the project, and I keep adding articles to the project. There are still over 100 people that have the {{playstationm}} userbox, and the talk page has had activity in the last month. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, how many of the editors with the userbox are still actively working on PlayStation articles? Perhaps that should be looked into. There's many people on Wikipedia that add userboxes, and don't remember to remove them. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way to figure that out? MrKIA11 (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Check the members list at the project page, as well as: [2], since some that have the userbox might not be in the members list. Then: either contact them on their talk pages, or view their contributions. I would be willing to help clean up the members list as well, if I have some free time. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Given that the usefulness and activity of this project is in question, I'd say we put it on the back burner until a few others get taken care of first. There's no rush to act on it. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC))
I strongly disagree merging this project; or changing it to a task force. This project and others in the related area have been very active. Just because there's little activity on the project page and talk page doesn't mean that the project is inactive. Another suggestion, I would recommend moving or notifying the playstation project of this discussion. You might see how active that project really is. I know WP:VG wants to merge everything, but some things don't need to be merged or changed. Several editors have spent much time building and contributing to these projects. In my opinion, the only editors that have the right to claim it inactive are the project members. DJS --DJS24 00:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Re DJS: Not necessarily. Folding WikiProjects into the main VG project is only the goal — in a couple of cases, the individual projects have said, thanks but no thanks. Again, if they're active (going by your word), then it's all jolly good. :) --Izno (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The project page and talk page are important things in determining if it's active or not. If there isn't much activity on both of those: it's usually a good indication the project is inactive or just dead. People actively edit PlayStation articles, but I somehow doubt the project is solely responsible for the edits. Also, your last comment of In my opinion, the only editors that have the right to claim it inactive are the project members. isn't accurate. Anyone has the right to claim it inactive. This shouldn't be an issue. If you want help from people on PlayStation articles: ask at the video game project. I see no proof the PlayStation project is active. I don't think it's logical to just make claims it's still active because of one editor. Perhaps go through the member list: and contact them about the project. Many people join projects, and end up forgetting about them sometimes. Also, not everyone on the members list might not even be active on Wikipedia anymore. I say give this a few months, then we figure out what to do with it. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda

Wikipedia:WikiProject The Legend of Zelda has been largely inactive, and should become a taskforce. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support it, but I don't know if it's going to be all jumbled in to the Sega/Nintendo WikiProject. MuZemike (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I have some choice words for Gaogier that I'm not going to utter in public. --Izno (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand the frustration. But I think a solution will present itself eventually. There's no rush.
In regard to the topic at hand, this sounds like a good idea. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC))
Perhaps a merge/redirect to the Nintendo task force? The list is getting long, and we are trying to clean things up a bit. I don't really have an opinion either way, so it's up to Link/others at WP:WP Zelda. --Izno (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
And I really don't want to get into task forces of task forces. If there's a need for a task force, it should be a task force to the highest level, imo. --Izno (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mortal Kombat seems to be dead at this time. The extremely limited scope of things doesn't look like it helped it either. Probably best for merge or reducing to a task force?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

See WT:WikiProject Mortal Kombat#Inactive?. I'm further pursuing the issue after a comment there was left in July. --Izno (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Well there doesn't seem to be any further discussion there as far as I can tell, other than that one fellow randomly talking about canon endings.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Most of the pages have been moved now. There are a couple here and there that I think need some attention.
There are a few others, but these are the majors in my mind. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

I'm just stumbling across this now, and I think a merge makes sense (especially since not much has happened since this initial discussion). What needs to be done at this point? Randomran (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We just need to come to a conclusion about what to do with the leftover subpages. I made some suggestions for each one (redirect or delete) feel free to agree, disagree, or propose alternatives. Once we've got that sorted out, we either tag them for deletion or redirect the pages, and then end of story :-) (Guyinblack25 talk 04:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia:WikiProject Test Drive

Wikipedia:WikiProject Test Drive. Created August 5, and then never touched again by him or any other editor. Please note if MfD'd the associated templates and categories. --PresN (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I notified the creator and main contributor. He should be showing up to give his opinion sometime soon. --Izno (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
He never showed. I move to MfD the project in question. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. The talk page is blank and there is very little edit history for the project. There are a some sub pages and two templates to the project, make sure they're listed on the MfD too and inform the creator of the MfD. They did a rather thorough job creating the project. It's a shame they just let it sit there. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC))
MfD started. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

WikiProject Sims discussion

FYI- The members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sims are currently discussing switching to a VG taskforce. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sims#Inactive Project Clean Up for details. It looks like they are mainly in favor, so we should be prepared to assist with the move in they need help. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

WP:SIMS has officially become a task force. -- Nomader (Talk) 16:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I've added it to Template:WPVG Sidebar. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC))

Other inactive task forces

We should be looking at the following task forces for cleanup, by looking at the activity on the talk pages:

All of the above has had no talk page activity for at least three months (of course, that is not the only way to gauge task force activity). MuZemike (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial to nail all the ones that are officially listed first, then turn our minds to the ones you picked up on.
MU* was the one we transferred from WP:MMO, who assured us that it would be a good idea to keep the group. As for DMC, I think that might be because they already have a featured topic over there, or at least a few FAs. --Izno (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Mega Man looks like a good one though to have a go for, and I'd suggest adding that to the bottom of list. Basically abandoned after it was made from what I can tell, and the edits related to it are mostly sparse and/or not focused by the task group. --Izno (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed these need to be taken care. However, I think the projects are the bigger concern. It looks like we still have a few more to look at.
After the projects are done, I think it'll be easier to deal with the task forces in one mass action. Maybe try to drum up participation and establish some kind of standard to determine activity. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

WikiProject The Legend of Zelda

I propose that we merge Wikipedia:WikiProject The Legend of Zelda into the Nintendo task force per what has been hinted per above. Any thoughts? MuZemike (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If the members have no objection then I see no major reason against it. Although, I think it might be a smoother transition to move it to a regular task force, and if activity still doesn't pick up, then merge it and the SSB task force into the Nintendo task force. Also, it would probably be a good idea to jump start the previous merge discussion to see if more feedback can be obtained. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC))
I'll request comment at WT:VG for a broader discussion. MuZemike (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Just in time for the holidays, more projects for you and yours!

Some other projects to look at -

I'd also like to point out that although Wikipedia:WikiProject Adventure games is not inactive, it's structure is much better suited to a task force of WP:VG. I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Digimon would be better suited for the Anime project even though it's listed as a video game project, but I'm no Digimon expert.

And can an admin tell me if there is any useful discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Myst task force? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 12:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The Pokemon and Machinima have shared scopes with other larger projects, so I don't know if a simple move to a task forces is the best idea. Probably requires further discussion
On a related note, Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix looks to have become inactive. I think most members are more active with Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy.
Looks like we got our work cut out for us. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC))

helping out...

A quick discussion over here said that you guys could use some help. I'm ready to jump in and move a few things forward. Are there only the seven inactive task forces / projects on the main project page, or are there other things to take care of too? If you can show me a comprehensive to do list, I have the patience (and willingness to procrastinate on schoolwork) that will let me help out. Randomran (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are a couple things going on right now, mainly in the discussion stages.
  • Current inactivity discussions
  • Cleanup
    • Mortal Kombat: some loose pages that need to be moved, deleted, or redirected.
    • Sega: some more loose/old pages that need to be deleted of moved (possibly into userspace)
  • Future discussions
    • Johnny brought some more projects to our attention above, we can tackle those once the Zelda and Elder Scrolls are done.
    • Our inactive task forces will need to be dealt with eventually too.
Thanks for joining in. Every bit helps. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC))
I made a mention at strategy. Also, I'm trying to negotiate with WP:ANIME here to take Yu-Gi-Oh! and Digimon, and in exchange we'll take Pokemon. I think we're all pretty used to putting out Pokemon-type fires at this point (*ahemSoniccough*), and it is owned by Nintendo. I dropped a note to PresN to make an appearance at Elder Scrolls, as he is (was?) a member. I'd comment there, but it seems pointless to make a consensus entirely between people that aren't actually involved. We'll see. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Leftovers

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup/Leftovers - I made this, hope it's not redundant to anything. Obviously it's not filled - that's why I made it, because it's confusing trying to find all the random pages scattered around. If you come across any lose pages, list them here so we can centralize efforts. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 16:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Should we just delete the whole bunch? With the possible exception of the main Wikipedia:WikiProject StarCraft page, this Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/News history, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/Outreach/Newsletter/April 2007? Randomran (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"The whole bunch" is going to get larger, I think. :) --Izno (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's pile them up and light a huge bonfire :) (of course, we'll pull out a few branches worth saving before we do). Randomran (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Essentially. Let's not light the bonfire before finding all the branches, however. :) --Izno (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a bunch of talk pages lying around also that need to have a move... /sigh. --Izno (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

List 'em and I can fix 'em later. I like cleaning, I just don't know where all the bric-a-brac is. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, yeah, me too. Else I wouldn't be here. >.>... --Izno (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
My bad, my sleep patterns were off. :) ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Going to start subsections in the (other) page to see who thinks what should go. Most of the redirects are not worthy of removal off the bat, I think, unless you've got specifics in mind for unused pages redirects or whatnot. --Izno (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Tweaked. --Izno (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow, there's a lot more than I originally thought :-p Good idea guys. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC))

So how is the bonfire coming? Have we uncovered the bulk of it yet? Randomran (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like progress is being made. I dropped a note at the relevant task force talk pages to hopefully get more input. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

Follow up

It looks like we've flagged a lot of content as needing clean-up. Some projects will need to become task forces, some pages will need to be merged and redirected, and some will even need to be deleted. How much more gathering do we need to do? Should we move forward with the next step, and look at dealing with the backlog of inactive projects? Randomran (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I look at this stuff as waves of work, and the more people we have actively helping the quicker things should go. To organize it, I'd say the steps should be as follows.
  1. Start discussions on inactive project talk pages.
  2. While the discussion is ongoing and a consensus forms, maintenance of past project leftovers should be dealt with. Speedy deletion candidates should be tagged and single or grouped XfDs should be initiated.
  3. Monitor XfDs while discussions from step one reach consensus.
  4. Act on consensuses from step one and sort new leftover pages.
  5. Collect Underpants
  6. ?
  7. Profit!
  8. Repeat process.
I think going through the process this way should speed things up and will give people less tedious things to do, hopefully minimizing burnout while giving people some break time as well. Oh yeah, and profit too.
The good thing is we already have step one already started. We just need to start up the leftovers clean up again while we wait for consensus to form. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia:WikiProject PlayStation is still not very active

I mentioned this months ago, and the project still isn't active. There has been barely any edits to the project and talk pages. I strongly feel this should be either turned into a taskforce or just outright deleted. PlayStation is important, but that doesn't instantly mean it should have a project that has little to no activity. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Like I mentioned months ago, how about telling them that you want to delete their project? You might just see how active it is. I know that a lot work went into starting that project and several editors have also contributed as well. --DJS24 21:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Deletion isn't the only option; only the one that Rob was leaning toward. Take it easy. --Izno (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to inform them per the main page of the clean up project about becoming a task force (and add their name to the list on the front). If they are as active as DJS thinks, they'll either agree or disagree to being asked to becoming a task force, but either way that question turns out with prove that they are indeed active. It might be a good idea to point out that it would be a good idea they become a task force, as both Nintendo and Sega have already agreed to do so. --Izno (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Done: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_PlayStation#Is_this_project_active.3F, now we will see if it's indeed active. I find it strange people claim a project is "active" when the project and talk pages have little activity (and it's been that way for a while). Are project members discussing things on their personal talk pages, in email or what? I don't mean to sound rude, but I find it hard to believe the project is active at this point. Work going into starting the project isn't important at this time, as it doesn't appear to be active. A project's worth isn't determined by how it started, it's determined by the activity. Inactive projects should be deleted or turned into taskforces. There's no need to keep the project just because a few people don't want it to go. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Based on the criteria you use gave me for determining whats needed to delete a project; this project should be deleted. The PlayStation project has had several more edits to both the main page and talkpage then his project has had over the past two months. In fact, there hasn't been a single edit on both this talkpage and the main page for over two months. I thought it was cute at first, going around and deleting all these projects and yes several of them needed to be deleted. However, now that your trying to delete the bigger projects, that have a very wide scope, a line needs to be drawn. I'll admit it, I haven't made a single edit on anything related to PlayStation in my years on wikipedia. Which makes my opinion much stronger, as an editor not involved in the PlayStation project. Also, I do believe (how much work goes into a project) is important. That project has been very strong for months if not years. Just because its had a quite couple of months, doesn't mean we should jump right on it for deletion; that's alittle premature. --DJS24 00:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm one of the few people still contributing and updating the PS pages, but I agree a taskforce might be better suited for the activity of the project. One note though, the entire main page is transluded, so any changes do not not show up on that page's history, but there is no excuse for the talk page. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Should the answer to the question of activity turn out to be "no, we are inactive", I would suggest that the talk page of the Insomniac task force have a note dropped by on it before seeking action toward PlayStation. --Izno (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I want to point out: even if a few people claim the PlayStation project is active, there isn't much proof to back it up. Anyone can edit PlayStation related articles: that doesn't mean PlayStation members are solely responsible for improving the articles though. Perhaps the member list should be gone through? I somehow doubt all of those people are even active on Wikipedia. I know with other projects, there is active member drives: where people are asked if they are still part of the project or not. It's been quite a while (if ever) since the PlayStation project has had activity. Unless I'm mistaken: April of last year was when there was actually activity on the talk page. Wide scope or not: projects that are inactive are just taking up space. We simply shouldn't have projects with very few active members, just because the scope is "wide". People can easily discuss PlayStation related things at the Video Game project and actually get responses faster. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Rob. Having this and other projects as task forces allows us to centralize our activity and expose articles to a wider range of editors. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Turning it into a task force is a good idea, especially since it looks pretty inactive. But even if there were a few editors keeping it alive, a task force would be more efficient for their purposes. WikiProjects have a lot more overhead, like rating articles and writing guidelines. By making it a task force, the group can focus on articles. Randomran (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Discussion here. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 08:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls

I've moved The Elder Scrolls project to a task force under the VG project. The only page still left is Wikipedia:WikiProject The Elder Scrolls/Creatures of Morrowind, which looks like a page created to save some deleted content. Not sure what to do with it. Other things to deal with are Category:WikiProject The Elder Scrolls and Template:WPTES. Any suggestions?

Also, The following redirects can probably be deleted as housekeeping.

Could an admin take care of these? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

Go leave a note about T:WPTES with Anomie, whose bot has previously deprecated others, such as Nintendo's tag. The category should depopulate with the removal of the template and with the category change I made to the userbox, and then we can nail those categories with db-c1. We can probably get the template with db-g6 (or -g8) after conversion. For the creatures of morrowind, I'd prolly go with deletion. --Izno (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to voice my support for this. It doesn't look like the previous WikiProject was particularly active, and the task force will let the remaining members focus on articles rather than other WP administrative stuff. Randomran (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I left a note with Anomie, so the only thing left right now is to delete the left over pages. I think a grouped MfD would be the most prudent action, but all the pages should qualify for speedy delete. The content on draft page was deleted once before. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

FF/SE

I've added notes to the talk pages of the Final Fantasy and Square Enix projects. Hopefully we can get their thoughts about joining WP:VG—personally I feel as though they should merge as one consolidated SE taskforce. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 08:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How big a scope increase would that be for the FF people? --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Well the split has drained SE of a lot of people. While I believe if we merge the 2 those in FF project will still focus primarily on FF articles, the centralized location may also help with overall interest for other SE titles.じんない 21:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
SEproj has 357 articles and FFproj 158, so that would be a scope increase of 199 articles, with a relatively-large amount of articles related to manga (a topic which is non-existent in the current FFproj scope). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It might be better to merge SE as a VG task force and let FF just do their thing. No reason to weigh them down with extra articles they're not focusing on anyway. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
It's kind of impossible. SE covers tons of manga and a certain number of anime; how would we tag manga articles with the SE taskforce tag if the VGproj template is absent? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
True. But whose to say they have to concern themselves with the manga/anime articles? Maybe limiting the scope to just video games would improve the group's effectiveness. Besides, that's what most of the editors are focusing on anyway.
Speaking of which, what have the members had to say about the proposal? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

Sonic and Sega

Please consider the future of the Sonic task force, whose members have made little effort to drastically improve Sonic-related articles, while a good number of whom have "moved on" to the Sonic Wikia. No discussion has really been made on the talk there, and the two Good Articles have been made as such by myself and another member who are not part of the task force.

Also, the Sega task force has seen a similar lack of activity after its members tried to revive interest by converting it to a Sega and Nintendo task force without consensus before being converted after lengthy debate back to just Sega. SynergyBlades (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We can probably do something discreet about Sonic, i.e., redirect to Sega task force. Sega probably won't go well, as they're of the opinion that it's the best project around; the last time it took telling them that the group wouldn't be deleted. While they're a bit owny, I would let it be for a little longer. --Izno (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree- Merging the Sonic task force into the Sega one sounds like the best course to take. No need to split efforts between two very related scopes. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
I know the members have resisted in the past, but I'd hope past obstinacy wouldn't affect the decision here; it does seem like the decision always comes down to leaving it for another few months to see what happens, with no activity being the result. A good number of those that complained have essentially given up on Wikipedia, mostly because of its more stringent rules and guidelines on content, but I'd be happy to see the two merge and see if it can pick up - it would probably need to be kept an eye on after that for activity levels. SynergyBlades (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
To be safe and for the sake of transparency, it's probably best to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sega and leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sonic. It could either spur activity or show how inactive things really are. Either way, it would get things sorted out. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC))
First, apologies for the stubborness I've shown in the past regarding the projects, but we've never been able to put in notable content that was important to learning about the characters. An encyclopedia is a place of knowledge that people should use to find out about anything they want. A good amount of us have moved to Sonic Wikias in order to do this. The projects are practically dead and nobody here seems to want to put in any effort. As de facto of the Sonic Task Force, I give you my full support in merging the projects. I bet TTN's jaw will go through the floor all the way to China when he reads this.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
TTN seems to have disappeared. But merging Sonic and Sega seems like a good idea. Let's not just merge both of them into WP:VG though. Incrementalism is usually safer. Randomran (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Good riddance I say. He was more trouble than he was worth. A damn good editor, but he didn't always go about the proper way of doing things.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle? I'm not really sure your comment is appropriate or needed. Back to the subject, User:Izno has gone ahead and merged the Sonic task force into the Sega task force - that's probably good enough for the time being; we can see later on if the combined task force has become more active. SynergyBlades (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Fairfield: leave TTN alone. This discussion isn't about him. No personal attacks... period. Perhaps if you understood how Wikipedia works better, you wouldn't be making attacks on people and making wrong claims. You don't seem to understand the concept of an encyclopedia still. This isn't the place for every little detail about a character. If that was the case we would have huge articles on Mario and Sonic, where every minor thing they do is listed. Pick up a paper encyclopedia sometime: you wont find every minor thing about the subjects in that either. There's a difference between notable content, and just trivial cruft/clutter. My experiences with you show that you simply assume everything is notable by default, so that's apparently why you left here: so you could add every trivia detail to fan wikis. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into this argument again, period, and will agree with you. Since the projects have been merged there's not much else for me to say except "Goodbye Wikipedia."Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The Sonic taskforce wasn't that inactive. *COUGH*COUGH*Super Smash Bros.*COUGH*COUGH* And remember all the fans of the series who signed up? You have to remember, the taskforce encompassed a large number of articles. There was a lot of work to be done with all those articles—only three of them were at least GA status—and I don't think closing the whole thing was the right answer. Tezkag72 (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Many members did little major work on the articles despite several prods for action by those outside the task force over many months, and many then ended up leaving or losing interest, while the task force's talk page, which ought to have been used to discuss a plan-of-action, went essentially unused for the duration. Further to this lack of activity, the members themselves had issues understanding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on content, which often led to misunderstanding and heated debate, in turn leading to lack of action due to the members' fervent opinions regarding the scope of the content the articles should have (List of recurring characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games), for instance). As for the articles you mention, the two Good Articles were elevated to that status by both you and me - neither of whom were members of the task force (at least I hadn't thought you were last time I checked; my apologies if this is not the case). SynergyBlades (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
To respond to Tezkag's post: this isn't discussion is NOT about the Smash Brothers group, so don't go pointing fingers at other inactive groups. Anyway: the Sonic taskforce (along with Sega and countless others) haven't been active. The lack of talk page posts are good proof of that. The purpose of projects and taskforces are to improve articles by discussing with others. Seeing as how this isn't happening, the project (or taskforce) is inactive. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I guess that's true. It just seems a shame to set off all those articles into the main project sludge. Do you think a Mario taskforce would do any good? Tezkag72 (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Task forces

I should note that the task forces that I noted above in the "Other inactive task forces" section should still be looked at for possible merging or redirection to other WikiProjects as I have seen no talk page activity within the past several months on all of them. I noticed that a couple of comments have been left to see if anyone is still there, so that is a start. MuZemike 16:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Consolidating task forces would probably be the easiest course for now.
The few active members may not like the idea, but it wouldn't hurt to run it by them. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
I agree we should let the members know, but if only a few respond: I think it's safe to merge the taskforces. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the above. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Phoenix Wright

A new project that looks to be abandoned. Please comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Phoenix Wright. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC))


Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Inactive_project_cleanup/Archive_1&oldid=1190128673"