Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter

Q2 2020

The second quarter has just started, and I already came up with an idea for a feature. My idea will be on the Request board, its history and how people can take part in it to lower the requests on the page. How does that sound? GamerPro64 06:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's a good idea. «“I'm Aya Syameimaru!”I„文々。新聞“I„userbako”» 19:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just added in my first DYK Monster Truck Madness into the list of DYKs for this quarter. «“I'm Aya Syameimaru!”I„文々。新聞“I„userbako”» 08:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now I added the new GAs Sea of Thieves and Monster Truck Madness to the promoted GAs list, the latter of two was an article I authored. «“I'm Aya Syameimaru!”I„文々。新聞“I„userbako”» 08:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that Request board feature was made soon, it could be easy to write a short feature about it. «ias!|,,.|usbk» 05:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? GamerPro64 14:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I meant it's possible to do a short feature about the Request board. The feature should be quickly made before the deadline. I«ias!|,,.|usbk»I 15:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to write something up go ahead. GamerPro64 15:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, perhaps I'll make a feature about my 1st GA&DYK Monster Truck Madness. I«ias!|,,.|usbk»I 16:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think promoting yourself for the newsletter might be too much. GamerPro64 16:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then well the Request board feature will happen then. I«ias!|,,.|usbk»I 16:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is!: User:I'm Aya Syameimaru!/requestsboard «Iias!:,,.:usbkI» 22:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I finished the Request board feature, so now we could desire an interview to be made for this issue. «Iias!:postbox:,,.I» 23:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already got JoeBro64 on the docket to interview this month. Also @Thibbs: if you want to copyedit the feature you can. GamerPro64 02:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'll take another look this weekend. I read it previously and it seems like good stuff. The only thing I noticed right away was that it might be worth linking WP:VG Newsletter 3rd Quarter 2010's Feature (Vol.3, No.2) seeing as we have briefly covered this topic in the past. It was probably time to update a bit given that it's been nearly a decade since the last time we addressed the topic. -Thibbs (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I linked it like this:
For more information about the request board,
see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20101022/Feature]].

«Iias!:post□:,,.I» 00:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is so nicely prepared I think, that everything's being put together well. «Iias!:post□:,,.I» 03:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the newsletter good to be released yet? GamerPro64 05:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is, just let Thibbs copyedit my Request board feature and then it'll be out. I,,.iasO 05:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the newsletter is due to be published this Sunday the 5th. I read the draft feature and I didn't see anything immediately problematic. If there's anyhting I've missed, please jump in. As I figure it, the only thing we're really still waiting for is the June 2020 New Article Announcements. In fact really only the last 2-3 days... PresN has taken over the job of reporting NAAs from Salavat as of 2018 which is when we had stopped publishing for a year so the NAA pace is a little different than previously. For the third month of the quarter I basically wait until the last day before publishing and then I just grab what has been reported so far and post it. Corrections (i.e. NAAs that were posted after the publication of the quarterly newsletter) can be made in the next quarter's newsletter. There is such a correction in this quarter, for example. Whatever happens, I'm commited to releasing the newsletter this Sunday. -Thibbs (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I put "200+" in the "NAA" section for now. I,,.iasO 06:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just say 155. ias:postb□x

@GamerPro64: It's July 5 UTC. All of the newsletter parts have been tagged and bagged. Ready for delivery. -Thibbs (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. GamerPro64 03:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q3 2020

New quarter means new section so lets start brainstorming. GamerPro64 03:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a feature that talks about "Templates in articles", sounds cool I think. ias:postb□x 07:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also want KGRAMR to be interviewed. ias:postb□x 08:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@I'm Aya Syameimaru!: Well there 'ya go! https://www.arcadeattack.co.uk/roberth-anthony-martinez-rivero/
Thanks KGRAMR for making me think you're interviewed already. I guess we'll have to interview another user then. ias:postb□x 13:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think that Thibbs should be interviewed. ias:postb□x 14:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to being interviewed, but it might be best to save me off as a last resort in case a future interview falls through or in case we're unable to find another interviewee. KGRAMR sounded like a good option for this quarter to me. KGRAMR, would you be up for an interview from the WP:VG Newsletter? -Thibbs (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thibbs:Oh well, i guess it doesn't hurt me being interviewed once again XD... Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I'm Aya Syameimaru!, were you volunteering to conduct the interview with Roberth? If not, I could do it. -Thibbs (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Thibbs will have to interview KGRAMR, which was what I expected. ias:postb□x 06:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So anyone's doing the feature yet? ias:postb□x 14:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost a month since this section was created, and the feature needs to be completed. I've got one question: Any progress on the "Templates in articles" feature? -iaspostb□x+ 07:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if anyone else volunteered for it yet. I think I'd be comfortable if you wanted to tackle the topic though, I'm Aya Syameimaru!. Also just to confirm, I still do intend to interview KGRAMR. I will try to get it out at some point in August to allow him adequate response time. The next newsletter is due on Oct 4. -Thibbs (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good, perhaps I'll consider. -iaspostb□x+ 04:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now working on the "Templates in Articles" feature, it's just started today. -iaspostb□x+ 15:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's finished: User:I'm Aya Syameimaru!/atiga -iaspostb□x+ 22:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, it's around 1 month before this newsletter issue goes published, any progress? -iaspostb□x+ 05:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're looking good so far. KGRAMR and I are working together to complete the interview and I intend to make updates for August in the draft this weekend. NAAs are still hung up a bit for now, but I expect them to come through Monday the 7th or 8th. -Thibbs (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It indeed looks good so far. -iaspostb□x+ 18:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The newsletter is almost finished! -iaspostb□x+ 22:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Finally it is complete at 100%! Ready to ship. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 23:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It's slated to be released tomorrow (Oct 4). -Thibbs (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, a couple hours to go. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 00:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's already past 03:00 UTC so it's time for publication. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 04:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did the publication process myself. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 04:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tended to wait until at least 12:00 UTC on the publication day to give some time for the final update for the last month's NAAs (this time September), but right now it's past 12:00 and there has been no update so we'll have to do another correction next quarter for Sept 27-30. Thanks again for your help, I'm Aya Syameimaru!! -Thibbs (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GamerPro64, it looks like we're good to go. -Thibbs (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to it later. GamerPro64 14:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The quality content section looks incomplete. GamerPro64 22:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah I think you're right. I must admit I've never updated the count for Featured and Good content. Is it just a matter of sifting through JL-Bot's changes here? -Thibbs (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Ive done that before. GamerPro64 01:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 04:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you say you're welcome? Is the quality content section complete or not? GamerPro64 14:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I said you're welcome as a response to Thibbs' "Thanks again for your help, I'm Aya Syameimaru!!". I now have completed the quality content section, so yes it is complete just recently. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 00:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sent the issue. Im taking the next quarter off. GamerPro64 02:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GP64. Sorry I couldn't get to the quality content. This will probably be a busy quarter for me too. The end of the year is always crazy. -Thibbs (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q4 2020

I have an idea for this issue. The feature should be a Good Content Leaderboard, because it's been over 3 years since the last time we had one, which was a Featured Content Leaderboard. I think TarkusAB should be interviewed. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 07:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these sound good to me. -Thibbs (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is November 4-5, any progress thus far? «=-iaspostb□x+=» 04:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I recently updated the "On the Main Page" and "New Articles" sections for October. How are the feature and interview going? Have you approached TarkusAB about the interview yet? -Thibbs (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer that you do the feature and interview, I expected you to. Then the progress should appear. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 02:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I think you misunderstood what I said earlier. I was (and am) endorsing your suggestions for feature and interview. But I certainly wasn't intending to take over either of your projects. I thought you were asking if it would be OK if you wrote the feature and the interview, and that seems fine, but I was expecting that you would be the one to complete your own suggestions. Are you too busy this quarter? I could probably help out by interviewing TarkusAB if you'd like but I don't want to bother him if you've already asked him. Have you spoken to TarkusAB about the interview? And then I'd love to see a Good Content Leaderboard article if you have the time and inclination to complete it. -Thibbs (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's a deal, how about we both collaborate on the feature and the interview. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 20:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here three questions I made for TarkusAB: [[1]]. I also have some stats I made for the foundation of the feature: [[2]]. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 21:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over what you started. I'm happy to help you, but I think a better place to work together would be here. So I've copied your work over there for now.
1) I think the idea of a collaborative interview is kind of fun and I think it works best if we list our names like they do in IwataAsks interviews. I've added a few of the most traditional WP:VG Newsletter questions for now too. But before we go any further with this, I think you need to give an answer to the question I have asked twice now: Have you contacted TarkusAB yet? If you have not done that yet then we need to do so rather than just expect it. Some people are not interested in being interviewed and there's no point in writing up a set of questions if the subject wishes not to be be interviewed. If you have already asked TarkusAB and you have not received a response then we should wait before continuing. If you have not yet asked then I would be happy to ask for you, but I would like to know if you have already asked TarkusAB? Have you done that yet?
2) As far as the leaderboard is concerned, I'm curious about your methodology. How are you coming up with your results? Are you working from WP:VG/GA?
-Thibbs (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've made new section in TarkusAB's talkpage telling him that we'll interview him. It's shaping to be a good interview. For the feature, I think we should look at who nominated the past and current GANs, we have a list of GAs here. Any revision on a GA's talk page where someone inserts a template that says "this article's currently a good article nominee" or something. Some user pages can tell you how many GAs a user has (for example: ProtoDrake). I sometimes edit the WP:VG/GA page. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 00:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still think asking is better than surprising people, but it sounds like TarkusAB is willing to take the assignment so I guess we're good to proceed on that. As far as the list of GAs we may have to come up with a more systematic method to identify GAs rather than just hoping for self-reporting editors. I think the main issue is that multiple editors could plausibly claim the same GA for nominating, co-nominating, promoting, writing the majority of the article, and even just creating the article in the first place. That would skew the results. You can see some of my thoughts on that issue as well as issues like counting former versus current high-quality entries here. For the purpose of comparing this list to the FA list published by the newsletter in 2017, I think we should adopt the same rules: i.e. to consider former good content alongside currently good content, and to list all noms and co-noms while ignoring promoter(s) and others. So rather than relying on self-reporting we would rely on "GA nominee" templates perhaps. We'll have to come up with a systematic way of counting stats and this may be a considerably larger task than dealing with the FAs as there are many times more GAs than FAs. I will think about it some more, but I'd welcome your thoughts too. -Thibbs (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The interview is going to be decent. Yeah, I think both of our methods can work in the feature. Asking more editors for assistance on the feature is acceptable, and we can look through all the databases of Video game-related GAs for stats. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 22:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. It would be best if we could make the two methods work in concert. I can't really see how, but if you can think of something let us know. From a basic back-of-the-envelope calculation I guess this may take about 4-5x as long as it took to get the FA list working. This is a pretty good challenge and we will need some solid effort to pull it off. -Thibbs (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's the progress on archived discussions/ongoing discussions? There have been a couple recently that had pretty lengthy discussions. I just want to pitch whatever way I can. Le Panini Talk 11:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know there hasn't been any work on the digest portion of the newsletter this quarter. It would be great to have some help in that area. The draft of the digest can be found here. For reference, previous digest entries have taken a form like this (from User:Torchiest) and recently re-initiated by User:I'm Aya Syameimaru!. -Thibbs (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, Then if you wouldn't mind, I'm gonna fill this section with lengthy talk page discussions. Le Panini Talk 03:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've filled in four discussions so far; 3 archived and 1 ongoing. Le Panini Talk 03:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job handling the digest section like I did. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 05:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Aya Syameimaru!, I'm following an unbiased matter like Torchiest did, yet having a lighthearted tone like you do. Le Panini Talk 10:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about the feature? Has there been a decision on that yet?

I would also suggest when it comes to the interview, asking questions more personal to their time on Wikipedia. It feels like some of the questions are just generic templates. Some examples:

You claimed to have retired in December 2019, but returned in August 2020. What drew you back?

Is there a reason for what images you display on your user page?

Your most amount of contributions on the main page come from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft. Why is that?

Why was your only draft, the "Characters in the Super Smash Bros. series", deleted? Were you the one that did so?

Additionally, numerous articles that appeared in your sandbox were deleted as well. Was it a lack of commitment?

Why did you create the article For Those of You Who Have Never (And Also Those Who Have)?

Le Panini Talk 16:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the feature: I'm Aya Syameimaru! had an idea that he wanted to work on a Good Content Leaderboard. Presumably this would follow the same style as our previous New Article Leaderboard (4th quarter of 2016) and Featured Content Leaderboard (2nd quarter of 2017). I'm Aya Syameimaru! has made a start of this feature here (more recently shifted to here. I'm Aya Syameimaru! said above that he expected me to help him with his idea. I can try to help, but unfortunately our methodologies seem to be orthogonal to each other. I'm Aya Syameimaru! is hoping to construct a table from self-reported GAs from user talkpages and I was thinking about using purely WP:VG/GA lists which would take a long time to search out. We've been trying to think of a good way to combine the effort so we're both collaborating. You can see our discussions above in this thread. Le Panini do you have any thoughts on that plan? Do you think this plan will work? Or do you have an alternative plan for the feature? -Thibbs (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, It seems like a very complicated task. I'm not concerned about how its gonna be tracked, just if it is simple and possible. If so, then go ahead!
For who should be credited for the GA nomination, it should just be the nominator. More often, the article is picked up by a user who change it drastically, and while other users might have been editing it in the past, it could have majorly changed by the user in the process (see Super Mario Bros. 35 for example; it was a stub before I picked it up). It shouldn't go into detail about co-nominators and all that. Le Panini Talk 17:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain it's possible... I'm guessing I'm Aya Syameimaru! may have a better idea about how to complete this project, but if not then we can shelve it for now and proceed with another plan. And yes, nominators would seem to be key for me too. I'd be inclined to allow co-noms too, but the other possible participants should probably not be used. -Thibbs (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the decisions I made for the FA table in my first paragraph here. -Thibbs (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, If we are to shelve it, Good/Featured topics seem to be a hot topic right now, and the feature could be about that. Ooh, or a feature about the "20% of article c or higher" achievement being accomplished! Maybe something about the discussion in there too? But don't give up on the GA idea yet. Le Panini Talk 02:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the interview: In general I tend to agree that personal questions are better than template-like questions, but there is some amount of tradition involved here too. As I'm Aya Syameimaru! put it earlier, the ones that I have added into the queue have so-far been entirely "traditional" whereas I'm Aya Syameimaru!'s have been "unusual" questions. My rationale for asking traditional ones is because I think it's good to have a few basic questions that are common to all of our interviews. I think it is interesting to compare old interviews and to see what answers the different interviewees give to the game questions. But I do agree that there should be a good number of individualized questions as well. In my interviews I have tried to devote 2/3 to the traditional questions and 1/3 to individualized questions. Another quasi-tradition is to use between 5 and 15 questions for the interviewee. I added a 16th question this time because it's an even number and because as with the feature, I'm Aya Syameimaru! asked for help to collaborate for the interview so that way we'd both have 8 questions. But I'm not sure if the traditional 15 questions max is important. I mean we don't want to overwhelm an interviewee but certainly there is also no obligation for the interviewee to answer all questions. Unanswered questions can simply be removed from the interview. Did you want to join us in these questions, Le Panini? Feel free if you'd like. The interview queue is available here. -Thibbs (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, I would like to, but it seems you've already organized the amount of questions you both are asking equally. If you'd like to use my questions, you can put them in and just replace either of your two slots. Le Panini Talk 17:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Le Panini or we could just add them. There's no reason that there should be a max of 15 or 16. I think we could add all of your questions in as well. What do you think, I'm Aya Syameimaru!? Would that be OK with you too? -Thibbs (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I think Le Panini's questions should be added to the interview. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 10:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Aya Syameimaru! Thibbs and I were skeptical on if creating a GA leaderboard was possible. Do you have a simple way of tracking edits, or would you have to brute force it and create it from scratch? Le Panini Talk 10:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it must done easy and quick. It's high-priority because it's possible to finish the feature before the January 4, 2020 deadline. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 12:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added some questions to the interview, just for completion's sake on my part. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 14:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added some users to the good article list. Three things to keep in mind:

1. I'm also counting GAs unrelated to the Wikiproject, such as Rhain's The Dalek Invasion of Earth

2. I'm calculating it by doing the following: I go to their talk page and look for bot messages that says that their GA submission has been accepted.

3. Are we counting just this quarter, or their entire time on Wikipedia? If so, I need to make some changes. 16:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC) (uncredited: Le Panini)

I think we were intending to count all GAs just like the previous "New Article Leaderboard" and "Featured Content Leaderboard" features, but maybe I'm Aya Syameimaru! had a different plan. I'd defer to him as it was his project. -Thibbs (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, It'd be better if it was all GAs, but it'd be so, so much easier just doing this quarter. What to you think IAS? Le Panini Talk 16:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with this proposal, I allow this to happen because it's a good idea. I still want all GAs. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 16:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Aya Syameimaru!, Okay then. How many GAs did you do this quarter, so I can change it? I'm gonna fix Cat Tuxedo and Photo Drake as well. Le Panini Talk 16:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So far I did 1 GA this quarter, Beatmania IIDX (video game). I was attempting to do a 2nd one named Chaos Field, but it failed, so I still have 2 overall GAs (one of them, Monster Truck Madness, was done before this quarter). It remains at 2, so you don't have to change how many GAs I did overall unless I do another GA later. Focusing on only one quarter doesn't work out for my original intents; I prefer counting all GAs over that because it's more expected, and if we don't count all GAs in time for publication, then this GA leaderboard feature will appear in Q1 2021, not Q4 2020. You can go ahead to fix Cat's Tuxedo's and ProtoDrake's GA stats. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 16:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am not comfortable with the one-quarter-only approach, so I'm cancelling the GA leaderboard feature. The rest of this issue preferably remains uncancelled, because it is doable. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 17:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Aya Syameimaru!, Well, if you'd rather do the other way, do it. I was just suggesting an easier approach. Le Panini Talk 05:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for the comment. -iaspostb□x 17:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm loving this burst of editing! Thanks for both of you, I'm Aya Syameimaru! and Le Panini! I had a quick question about this edit, I'm Aya Syameimaru!. I'm all for newsletter apologies when merited, but I'm not sure it's needed here. I think this edit (dated: 00:37, 9 October 2020) cleaned up the "draft-like look", right? The newsletter was published and delivered at 02:10, 9 October 2020. If the clean-up happened before the newsletter was published then there's no need to apologize, right? Or were we missing any items (Promoted FAs, FTs, or Demoted categories) that went unannounced in August-September 2020? -Thibbs (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was confused that the Quality Content section in the last issue had a "draft-like look", so I did the apology. By reading your comment here, I realized that the 00:37 October 9 edit removed the "draft-like look" of that issue before publication and delivery, so I've now replaced the apology with a simple "we're doing good"-type of statement. You're right, and I and Le Panini are doing good stuff. You're welcome. «=-iaspostb□x+=» 16:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now the interview is what to do for the draft/queue of this upcoming issue. -iaspostb□x 14:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So Thibbs, there's a couple more questions to add to the interview. As usual, it's gotta be interesting. -iaspostb□x 13:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a few tweaks, but I'm not really free right now. I'll try to get to the polishing tonight. -Thibbs (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck and have fun with that. -iaspostb□x 23:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Thibbs wrote a paragraph introducing readers to Tarkus, we can make him answer our questions. -iaspostb□x 00:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Tarkus and he said that his answers will appear in one week. -iaspostb□x 05:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused why "Re: the bold merge of Tutorial (video games)" is a broken code. Do you guys know what's missing? It's on the digest draft right now. Le Panini Talk 10:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(There's another piece on there that's broken as well. It seems to be links that have links in them.) Le Panini Talk 10:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on the presented "bold merge" link then at the top of the WPT:VG page text will appear like "Looks like the discussion "Re: the bold merge of Tutorial (video games)" has been archived. Click to see archived discussion (or search in archives).". Perhaps use the archive links for fixing the situation. -iaspostb□x 21:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There, I found the problem: It's the letter "s" missing from "Video games" in the "Tutorial" and "sandbox" discussion links (resulting in "Video game") and the "[[]]" parts are in that "sandbox" discussion link. I handled the thing with no complaints. -iaspostb□x 21:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Aya Syameimaru!, Thank you. The digest goes over extensive discussions from the talk page. If I left something out, tell me and I'll put it in. Le Panini Talk 01:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'll do that when I feel like it. -iaspostb□x 01:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise, I added a new feature! -iaspostb□x 03:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Aya Syameimaru!, Yes, thank you for that! I'll be sure to write the next one if you'd prefer. I started a sample here, but is still undergoing a lot of work. I tend to write in a more lighthearted approach. Le Panini [🥪] 23:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and feel free to write the next one! -iaspostb□x 00:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on a shortish "Follow-up" article about whether or not COVID has had an impact on WP:VG growth. I'm calling it a follow-up as I was talking a fair bit about COVID in the first quarter of 2020 (Issue 12-1). We've published "Follow-up" features previously in Issue 9-2, and we've done double features in the past (Iss. 7-1 and 10-2). So it wouldn't be unprecedented. Is everyone comfortable with me producing a mini feature alongside I'm Aya Syameimaru!'s feature? -Thibbs (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well fine, I guess you can make it real here. -iaspostb□x 10:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I got no problem with it. Le Panini [🥪] 05:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've added the follow-up. It was longer than I thought it would be, but a lot of its bulk comes from the graphs... Anyway I'll have to update it on 1/1 to make the graphs perfect. Feel free to make any corrections if you can improve it. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@I'm Aya Syameimaru! and Le Panini: So I guess we'll be publishing on Monday (Jan 4). I'm still holding out for the final December NAA report but if it takes too long (i.e. if it goes beyond January 3) then we'll have to just go with what we have and make a correction in the next issue. The December portion of the "Changes to Featured and Good content" section still needs to be updated. Otherwise I think we're looking pretty good. Thanks to both of you for helping out! And Happy 2021! -Thibbs (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thibbs, Once we get started on Q1 2021, I'll finish up my feature. If you guys find any notable points to add, click the ink above and leave some ideas on the talk page. Le Panini [🥪] 06:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Good/Featured Content section isn't finished yet, so it has to be done quick for the sake of the issue being published soon. -iaspostb□x 07:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've just updated the "Changes to Featured and Good content" and "Project at a Glance" sections. I've never done that before so I hope I'm not sending things off course. Some of the GAs were removed or added from WP:VG/RC because the WikiProject tags had been removed and/or because there had been a split, and I didn't know quite what to do with GAs that become FAs. Would those coult as demotions? I basically just ignored those categories. Hopefully that's OK. If not, please correct it. I also set up the next newsletter and I requested delivery. Please make any last minute corrections on the publish version as needed. I'll clear the draft for Q1 2021. Thanks again for all the help! -Thibbs (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thibbs, I wouldn't consider promoted FAs from GAs demoted GAs. It'd be like saying "Joe Biden, fired vice president, President". Le Panini [🥪] 04:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's kind of how I saw it too. It might be confusing to see. On the other hand, the total count in the "Project at a Glance" section should definitely be updated to accurately reflect the changed status. I think (hope) it's good now. -Thibbs (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm delaying the deadline to January 5, 2021 to account for the incompleteness of the current state of the upcoming issue. -iaspostb□x 06:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What? I delayed the deadline to January 5, and yet this issue gets published on January 4. What?! Anyways, it's complete now, thanks. -iaspostb□x 12:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Idontknow. But moving on! Le Panini [🥪] 20:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to surprise you, I'm Aya Syameimaru!! I had requested delivery at 4:16 UTC: "I also set up the next newsletter and I requested delivery. Please make any last minute corrections on the publish version as needed." I went to bed and I think you tried to verbally cancel the delivery at 6:07 UTC. I suppose I should have explained that the delivery usually comes from mass message senders. GP64 and Torchiest have permission but I don't think any of us have that permission. Since both of them were unavailable this quarter, I had to post a request here. To cancel a request we would have had to remove the request. Sorry I didn't explain that to you in time... -Thibbs (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So the deadline remained the same, I agree. -iaspostb□x 23:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q1 2021

I've already said I'm writing the feature for this quarter above, but I think it would better supported by another one. Mine is similar to a personal essay. Le Panini [🥪] 20:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think many of my past features have taken that editorial/op-ed form too. -Thibbs (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about the featured editor? I bet IAS has an suggestion. Le Panini [🥪] 00:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just review Namcokid47 and interview him, that's all I have to ask. -iaspostb□x 01:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has he been interviewed before? If so, what newsletter was it? Le Panini [🥪] 14:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He's never been interviewed on Wikipedia before. -iaspostb□x 17:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was confused about the "My only request is to not ask the same questions" thing. I understand now. Le Panini [🥪] 17:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was "try not to ask the same questions you've asked other editors before". Sorry if that was confusing to anybody. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Namcokid47, As mentioned by Thibbs, some of the questions continue throughout, as they apply to everybody. For example, questions such as your username choice, and why you joined Wikipedia, etc. My question will be specific towards you, though. Le Panini [🥪] 18:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my questions for him:
  • It seems you run Video Game Tengoku. Is there a reason or background behind why?
  • So, why Namco? Do you have any history with the subject? What Namco games do you enjoy the most?
  • On your old user page, you said you hate anime. Later, however, you joined Wikiproject Anime and Manga. Why is that?
  • You've mentioned Wakapedia before. What is, or was, it that you do over there?

Le Panini [🥪] 19:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait to make my questions until after Thibbs makes his questions. -iaspostb□x 20:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that up, Le Panini. Personally I do think that the standard questions are interesting and insightful. There are between 5 and 10 standard questions and just one of them has been asked of all 30 previous interviewees. I'll give you the statistics here:

But I also wanted to say that traditionally the newsletter has given great leeway to the wants of the interviewee. I've invited and conducted a decent number of interviews for the newsletter including editors who simply declined to participate, those engaging in ongoing disputes with each other, admitted sockpuppets, etc., and I've always given them the final word on everything. Generally the custom has been to allow interviewees to nix any question without concerns of hard-hitting interview-style "Interviewee was asked XYZ but declined to comment" disclaimers. I know it's not quite the same thing in this case, but I guess what I'm saying is that I would generally follow the wishes of the interviewee whenever possible. -Thibbs (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this would work. -iaspostb□x 13:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question for the interviewee NK47: What's the weirdest thing you did on Wikipedia? -iaspostb□x 16:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now I edited the queue so that the interview can be worked on there. -iaspostb□x 05:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Panini, are you finished with your feature yet? -iaspostb□x 02:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously not, I've been busy on other projects. Don't worry, I'll have it done before the due date. Panini🥪 04:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I don't worry. -iaspostb□x 07:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the interview answers, Namcokid47! Sorry for the mix-up with the questions. As Panini! noted above, the newsletter does have some traditional questions that can be interesting to compare with previous interviews, but I thought I'd made it clear in my response that traditionally we would have gone with your request for entirely new questions. I'm not sure what I'm Aya Syameimaru! was thinking when he asked not one or two but all of the traditional questions, nor why he signed my name as if I was unaware of your wishes or as if I were pedantically stickling you for answers to those questions regardless. Either way something must have gotten lost in translation. We'd be happy to use your current answers as the official interview if you'd like, but please let us know if you would like to have any or all of them replaced by less traditional questions. The newsletter is due out in early April so we still have plenty of time to rework things. -Thibbs (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel disrespected. Not only did Thibbs call me "Penini", but Namcokid refers to me as "Pani" in his closing. For shame. Panini🥪
That's my schwa disorder acting up again! My brain goes umopapisdn and a's become e's (or ɐ's)... And I thank you not to draw attention to it in the future! -Thibbs (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was putting the questions in the interview just because I wanted to get it done without hassle. It feels quite a decent experience. -iaspostb□x 01:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is invited for an interview and he agrees on the condition that we give him all new questions then it sounds like a hassle if we ask him mostly old questions. All I'm saying is that it's actually not the decent thing to do to people we invite for an interview even if it feels good to us to finish early. Let's try to ask rather than to surprise and demand. -Thibbs (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well okay, I agree with you. I'm certain my interview ideas may not be for everyone, so I'm taking a hiatus from working on this newsletter. I had a good time here. -iaspostb□x 06:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for your help over the last several quarters. We'll catch you on the flip side. -Thibbs (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. -iaspostb□x 09:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently putting all responses I get on this draft. Once I've received all responses, I will write up some more and put together a feature. Maybe call it a Survey instead, as that's more what this is leaning towards. Panini🥪 15:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thibbs, Pinging to let you know that I've received enough answers for a general consensus, but I wouldn't mind more feedback. I'll probably make a post on WT:VG. Panini🥪 16:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I'd be interested to see views from people like ALttP/NARH/Abryn (who is a long-time VG and fictional character article editor), and Czar (whose admirable work with redirect-oriented soft-deletion provides a good middle-ground between keep/delete or merge/split discussions). WT:VG is a great place to find willing participants with opinions on the question. I'll make a tiny format touch-up, but otherwise this seems good. Thanks! -Thibbs (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, No need for a touchup, I'm currently using the sandbox to put responses and I will eventually format prose n such. I can't believe I didn't ask czar yet, I don't know how I could've forgotten. Panini🥪 22:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, Working on the article in my sandbox at the moment. I'll ping you back when I'm finished, if you'd like to do touchups. Panini🥪 11:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, should've mentioned I'm doing this at User:Panini!/sandbox6. Ignore the "RPG games" section above it; I was rewriting the section in the Mario article and I shelved the progress for now. I stored everyone's responses at User:Panini!/sandbox2. Panini🥪 11:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've just about wrapped up unless Czar writes a response, to which I'll add it in where necessary. Would you like me to keep it in my sandbox or port it over? Panini🥪 12:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your good work! You can port it over any time. -Thibbs (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, Porting over now. I'm also gonna fill out the archived and ongoing discussions while I'm at it. Panini🥪 13:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, And I guess while I'm spending too much time filling this in, where do you find the articles for the "Changes to Featured and Good content" section? Is there a list somewhere or do you have to find out which ones were promoted or demoted manually? Panini🥪 13:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There may be other ways, but there was a discussion earlier where GamerPro64 and I were discussing the matter. I ended up just sifting through JL-Bot's changes. There's a link above. GamerPro64 or others who have built up the "Changes to Featured and Good content" section might be better versed than I on better/faster alternatives. -Thibbs (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AaaAnd, is there somewhere where you keep links to the subpages of the draft (ex Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/draft/queue) and are there any more I'm unaware of? Panini🥪 14:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No I think that's the only one. :) -Thibbs (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, I've noticed that you referred to yourself as the WP:VG staff. Wouldn't that make you the only one on said staff if IAS and I aren't included? Panini📚 11:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was trying to come up with a good way to phrase it last night, but you're right that it doesn't sound right. I feel strange being attributed as the author for those questions because Ias posed them to Namcokid47 who had specifically asked not to be given them. I didn't think it was right to pose them to begin with and I am not the original person who invented the traditional questions anyway. Most of them predate any participation of mine with the newsletter. The "How did you think of your username?" question, for example, was first posed by Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs in our 8th interview (with GP64). That was about 2 years before I showed up here. I introduced the question about editing in other areas outside of WP:VG in our 15th interview (with Salvidrim), but all of the other "traditional" questions were first posed by Guyinblack25 in our 1st (with David Fuchs), 2nd (with Masem), and 7th interviews (with JimmyBlackwing). So it's hard to claim that those were my questions for Namcokid47. It's also weird for us to claim them as questions from Ias because although he did pose them, but I think he thought that I was the one who was issuing them. I think there was a miscommunication there. It seems strange to attribute the historical questions to editors like Guyinblack25 and Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs who came up with them originally but for different interviewees. In fact attributing names to questions is a modern thing originating from our 30th interview (with TarkusAB) where all three of us were involved. Prior to that the newsletter had always used a fiction that the questions came from the organization (i.e. The WP:VG Newsletter) rather than from a single interviewer. That's basically where I ended. But you're right that it looks like it set you and Ias as outsiders which isn't right either. Maybe it would be best to just remove attribution for those questions altogether. I'll go ahead and remove them for now. Tell me what you think. -Thibbs (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other option would be to just remove all attribution. Would that be best? I don't have any preference either way. -Thibbs (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, Sorry, my watchlist was filled with a bunch of April Fools' joked and it pushed this down. I wouldn't mind removing attributes except for that one part on the top ("Interviewed by ..."); another option we could do is label the traditional questions as "WPVG" or "General" because they weren't created by anyone specific, and then you could come up with one or two of your own questions to differentiate yourself from them. I wouldn't mind either format, so you could choose if you'd like. Panini!🥪 18:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK I guess I'll just remove the remaining attributions. I agree the top "Interviewed by ..." should definitely stay. -Thibbs (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just put in the Featured & Good content. Again I'm new to that aspect of the Newsletter so I hope I haven't messed up anything. I'd appreciate a review if anyone has time. Of specific interest for me is how to treat newly announced FAs or GAs that were actually passed last quarter but that wasn't reported by JL-Bot. If you look at my edit for January you can see I flagged two entries: a GA and a DGA which occurred in December. Should those be listed under the January report in the Newsletter? Or should we just strip those out? I'm not sure what's best with those. Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q2 2021

I'm planning ahead this part because I know you aren't a fan of surprising people. I would suggest either Rhain or Shooterwalker (though I think we've already done the latter) as our featured editor as looking at their responses for my poll I think they would leave thoughtful and good responses to our questions. Panini🥪 20:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can check my notes, but as far as I know I think they'd both be first-time interviewees. I like both of those options. -Thibbs (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, I'm gonna run a random number generator and see who to pick. Panini🥪 03:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. We can ask the other one next time if that sounds good. -Thibbs (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, Alright, I landed on Rhain and I'll send him a message now. I'm not gonna conduct interview questions yet, just confirmation so we can start off running when the time comes around. Panini🥪 03:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, Rhain has accepted the offer, and apparently has been a candidate for six years. I'll come up with some questions now. Panini🥪 09:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions:

  1. You have definitely taken a lot of important projects under your wing! And it appears you are also working on Abby (character) and Draft:The Last of Us (TV series), too. Would you care to explain your history and reasoning behind franchises such The Last of Us and Red Dead?
  2. You've also done a lot of work for Naughty Dog content as well. Are they your favorite video game developer?
  3. (After the "Why did you choose your username question), A follow-up, why did your username originally contain "1999"?
  4. Recently, we've been asking the question "What is the weirdest thing you've done on Wikipedia?" and most have responded with something embarrassing instead. Have you done something embarr assing in your past that you'd be willing to admit?
  5. You've done a lot of the Grand Theft Auto series. Do you plan to take it to a good, or perhaps featured, topic?
  6. A follow-up, what other video game series do you have under your radar?

Panini🥪 10:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh whoops, neglected this for a month... Thibbs, I think for the next newsletter we could put in a little extra work and get a feature and a survey in there (I got a couple of positive responses from the last survey). Panini!🥪 12:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. The last survey was definitely an interesting read. And I'm glad we got Rhain lined up for the interview. I'll try to make some time to look into a future feature if I can wrangle it. -Thibbs (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs Which one of these would make a good survey?
  1. How do you, or would you, organize a video game series article?
  2. What would you consider the requirements of making a video game series article? What about franchise articles?
  3. What would you consider among WPVG's best works and why? This is to give reference of what an article should look like for new editors.
Panini!🥪 13:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like all of them. The first two are kind of significant for me just at the moment as I'm currently researching a series that I'd like to write up. But I think the third one would also produce some good answers. Were you thinking of asking all new editors or the same group as in the last survey? -Thibbs (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, The best way I got answers was to reach out to specific people; when I made a post on WT:VG I got no new answers. I'll reach out to similar people and I'll try again on WT:VG. Panini!🥪 11:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. :) -Thibbs (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, Sent out messages to 22 people. Mind giving your thoughts on #2? Panini!🥪 15:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Panini!, sure I'll send you a response on your talk page. This is a busy weekend for me, but I'll get it done when I have a moment. -Thibbs (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, No worries at all. Thank you! Panini!🥪 02:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Newsletter