CZ Talk:Video Games Subgroup

Video game/Catalogs/Games by genre

While I like the idea of cataloging games by genre, I don't agree with having one big list that would quickly become huge. Instead I would suggest:

• Video game will have the related article video game genres
• Video game genres will have links to each of the genres, such as Massively multiplayer online role-playing game.
• Each genre could then have a catalog like Massively multiplayer online role-playing game/Catalog/Games within the genre.

--Chris Key 12:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I mainly wanted to indicate that lists of games can be collected on Catalogs pages instead of on the Subgroup pages.

Catalogs may be large, but I agree: Splitting a huge list into smaller ones is the better way.

But even if you expect the list to be too big: What do you think of tollecting annotated catalogs of important (major) games by genre, and by date (first of its kind, successful, etc.)?

--Peter Schmitt 22:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Plan to heavily rework the video game article

You can see some of the work in my sandbox. Obviously it requires a lot of editing--I've left in some large block quotes (some of which have citations noted, some of which do not), there are occasional notes and reminders to myself, there are misplaced paragraphs, and so on. I need to reword a lot of sentences. Some sections need expansion; others require reduction. I know it's not at all complete.

But this is the result of months of (admittedly sporadic, but sometimes laborious) reading and work. The structure/subdivision alone took me quite a long time to finally settle on. I invite anyone to read and comment. Please tell me what you think! Do you think that my proposed changes, when refined, would be superior to the current video game article? (Per CZ policy, huge changes should be discussed beforehand.) Nick Bagnall 12:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You posted this at a good time, as I was about to start a discussion on the future of that page. I've taken a look at your work and have made some comments on the more developed sections here if you would like to look (keep an eye out for words in bold and linked ref marks, which is where my comments are. Do I think it would be superior to the current article? Perhaps, or at least it would probably provide a better point to start. The current article is disjointed and has out-of-date information.

I would say that the best move now would be to go for it. If there are no objections from others then I would suggest that you take out your notes, completely blank out any sections that are completely undeveloped (although leave the headings), and upload the article to the main page. Something like this. Then we can begin some real collaborative work on it, and work towards getting it ready for approval. --Chris Key 19:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just now, I do not have the time to read both pages carefully. However, my first impression from browsing them is that Nick's page does not work as a replacement because it concentrates mostly on the more recent aspects. Since both pages are quite large and have different styles, merging seems not to be a good idea. Thus, I think, the "old" page should stay -- perhaps as "Computer game" -- until the "new" page is developed and it is clear whether the pages complement each other, or the old one should be adapted or is indeed redundant. --Peter Schmitt 23:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris, thanks very much for your comments; all are very helpful. I responded to them in your sandbox (my responses are boldfaced and in the footnotes you added).

Peter, that may be a great solution as the current article is rather focused on PC games. (I do, however, disagree that my draft concentrates on more recent aspects--in fact, Chris noted that the history section covers very little past the 1980s.) Nick Bagnall 12:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)