Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games

Video games Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Project

This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Stardew Valley Guidebook (2 participants)
Train simulator (disambiguation) (8 participants)
Preston Arsement (2 participants)
Jackpot World (2 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (5 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (5 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (5 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (14 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Reminder

Please don't forget to add {{subst:CVG deletion}} to the AfD pages after you've listed them here. Thanks. --SevereTireDamage 23:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another reminder: If the AfD list page nearly destroys your computer as it does mine, a useful link is this experimental interface and bot: User:Dragons flight/AFD summary. It covers all existing open AfDs and even makes rough vote counts in different categories such as Keep, Delete, Merge and Comment. --SevereTireDamage 02:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation

Since we currently have an amorphous mass of CVG deletion entries, which makes them hellishly difficult to read and keep up to date with, I'd like to propose we separate them by date using ==== headers. This would be done thus:

At the top would be placed a single section labeled "Older." If the oldest date has, at any point, fewer than four entries (ie, less than or equal to three), it would be dissolved and have its entries placed in this section.
Below, a section for each day, labelled according to its date and in chronological order. Unless a given day is the oldest currently with its own section, it is exempt from the dissolution process outlined in the point above.
New sections are added by the users as they add entries for each new day.

This might take a bit of organisation, but I'd certainly be happy to maintain the system personally (since it was my idea, and I can imagine that it'd take a fair amount of work over time). What thinks you all? RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 13:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going by date would be good; plus then you could see what the newest ones are and which ones have already racked up some "delete as fancruft per nom" votes. -- gakon5 14:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the layout as well. The section editing by date will also make it a little easier to add entries. The only problem is that the TOC for the front page for WP:CVG is already monstrous, and this will make it even longer (and the Requested Articles was recently condensed for this reason). Still, not a very important reason overall. --SevereTireDamage 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support, though you've already done it. Makes it easier to keep track of, add on and remove. I don't think it adds too much length, and I'm still working on making the rest of the page shorter. --PresN 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]