Stub hunting and correct way to request a new platform

I've finally decided I'm going to start contributing to the wiki and have dug out the magazines out of the attic. Is there a way for me to perform a search that lists all games for a platform that are currently just stubs?

And I know only staff can add platforms, is there a correct procedure for getting them added or do people just tend to harass Jeff?

I dunno I asked about adding a couple of platform well over a year ago - messaged Jeff even - and never even got a response. Pretty much everything I requested was a successor or predecessor to something else already in the Wiki, t'boot, so it seems weird that they'd be ignored.

I do wish there was an easier way to accomplish this.

This is really dumb. It's another completely arbitrary wall between editors and GB. We can add controllers and games, but not consoles. We can add images but not headers. We can make add releases but not aliases.

None of it has any logic.

We need to have a firmer grip on platforms because of things like short names and abbreviations and the way those show up around the site. We don't let users add aliases because they directly impact search on the site and are used to correct search issues rather than serve as a basic clearing house for whatever abbreviation people happen to be using that week. We also don't let most users update headers due to the potential for abuse.

You can go ahead and say that you don't like the way we've built this stuff, but don't try to say that there's no logic behind it.

@jeff: Sorry boss, just getting frustrated over on this thread:

http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/editing-tools-820/correct-publishers-on-games-1787950/?messageId=8168465#js-message-9

And it bled over here...

There is, admittedly, a logic to it. But I can tell you that opening it up to a larger number of people works, this is why Wikipedia works. If some gumball decides to alias something stupidly, there are a large number of users that would immediately revert the edit, and take said gumball to task.

Alternatively, if there is a poor "good editor to gumball" ratio, something better than a pointwall would be useful. A group that aren't moderators, but have access to a greater number of features. Vetted by mods. A group you self-nominate for, are vetted by mods or staff, and then given a flag to do mundane things like alias stuff.

@jeff I know that you have an affinity for the obscure old stuff that I do. I did a lot of Action Max, almost all of the Atari 2600 and TG peripheral articles, a bunch of commodore games where I actually had to contact the programmer (see Round About) for information, and more. I LOVE the GB wiki. I love it because it circumvents the part about Wikipedia that makes it of limited use: the notability requirement. Wikipedia's game articles are better organized, are a pleasure to infobox, and have publisher data that makes sense...

BUT

Wikipedia isn't about video games. A game that doesn't meet the notability requirement will never make it. I had to FIGHT other wikipedia mods to get a Baby Pacman hybrid arcade pinball article of there and it took over a year. Here, I can write about a random Vectrex game. I love it here. I want it to be great.

BUT

In order to make it great, at least some of us need the tools to work on the Wiki. Infobox templates are the greatest thing to happen to the Wiki platform. Ours at GB needs so much work. We could do so much more. Imagine if every GB game had a Controller infobox with game controls mapped out (a' la the pause screen of a game) How cool would that be? Imagine if games actually had their correct publishers, and the platforms were listed in chronological order? (It's insane when a venerable classic is listed as like, an iPhone game first).

While I agree that there is the problem of abuse anywhere, how about opening it to paying members? Nobody who has a paid GB membership is going to abuse the Wiki. And if they do, they get blocked from editing. Simple. And any member can still edit articles.

We've been going over a lot of this for years - how about a live GB Wiki discussion at some (near) point? I be GBers would love to get involved and see how these things are decided and planned.

Cheers duder

I would definitely never say there is no logic, just because the logic doesn't make sense to me (especially since I don't have access to the reasoning behind it). However, on the consoles I've requested in the past, I'd really just appreciate an answer - yes or no and maybe a reason to the no - 'cause anything's better than nothing. Plus since the stuff I and others have requested were actually things that have been released and some even come and gone - and then we got the Coleco Chameleon today, which has a fate in the air still since even though it's got funding from Coleco it's still going back to crowdfunding - it just seems a bit weird. (I'm not knocking the Chameleon though since I've actually been interested in it since it was announced as the Retro VGS).

I don't know if letting any level of general user add consoles is the right move, though. I feel like maybe instead, there should just be a sticky for requesting new platforms like with all of the Delete/combine/alias stuff in that forum. That seems to work well enough as it is. That way all requests are in one place and not scattered here and there and easily overlooked, plus there can be conversation to be had about them.