User talk:Jinnai/VGGL

Scope suggestions

My only concern with this section is the "...topic-specific subset..." bit. Video game articles encompass topics about single video games (which might have fictional components or not, like Tetris or Brain Age), biographies, genres, companies, historical accounts, and fictional characters. You've already addressed them in the rest of the guideline so the scope should reflect that. I think it should be reworded to consult other MOSs depending on the topic, and include the Anime and manga guidelines in there.

Also, are there any other projects' MOS we should list beside Anime and manga? What about WikiProject Japan? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC))

How about we simply defer to other project's guidelines where we don't prescribe anything? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There is some contention with MOS:J about their use of romaji for English titles and English loanwords. This Wikiproject has been vehemently opposed to it being mandatory thus deferring to them and WP:Anime (which defers to them) without some kind of way of saying "except for..." would probably not work.

MOSes we can defer to:

• Japan - with some exceptions
• Anime & Manga - with some exceptions
• Lists - for non-prose lists
• Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (layout) anything under the category (excluding the subcategory), but with exceptions.

Other ones we can somewhat punt to:

• WP:EL - we probably still need to explain some of the abiguous ones and stuff like linking to stategy guides isn't under WP:ELNEVER.
• Media sections could be trimmed down and more referenced to the approrpaite guidelines. We definatly need to explain about some stuff, like screenshots of text games, when video can be used (its not a description to be a good punt to).

As mentioned though we can't defer to them for everything. FE: WP:LAYOUT just deals with the basics. We can't really punt gameplay anywehre because its unique to video games. We can somewhat punt plot over to WAF, but considering how much this is usally one of the most ignored sections, its best not to do too much punting. We cannot punt talking about development, release and promotion nor legacy, reception and impact. For character articles without making WP:Anime our parent MOS (which would be innapropriate to say the least) we can't punt much here. For broader subject articles section there isn't to much to punt and the characteristics/game design info i would not want to because its rather important.

For notability and sources, I think those have largely been punted as best they can be.

Again this right here is just about what can be pushed off to other guidelines/policy pages, not other type of rewriting.陣内_Jinnai 08:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

So the first question is, since we want to punt more stuff over, should I remove the scope section and intergrate things elsewhere, expand it or something else?陣内_Jinnai 23:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how much gets duplicated in other parts of the guideline draft. The problem is I'd like to go through it one piece at a time but I'm unable to address them in a vacuum :\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 14:30, January 24, 2011

Perhaps we should generalize this section for now: "This guideline is the primary style guideline for most video game articles, but it will occasionally defer to other Manuals of Style for certain exceptions outlined throughout the page." We can come back to it later on.

Also, should we move the discussion back to WT:VG to get a wider audience? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC))

I really don't want it bogging it down (we got enough on the page to deal with). If we move it anywehere else for the moment, I'd rather it be WP:VG/GL. However, I do think posing a notice at the bottom of the page would suffice. We can also always transclude the info here so it won't bog down the content of that page (since it shouldn't be archived there anyway).陣内_Jinnai 03:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I edited the scope. Check it out.陣内_Jinnai 03:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think in order to get the relevant people and progress we should just take this to the GL talk page. While I understand why you'd rather draft one big guideline to rule them all, the only way I can see anyone coming to agreements is to do it in chunks (perhaps not section by section, but thematically-related sections to be sure.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If we did it like that, we'd also have to do it fairly quickly. The longer we wait, the more we forget and can cause problems with consistancy both with other guidelines (the the In popular culture section) and internal consistancy between sections. Also there is consistancy of style to worry about. You have issues where things get extremely detailed, like the jargon section, and then rather vague, like the inappropriate content.

That said, from what it sounds like, except for the page layout, details (and adding some stuff I moved to there, there seems to be a better idea. So how's about this:

I go back and rewrite the page layout section to just talk about gameplay, plot (as even though its mentioned in WAF, there's general Wikipedia agreement that because of its rampant disregard for WP:NOT#PLOT it can never be overstated), doing a quick defining the differences between development/promotion/release and reception/impact/legacy (which i am sure will need to be refined). I remove the rest and punt those to LAYOUT, EL and CITE. I will go ahead then and add some of the stuff moved into that area back (mostly dates and appropriate/inappropriate section).

Later, I will write an essay on a preffered layout style for VG pages to accompany this. How's that?陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess we can move the talk, but I want to hold off until:

1. The issue over whether WP:MOS-JA can dictate how and when to use romaji or whether our guideline can be used instead
2. The current and divisive issue over generations is dealt with. We only need one such issue at a time.陣内_Jinnai 01:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

View by Teancum

The Inappropriate content content really feels like too much of a trim-down from the current WP:GAMECRUFT standards. I would argue that the original points 3, 5, 9 and possibly 10 should be added back in from WP:GAMECRUFT to the updated Inappropriate content section. I'd also reiterate that I've strongly opposed to changing more than one section at a time, and even then doing it over time. It will take time for project members to adjust to new guidelines, and so even doing a phased rollout will be met with opposition. --Teancum (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Also this new statement in the lead seems rather WP:POINTy:

Other additional factors may also determine whether an article should be made, especially for ports, remakes, expansions and sequels; just because an article can be split doesn't mean it should be.

I would argue that this statement can be removed altogether, as the guideline's prose can handle this. The prose also needs to be edited for the same reasons. Where originally "remake" appeared 6 times in the guideline, this new draft more than doubles that. --Teancum (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Everything else aside, the problems the current version of has is because its been edited peicemeal, have not stayed up with the current policies and higher-tiered guidelines, and practices on how to display info (like used to seperating exceptions from inappropriate content out, but later not doing that) have changed. The number of issues is far too much to basically leave it to 1 section at a time (especially when some don't even belong) and especially over time. When you need a major overhaul its better to do it all at once.

Also to another point: gamecruft points were incorporated into other sections. Since yuou complain about my overuse of the term remake, I'm surpised you'd be wanting me to create more redudancy and creep. If those sections do get dropped then, yes, I feel they should be added back in.陣内_Jinnai 16:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Truthfully I really don't see us agreeing in several of these matters, so I will respectfully disengage from the conversation. I don't have the energy to argue hard and fast rules as I don't feel that a compromise can be met. --Teancum (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)