Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games/Archive 4

< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style | Video games
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Ferret in topic Merge from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Esports style advice
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

RFC: Standardization of "eSports"/"esports"/"e-sports"

Latest comment: 6 years ago80 comments21 people in discussion
There is a strong consensus to standardize the use of "esports" (i.e. option B), to be capitalized as "Esports" in accordance with typical capitalization conventions for common nouns. There was little direct opposition to the prospect of allowing option C (e-sports), but in the context of the overall discussion, I can't interpret the relatively low level of feedback there as a consensus to equally favor that variant, though I would interpret it as a variant the community does not object to. So, to be clear, there is no mandate to change "e-sports" to "esports", and it should only be changed on a case by case basis, with a good reason or a local consensus, per MOS:VAR (or pending a subsequent RfC). On the contrary, there is a unanimous consensus that the use of "eSports" is not reflected in reliable sources and thus is not correct and should not be used.  Swarm  talk  02:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which spelling/casing of "esports" should Wikipedia standardize on? --Masem (t) 20:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Available options

There are three known options based on historical and current style guides, listed below. Please !vote your support for options below.

ETA: These are options when referring to the term outside of being a proper noun. Where there is an established spelling in an existing organization name, that will remain unchanged by this.

If anyone has other options, please add a relevant section below before the Discussion.

Option A: "eSports"

Nope. Either option B or option C. --Izno (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is presently how our article on eSports is titled and stylized, based on the historical approach that the term is short for "electronic sports".

+1 I also found that analysis convincing and the sources appear to either use or drop the hyphen at this point, so we're realistically between those two. czar 14:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for use as standard because the sources do not use this stylization anymore. The non-capitalized "esports" version (when it's used this way) is what reliable sources and related industry sources use nowadays, so our choice should be between those two. In other words--while this may be a valid way to spell it--it's superseded by other options. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, especially as the proposer has neglected to inform us of prior discussion on this topic. I concur with (and recommend) Mac's analysis. In particular I would add: "eSports" (and "eSport") is not an English word. An exception might be made if this was a proper name, but it apparently it is not. Capitalizing the "S" is thus just a device to modify the "e" in a way contrary to English usage, striving for an "eee·sports" pronunciation instead of "eh·sports". Addtional comments below. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even specialized sources at WP:VG/SE use esports/Esports. I strongly disagree with SMC's arguments, but I'm not convinced of the opposite. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 21:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Media outlets that focus heavily on esports are increasingly adopting "esports" Dot Esports, ESPN esports, The Esports Observer (About Us section at the bottom), Blitz, Kotaku, The Score, etcetera. While there are some sources that still use other spellings, they are outnumbered. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Option B: "esports"

This is based on a recent change made in the Associated Press's style guide last year (Read more at ESPN here) which appears to have been picked up by most reliable sources that cover the topic area.

  • Support - The AP endorsement is significant. Like it says in the ESPN article, compare to email. TarkusABtalk 23:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I previously supported the status quo (eSports) in the last RM we had on this, but since then it seems more and more sources began to use "esports". And I also believe that the AP endorsement strengthens the case for this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support to align it with everything e- (such as email), and adpot the AP style, which will become the status quo in most media (as they use the AP style too). Lordtobi (✉) 06:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME spelling at this point. Regards SoWhy 06:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – I do believe I have done a search of spelling variants on reliable sources before, though I wasn't able to find it. This seems like the common name of the subject to me. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Following the AP stylebook is where our secondary sources are most likely to head, and in general it seems a tipping point has been reached already. Additionally the last discussion had some relevant points as to how eSports might violate some other MOS guidelines and other policies such as avoiding extra stylization, tone, NPOV and MOS:CAPS, as iterated there by SMcCandlish. -- ferret (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as equally acceptable to option C, "e-sports", per SMC previously. --Izno (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - if we don't have any style in place, then there is no reason not to adopt the AP one and be more aligned with other sources. One exception is at the beginning of a sentence or as part of a proper name of an esport organization. --Gonnym (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as the option that sources prefer or recommend. As per all the previous discussions and source surveys, given the different options, this appears to be the most representative of the term's use. If we are to standardize, then I believe this is the variant to use. Both the "eSports" and "e-sports" acceptable versions have fallen behind on use, at least in comparison to this, although there is nothing inherently wrong with those. (I want to say "e-sports" is better, but that's subjective and bad for WP:V.) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support following the AP stylebook, while noting that proper nouns (such as names of organizations using other renderings) should be retained (for instance, an organization called "Foo eSports" should not have its article at "Foo Esports" unless the organization changes its brand standards. Raymie (t • c) 06:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support follow AP. Bonus points that it follows normal English capitalization rules more clearly than other versions, making it easier to use. signed, Rosguill talk 04:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the reasons given for "eSport", and expressly rejecting the analogy with "email". Despite the broad usage of the latter, it is a form that does not conform to how words are constructed in English. Where that initial "e" is not merely the first, and otherwise quite ordinary, letter in the word (where "em·ail" is a reasonable pronunciation), then the "e-" form (making it a prefix) is preferable. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Bullshit. Your claim that "Most of the people who oppose this" (namely myself and ZXCVBNM) seem (your perception) to be doing it for personal reasons, lacking "policy-based reasoning" has a certain amount of truth. But that is because we lack clear policy on this. And that argument applies to both sides; that is why we are discussing it. However, the imputation that we have not provided any good reasoning is false, and demonstrably so. I explicitly stated above that "esports" does not conform to how words are constructed in English. I also referenced reasons given in the preceding subsection, including a previous analysis by SMcCandlish. Furthermore, that you don't understand what ZXCVBNM was referring to is not a disproof of the point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Johnson (talk • contribs)
Again, we should be going with the common name\spelling of the term, which has been linked with many reliable sources for both spellings. How you personally prefer it to be spelt is not a valid argument (see WP:ILIKEIT), unless you can show that "e-sports" is more common than "esports". If we were to follow strict English rules for everything on Wikipedia, then why do we use email over e-mail (or even just electronic mail)? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it goes back to the obvious pronunciation. "Email" is still clearly pronounced that way even as a single word. It's not obvious, however, that "Esports" is not pronounced "Essports" to someone who is not familiar with the term.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
D93: How you "personally prefer it to be spelt" is not a valid argument for you, either. I have provided reasons for my preference, and it does not forward the discussion here when you disparage them as mere "like". Your implicit presumption that we should follow WP:COMMONNAME strictly – which isn't even a policy, but a mere essay – but the standard norms and conventions of English not so strictly, is not relevant to the reasons I (and ZXCVBNM) oppose "esports", and would be more appropriate for the discussion section below. And you should try to understand that correct English is like correct spelling: whether you personally prefer to be correct, or not, in no way changes long established conventions as to what is correct. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support both B and C; I think these should both be considered acceptable. I don't really see issues with esports and it is certainly more common, but as Izno notes below e-sports is technically correct as well. JOEBRO64 20:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Option C: "e-sports"

Following from the AP style book above, the "e-" prefix has been generally reserved for any type of electronic equivalent, eg. "e-mail" for "electronic mail". The AP guidebook went away from this, but this is a valid and still used form in mainstream media.

  • Support as equally acceptable to option B, "esports", per SMC previously. "e-" is the technically correct version and I would suggest should be allowed, if not preferred. (But I have no great qualms about this issue and clearly everyone else has a particular opinion. ;) --Izno (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as the best option. It goes like this:
    1. Wikipedia's house manual of style follows academic style more closely than it follows news style when afforded both options. The hyphenation of e-sports/esports is tied to the source's proximity to the professional video game industry. Like of course the original e-sports sites dropped the hyphen: They wanted the word to become a common noun as a proxy for the phrase's acceptance and the professional industry's legitimacy issues. Our house style/treatment has similarly been a proxy battleground, hence the plethora of exhausting threads at WT:VG. Video game/"videogame" blogs and their niche readership can adjust to the hyphen-less name (and if we were heavily lobbied, I wonder what even happened to those sources). Academic sources, by contrast, will use a hyphen based on their proximity to the subject matter as part of the author's insiderness and the house styles of the journals that accept their papers. (See the last discussion for SMcC's summary.) But what about the non-niche AP-affiliated news sources?
    2. In AP's decision-making:

      Several committee members were leaning toward using the hyphen at first, as opposed to creating another exception to their rule, as with "email." But feelings changed over time.
      "The thing that iced it for me, and I think convinced a lot of the other committee members, was when we looked at Google Trends results and saw that people were searching for 'esports' without the hyphen at a rate of like 30 to 1 over 'e-sports' with a hyphen," Garcia said. "At the end of the day it's about clarity for the readers, and the readers are telling us they don't search for it with the hyphen."
      — ESPN last year

      Clarity for readers. Noting that WP relies on source precedent over search trends (and ignoring the obvious methodological issues of the latter—when was the last time you've typed a hyphen into Google search, knowing how they are effectively ignored?) what "clarity for readers" does "esports" provide our intended, general audience? Little, as even news sources like the New York Times, the Guardian, the Los Angeles Times continue to hyphenate. They can drop the hyphen when repeating an AP/Reuters report, but it does not override that these major papers, despite the prevalent style in the rest of the industry, continue to hyphenate for their readership. A year later, I see the AP change as just that: a change for AP. It has not yet led to a sea change in which a general readership come to understand "esports" as they would recognize "email".

      Time Magazine: So is it time to call Chicago Manual of Style and ask them to settle the debate: “Esports” or “eSports”? I see you’ve settled on “Esports.”
      ESPN: You’ve hit on the biggest debate we had before launch. We came to that usage because every single person that we hired said we needed to do it lowercase and that it’s like “email.”
      — ESPN the year prior

    The same way that "e-mail" slowly became "email", WP should not be pressured by insiders or wielded as a tool to force adoption of an unnatural spelling as some kind of vanguard, but should preserve its role as an encyclopedia for a general readership largely unfamiliar with the term. Until the term becomes more prevalent and general sources also drop their hyphen, we should keep ours as well. We already do our readers a disservice in our jargon-filled e-sports player and industry articles, and our writing should aim, foremost, to be understood. czar 14:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
    Sources on writing, including our favorite CMOS and others, have increasingly been using word analysis such as Google Trends and Ngrams to understand word use and accordingly to recommend certain word use above others. We do follow them in this regard, because they're the authorities on English, not us. CMOS has deprecated the dash in email, but seems conservative on accepting other cases. The AP is clearly noted above by SMC, who I think makes the reasonable observation that we choose news style when we don't have formal style to fall back on. Merriam Webster still does not list either esport or e-sport; the OED and Cambridge has it at "e-sport", so it seems they also are conservative on the point. The works listed above all have their own style which I believe is mostly private to those organizations, so they're much less interesting than their actual stylebooks. Eh, it's a wash. Fighting over the dash, as my !votes note, doesn't seem worth it or at best, can be considered a minor improvement to bring some phrasing into our style (esport > e-sport >>> anything else), but I would guess everyone is on the same page regarding the capital S. --Izno (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
    While you make some good points, I don't see how "esports" vs "e-sports" greatly hurts its ability to be understood at all. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
    For the same reason we don't write ebook or ereader: because the word isn't common enough to make the hyphen implicit.

    Publication style is largely about consistency and polish, which in turn can represent credibility — if we can’t decide whether we use gray or grey, can you trust our attention to detail in stories about campaign finance or nuclear weapons? But it’s also about not looking weird, not distracting readers. E-mail, Web site, mike and Wal-Mart had begun to do so.
    — WaPo on dropping the hyphen in email

    It's ultimately about "clarity for readers". I haven't polled our readership but I'd put the hyphen-less "esports" closer to "ereader/ebook" than to "email" in likelihood to trip up readers. Ostensibly that is why the other sources I cited use "e-sports" despite the AP's changeover. Worth noting (per the quoted source) that they similarly held out after the AP's change from "e-mail" to "email". The change may be inevitable, but what serves readers best in the meantime? Do we better service our readers by being the vanguard of lexigraphic change or by providing the most readable copy/prose to the widest audience? czar 16:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    Again, good points, but I still think we should go with the common name, which seems to be esports, over understandability. After all, the entire purpose of the article is to educate and explain the term to readers unfamiliar with it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as the best and preferred form. That initial "e" is not an ordinary "e", it stands for "electronic", and such unnatural use should be distinguished with the hyphen (dash). That AP has followed millions of people in unnatural usage does not make it right; we should prefer the clearer form. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Where is that mandated? Wikipedia is not a blog that needs to slavishly follow the latest popular trends to maintain a following. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where more formal language should be used for accuracy and clarity. (See WP:FORMAL.) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
There should be at least some consideration to minimizing disruption. The current eSports standard (as far as it is "formalized" in how the article is named) leads to constant disruptive edits where readers/SPAs and occasionally even experienced editors change attempt to broadly change occurrences of 'eSports' or 'e-sports' to 'esports', despite various edit notices and talk page discussions littering this topic area. Standardizing on something that will just lead to continual disruption isn't really in our best interest either. Not really predicting that to be the case, but simply bringing up the point. The AP styleguide is nearly always the quoted reason for making changes when this happens. -- ferret (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree about minimizing disruption. Which is why, though I strongly prefer the "e-sports" form, I am tolerant of "esports". As to the AP style guide: we don't don't follow them in regard of news writing style (WP:NOTNEWS!), so I don't know why we need to follow them in this detail of spelling. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
My point wasn't that AP is authoritative on Wikipedia, but that it is frequently used as a justification for drive-by editors to change things. -- ferret (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Case in point. This happens several times a month. -- ferret (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
It's mandated in WP:COMMONNAME. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
1) Not mandated. The specific language at WP:COMMONNAME – a.k.a. WP:UCRN, for "Use commonly recognizable names" – is: WP "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used" (emphasis added). It goes on to say: "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly." The criteria referred to are summarized in the "nutshell": "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." Nothing there are about "most common". But it does lead into a significant consideration: 2) WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles. The discussion here is about general use of the term, for which WP:AT is not directly applicable. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
"editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly." - which is what we are doing. Also, this is about the article title, which would then be reflected in the many wikilinks it has. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
More specifically, this would be how the current eSports article would be named, how the term would be presented in the body, and as recommended but not mandated advice for new articles that mention the term. There's weight to "e-sport" as there is to "esport" so either might end up acceptable, as long as one's consistent (but obviously we're not going the "ESport" route). Titling is one aspect but the style affects numerous articles. --Masem (t) 21:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Are you saying this wouldn't apply to every generic usage of the term in articles? How would this even be enforced? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The question presented at the top of this discussion is, in its entirety: "Which spelling/casing of "esports" should Wikipedia standardize on?" No mention of limiting the scope to "how the current eSports article would be named", a specific topic of very little interest to me. I'm out of here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
But whatever we settle on would be reflected in its title as well, per WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Option D: "Esports"

Only where our rules on capitals apply as it is not a proper noun. Whether this one takes a dash or not in other places that aren't related to MOS:TM should be settled by option B or C decision. --Izno (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Like it or not, it's one of the spellings used by many, especially in MOS:TITLECASE:

Since we were discussing every option, I felt it was better to discuss them ALL, even the unsupportable ones, in the spirit of thoroughness and to make sure we have demonstrable consensus to fall back on and shut down anyone who tries to bring it forward in the future. It's not harming anything to have it discussed here. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Option E: (other to be filled in)

Blank section for any other options that might be suggested

Discussion

This has been a matter brewing over the last year with the AP guideline change, and would affect a number of video game related pages. Past discussion has been essentially limited to move requests at eSports but there's need to establish a wider consensus for MOS purposes (prose content) as well with electronic sports becoming more popularized in mainstream media. The goal of this RFC is to determine what style to "fix" in MOS:VG, to move eSports (if needed), and subsequently revise any text as needed.) Note that any option not selected will still be pointed out as alternate styling and used in redirection. --Masem (t) 20:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Noting this recent discussion at WT:VG on same topic, but ultimately nothing was done. -- ferret (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Pinging participants from the last discussion: @Sacco26, SoWhy, SharkD, SMcCandlish, Czar, and Lee Vilenski: ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Just a point Inzo's !votes make: if there are two or more supported forms from this but one clearly has preference, we need to assure something like DATERET (retention of a valid form) is used in the MOS. We'd want editors to favor the preferred form, but if an existing or new article uses an otherwise acceptable form from this, we should not change that without consensus discussion on the talk page. --Masem (t) 16:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    I don't really think something like this needs a prerequisite consensus discussion like the various STYLERET guidelines--just one if there is some change from one to the other and the one is reverted per the normal BRD cycle. --Izno (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    True, but in light of what Czar said about option C, I'm just thinking it might be sensible to have wiggle room for a preferred, and a less preferred but allowed form (B, then C so far), and we don't want gnomish editors to be "correcting" C to B. Inter-article consistency is required, however. --Masem (t) 15:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
    MOS:VAR already exists. It doesn't say anything about preferential treatment versus noted treatment (simply noted treatment to un-noted treatment), and it certainly doesn't ban a bold change prior to discussion (unlike CITEVAR). --Izno (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
If the consensus in this discussion is something other than "eSports" will the usage of the term be changed in eSports? Nevermind, already mentioned by Masem. Derek M (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Just want to note that during the duration of this RFC alone, the spelling has been changed by SPA editors about 6-7 times. -- ferret (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I atop/abot'd A and D with I think the appropriate caveats that everyone can agree to. I however won't close between option B or C because of involvement. --Izno (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I left a close request at WP:ANRFC for options B/C. --Izno (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why must plot guidelines be contained in Gameplay?

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

What is the point of having Plot guidelines contained in the guidelines for Gameplay? Surely, the guidelines for Plot should be separate, and also should contain additional notes about how the section, where it's notability allows for it to be separate from Gameplay section, should be set out. In that regard, it would certainly have to coincide with similar guidelines regarding Plot sections for any form of Fiction media (TV, Books, Film). GUtt01 (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

One other issue is that the guidelines for the Plot section of video games doesn't seem quite correct in presentation. First, why must it be included as part of the Gameplay section if not notable enough to be allowed to be separate from it? Second - should there be much clearer indications of what it means by the use of secondary sources? Third - should there not be clarity on how a plot is written out, like if a game features two different storylines, shouldn't an editor be advised to only write them out, if they differ so much as to feature different key plot elements?
Critically, these guidelines should have considered making note of similar guidelines for plots from Fiction, in regards to certain key areas - summarizing key plot points; avoiding breakdown of scenes; and not interpreting or evaluating elements. GUtt01 (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Video games are different from books of fiction, narrative film, etc. in that their plotlines are rarely noteworthy. Sure, if Final Fantasy's plot is important, split it out to its own section, but otherwise, it's undue weight and unnecessary. czar 23:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course, there will be a variety of games that don't need this section or don't have much of a plot. But there are definitely a number of titles which do incorporate considerable story elements to them. Examples include, alongside Final Fantasy, the Half-Life games, Monkey Island, Broken Sword, Rainbow Six Vegas, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, Halo. Basically, the most common games to feature storylines include RPGs, FPS, Open-world titles, adventure games (including point-and-clicks), and platformers. We also got to consider titles where there are major background events going on, primarily in MMOs, which players become integral to, mainly as part of the event itself. GUtt01 (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree - not all game articles require plot sections, but when they do, they deserve their own section. Popcornduff (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. But when they do, I think the guidelines need to be somewhat more clearer on how they are written out, and one area to think of is that such plots in games tend to fall under the same category of guidelines for those used in other media (neutral point of view, summary of key plot points, no breakdown of scenes, etc.) GUtt01 (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
In broad strokes, I agree that games should have a plot section when significant and applicable and I support listing it as its own section. Narrative is a significant part of many games. But there are a lot of details we can't just add to the section without discussing. This page is new to MOS and so it has many shortcoming, but we have to be careful about making major wording changes. For example, word count conflicts a different part, there's no consensus about DLC side-sections, sources for plot are more often desirable than not, technical details are often core mechanics, there's previous discussions that sources are often more desirable than not, etc. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think MOS:VG is saying that plot must be discussed in gameplay sections, only that when the plot is super thin to non-existent, you don't need a separate plot section and should include the fundamentals in the gameplay section (eg like for Pac-Man or Fortnite Battle Royale). Clearly if there's significant narrative with a game (eg your BioShocks, Final Fantasys, etc.) then a separate plot section is fine. Video games range from very deep narrative experiences to nearly no story, so we're trying to help editors adapt as needed. --Masem (t) 13:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. If a game has a deep narrative to it, having a plot section helps from an encyclopedic point of view to clarifying the game's story as a result. As I mentioned above, the most common video games to feature such narrative include RPGs. The background of the game is also a grey-area in this respect - the setting needs to be clearly separated in its own section, but only if the story for it weighs in proportionally. GUtt01 (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

How to listing the year/release date in the lead

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

So we previously held a discussion on this, but we were only able to settle on a weak consensus to basically keep whatever format came first (similar to the MOS:DATEVAR policy). However, I've noticed in recent months that newer editors are going around and changing it during GAN\FAN to their prefer format despite (being unaware of/not caring about) the discussion. Due to that, I'd like to hold another discussion on this and hopefully officially add whatever we decide to settle on to the MOS. Film articles (WP:FILMLEAD) usually just have the release year and only add the full release date to the infobox/article body, while video game articles usually add the full release date/month (per WP:VG/DATE). Personally, I don't really care which format we use, I just don't like seeing both ways within a few sentences apart that somehow people fail to see as bad writing. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Bloated leads

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Guys, I know many of you will disagree with this, but so be it. There is something weird about the way Wikipedia writes about games. They overexplain. They give too much information too fast. In the name of comprehensiveness they end up bloated. Two things in particular bug me.

One: the genre pileup. Our lead sentences sentences describe games as "open-world action RPG", "3D action platform adventure", "first-person RPG", "2D sidescrolling puzzle platformer", etc. Until recently, the lead sentence of the God of War (franchise) article (a FA no less) described it as "an action-adventure, hack and slash, mythology-based video game series". These shopping lists of genres may well have appropriate sources, but for the lead sentence it's just bloat. Someone completely foreign to the subject, looking up, say Deus Ex, does not need to be told immediately that it is a "role-playing first-person shooter stealth" series. Pick the main genre cited by sources and use that. More information about genre can be covered later. MOS:FILM has a policy of limiting genres to the main genre identified by sources for the first sentence (WP:FILMLEAD) - I think we should do the same.

Second, well, this is basically the same debate I started a while ago about "platform video game", but goshdarnit there is no need to write "Nintendo 64 home video game console" or the like. "Nintendo 64" is fine. Yes, I know we ought to write for a general readership and I know not everyone knows what a Nintendo 64 is. But if the lead sentence establishes that Donkey Kong 64 is a game then we don't need to say that the Nintendo 64 is a machine for operating games. It's not the place to teach this information and it creates bloated, unnatural sentences. Film articles don't write "DVD home media format" or "VCR recording playback device". There is a balance to be struck and this is not it. Popcornduff (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Definitely agree with your first point. But, especially in my time writing music-related articles, a lot of that comes from passerby editors who drive-by expand it until it becomes something ludicrous like "third person 2D-action-adventure-platformer-JRPG" or "heavy post-progressive alternative metal" or whatever. I suppose we could be better in combating it - sometimes I don't bother just because its so endless - but I think a lot of it is these newbies who think they're helping. Just my two cents. I'm not opposed to adding something to the MOS to try to combat it though. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I was the one to fix the God of War genre bloat, so I 100% agree with everything here. In addition, I'd propose that we get rid of any mention of 2D/3D in the opening sentence too. If it's actually notable, such as Mario 64/Ocarina of Time (as they were the first real 3D entries in a popular, long-running franchise), then it should be explained better with prose. However, I don't think we should apply your second point to the whole article, as going with "Nintendo 64 home video game console" at first mention outside of the lead should be fine. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether this has ever been written down, but I've noticed that people dislike the idea of having anything other than a game's core genres in the lead, excluding themes and gameplay elements (open world, first-person, etc.). It should definetly be written down, though. Lordtobi (✉) 06:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Question about development sections

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Development sections are listed here as essential for video game articles. While I agree with this, I would like to point out that there are going to be cases when a game is so obscure that development information simply just doesn't exist. Take some of the articles in the Rare Replay GT for example: Lunar Jetman, Cobra Triangle, and R.C. Pro-Am II don't have development sections (LJ notes Rare was secretive about how they made their games). I wanted to ask what should be done if there is just not enough information available for a development section, and if it should be noted here. JOEBRO64 22:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • They are essential for games that do have development info, but I don't think anybody is going to object to not adding one for games that basically have none. We already do this for plot sections for games that don't really have one important enough to cover. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • If there's no reliably sourced information about development then we can't include it. No way out of that, unfortunately. I suspect this means some game articles can never reach FA status, for example. That's not necessarily because all FA game articles need development sections, but because the subjects of FA articles need to have been covered in sufficient depth by sources for a reasonably comprehensive article to be written about them - I could imagine a game with no development interest might not stand up to that test. But not always. Popcornduff (talk) 05:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

"Noted" in review sections

Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

I don't seem able to get through a review section for a game article without seeing a misuse of this word. It seems pervasive among game articles but not film or music articles. Examples:

  • "Many negatively noted the gradual unfurling of the player's abilities"
  • "Critics noted that the multiplayer was weak"
  • "Edge noted that while it did not do enough to make up for the opening chapters, at Gran Pulse the game 'hits a sweet spot'"

Facts are noted, not subjective assessments. The word implies objectivity. "He noted that it was raining" is OK. "IGN noted that the game is fun" is not.

The word is also listed in the MOS under "words to watch" (WP:SAID). Can we watch out for it, please? Popcornduff (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

    • I think that's absolutely correct - though it doesn't explain why it's spread so much on game articles in particular. Once again I suspect the dubious influence of games journalism... Popcornduff (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've been guilty of this in the past (wasn't aware it was listed under the words to watch). I think "stated" is a valid alternative to this, correct? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
    • You look after a lot of game pages, so knowing you're on the case is reassuring. Yes, on the whole "stated" is fine from a POV perspective. But it's probably an odd word choice for reviews - "Many critics stated that the multiplayer mode was weak"? I'd write "Many critics found the multiplayer mode weak" instead.
But this gets into the thorny issue of "said" verbs generally. As Hellknowz said, there is a tendency to use multiple verbs that basically mean "said" to avoid repetition, which is a dubious strategy and one I might add to my WP:ELEVAR essay. These thoughts on said-verbs from Stephen King are half-relevant but interesting. Popcornduff (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's better. I'll look through the main articles I watch and see if I can't improve them with this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Just having two words isn't a great deal for good reception sections. I'm not surprised that other words have been added. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I remember seeing you bring this up a few months ago and have since made efforts to reduce my usage of "noted". I think it's hard for most editors to see when "note" plain and simple doesn't work. Stuff like "IGN noted the game was one of the greatest of all time" should be obvious, but I swear I saw something almost exactly like that in a decent-quality article. JOEBRO64 20:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've tried to stick to "said", "stated", or when its clearly opinion "opined" or "concluded". Alternatively, if I can work it, I use "According to (so and so), 'quote here'". Its unfortunately that there's little soft-sounded statement works like "said" and "stated"; "noted" or "found" are just unfortunately bad alternatives. --Masem (t) 20:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I often use a construction that includes the qualitative assessment into the dialogue attribution: "Multiple reviewers criticized the stiff, unresponsive controls, although IGN applauded their intuitiveness even for less experienced players". Or neutral alternatives to "said" like remarked, commented, observed, found, mentioned, concluded, viewed, discussed, judged, considered... of course they all have subtle contextual differences. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The most significant reception section I wrote from scratch by myself is probably Back to Stone#Reception -- re-reading it, I did use "noted" once and probably overused "considered". Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Engvar-date format mismatch and WP:TIES

Latest comment: 5 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

WP:VG/DATE says the two should match, so I changed Watch Dogs to do so, but was reverted by Ferret, presumably because his interpretation is that the date format must change to match the Engvar (rather than the other way around like I did) in the event of a mismatch, and I assume he believes that the game's setting (Chicago) is a stronger tie than its production (primarily Canada, and no USA). Is that really the case? (if so, by that logic Father Ted is Irish and should use Irish English, yet consensus there is to call it British because of its production (United Kingdom) and therefore to use British English. There is actually a long-term edit war going on there because of that dispute (just though I'd mention that).) Also, what if the date format was established first (that is, before the Engvar)? Does the Engvar's proper date format trump the previously-established date format? Or should the date format (if it came first) dictate which Engvar(s) can be used? The current wording seems to suggest the former, which I think is unfair. I think some clarification is needed here as to what constitutes a strong enough national tie on video game articles (I have seen editors consider its production a strong enough tie to change the Engvar) and in the event of an Engvar-date format mismatch, whether the date format should change, or the Engvar. Adam9007 (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We definitely have had a consensus that the developer does not representa strong national tie, over the last couple of years. Watch Dog in particular has its setting entirely within the United States, which is its general narrative. A separate example is Lara Croft, which is no longer developed in the UK, but because of the strong narrative tie, all the articles are kept on British Engvar. That VG/DATE calls for ENGVAR and DATERET to be the same is possibly not something that is captured in other MOS areas and may need to be removed or reconsidered. -- ferret (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Where is the link to this consensus? Is it a Wikipedia-wide consensus, or was it just in this Wikiproject? Adam9007 (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
It's a general consensus within the project area. Unfortunately I'm not sure of a good search term to try to find discussions in the last couple of years, across WT:VG and this page (which was previously WP:VG/GL). -- ferret (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, going by what's been said so far, Puzzle & Action: Tant-R has a stronger tie the United Kingdom that other English-speaking nations, because, in a couple of scenes, it features some famous British landmarks in the background. That is not a tie to the United Kingdom, by any stretch of imagination. That articles uses British English because that's what I (the creator) happened to write it in, not because of that. Had it been written in American English or any other Engvar, the suggestion that it should be in British English because will be laughed at. But I can't dismiss the fact that Father Ted is considered to have a strong tie to the United Kingdom, despite it being set in the Republic of Ireland and its Irish culture and cast. I'm wondering if I should take this to the Wikipedia-wide MOS talk page? This is quite a contradiction... Adam9007 (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind all I'm saying is that the developer themselves does not represent a strong tie by default. There's probably tons of games with no clear national tie, so "retain existing style or first used" applies. Not everything has a strong tie. (For example, no one, at least in my opinion, goes "Oh, Watch Dog? That Canadian game?" It's not known for being "canadian") -- ferret (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
It's not known for being "canadian" Father Ted's known for being Irish, even though we (Wikipedia) consider it to be British. Adam9007 (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have an opinion on Father Ted, I'm not personally knowledgeable on it, and MOS:VG wouldn't apply there anyway? If you feel there's a MOS issue on Father Ted specifically that is resulting in slow edit wars and back and forth, consider doing an RFC about that topic specifically. -- ferret (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I did, 2 and a half years ago. Consensus was that it's British, due to its production. I don't see why video games should be different. Adam9007 (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why they'd have to be the same. Different forms of media with different distribution methods, almost always international ownership and publication in the case of VGs. -- ferret (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
So you're saying that a video game's "nationality" should be determined by who owns the rights to it? That makes no sense to me. By that logic, all of Bullfrog Productions' games are American, even though they are clearly British, both by production and by culture. I'm sure most would agree with me on this. Adam9007 (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying the exact opposite. Not sure where we have a disconnect. To repeat: the developer (or the publisher) does not represent a strong tie by default. In short, in cases where a game has no strong national tie, then the ENGVAR and date style is chosen by the first editor, per MOS:RETAIN and WP:DATERET. Not everything has a strong national tie. -- ferret (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
That about sums up my stance on it as well. Sergecross73 msg me 23:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Gearheads (video game) - Technically an American game, I used British because I saw nothing inherently American about it and was not aware of any previously-establish Engvar.
The Cutting Room Floor (website) - Created by an American person, but there's nothing inherently American about it. I used British because that's what I usually use.
Dungeon Keeper (2014 video game) - Technically American, I was unsure whether to use American or British. It's part of a British series, and many of its "Theme" is originally British, so I went for the "middle-ground" of British but with Oxford Spelling.
Dungeon Keeper 2 - This was originally in American, but I considered the combination of the production and culture a tie to the UK. The GA reviewer somewhat agreed, and no one has yet challenged it.
Someone changed Populous (video game) from American to British. I concurred with the change for the same reason as above.
These are just a few examples of my dealings with Engvar and video games. Is there anything wrong with it so far? Adam9007 (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with those. If you're first editor, use whatever you like, unless you can find some reason the game itself (not it's developer) would be closely associated to a given nation. Most topics in the VG area simply won't have a strong national tie. If there's cultural ties apparent in the game itself, or it's particularly known for having been developed wherever, then you can. Examples again but, Lara Croft? British, hands down. Tetris? Widely known as Russian originally. Final Fantasy? Japanese origin is a huge part of the topic. Counter-Strike? No national tie. Overwatch? No national tie. Far Cry? No national tie. (Though one could argue that Far Cry 5 has strong american cultural ties, I suppose). It's very much a case by case thing. (Not to muddy the waters, but FIFA games follow WP:FOOTY and use British spellings) -- ferret (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Mixed on metacritic

Latest comment: 5 years ago51 comments12 people in discussion

Metacritic has the grades positive (green), mixed (yellow) or unfavorable (red). On metacritic mixed doesn't necessarily mean scattered as stated in this manual. The image next to this section even contradicts mixed being scattered, because it says "mixed or average". On metacritic, mixed is just a euphemism for mediocre. I propose summarizing yellow ("mixed") scores as mediocre. And "mediocre to positive" or "mediocre to unfavorable" is just fine as a way to describe a borderline situation. For example, on Fallout 76 the metacritic scores currently hover between mixed and generally unfavorable (mixed meaning mediocre). This guideline incorrectly forbids me to use any phrasing that describes this hovering, so the article needs to be updated every time the aggregate scores cross the yellow-to-red borderline on metacritic, which is quite often atm and thus quite ridiculous. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

We partially address this by quoting Metacritic directly, which is "mixed or average". MOS:VG isn't trying to stop that, but it is trying to stop numerous cases where users would go "Two favorables and one average on Metacritic, so I'll call it "mixed-to-positive"!". There are multiple discussions about this on WT:VG that lead to this bit of MOS. This is easy enough to address in the reception section itself. just literally denote which platforms got what. However it shows a weakness in the lead where summation of the article is allowed and expected, and I believe that's where PizzaMan is coming from. -- ferret (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it was over at the film project that recognized the phrasing "mixed to positive" is nonsensically, as that just means "mixed". Using the MC phrasing eliminates any possibility of biasing the aggregate score. --Masem (t) 21:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
So, the metacritic phrasing is odd, because on Metacritic, "mixed" means mediocre rather than scattered across the board. Obviously in cases like Fallout 76, where the aggregate scores hover on the borderline between "mixed" and unfavorable, we want to properly reflect that, without updating each time the score crosses the cut off point as a new review comes out. There are two possible ways to do that: either use metacritic's phrasing, where "mixed to unfavorable" makes perfect sense, or correct metacritic's euphemistic ususe of the word "mixed" and summarize the aggregate scores as "mediocre to unfavorable". I propose the latter, but I'm fine with both.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
No, MC's "mixed" is to account for review scores across the board. Unfortunately with statistics, the average of a mixed set of scores like "10, 20, 80, 90" is difficult to determine from a bunch of scores that were all average like "45, 50, 50, 55". That's why their middle ground language is "mixed or average". --Masem (t) 21:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
PizzaMan, to be precise, they give "mixed or average" for scores around the 50 mark because they don't want to settle on whether there are some positive and some negative reviews (thus "mixed reviews" when combined; "scattered across the board" is an appropriate interpretation) or average ~50 scores from most publications, totaling to "average reviews". It makes it easier for them and thus easier for us, as we can just quote them. Lordtobi (✉) 21:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. So "mixed to unfavorable" doesn't make sense, but "average to unfavorable" does. When scores hover the borderline between average and unfavorable, "average to unfavorable" is, if nothing else, a good placeholder until the MC scores have settled down.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
No, "average to unfavorable" would mean "generally unfavorable" in MC's terms. --Masem (t) 21:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
So the question basically boils down to this: What do you put in the lead when the scores are 54/51 (Two mixed or averages) and 49 (1 generally unfavorable)? -- ferret (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. And what to put in the article when the scores jump between 49 and 51 as more reviews come out. But that boils down to the same question. The point is: there are situations where it's desirable to express that the scores are around the border between average and unfavorable (or average and positive). Not acknowledging the need to describe such borderline cases leads to pointless discussions and edit warring. Why forbid it?PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 23:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Is this an actual problem or a theoretical discussion? Fallout 76 has plenty of sources that summarize the game's reception far better than trying to parse Metacritic. But for the case in theory, it wouldn't be a big deal to specify the Metacritic summary next to each platform's name in prose, but by that point I'd be asking whether there's a better way to cast the reception for the lede altogether. Luckily, in the case of Fallout 76, you can take your pick of sources. czar 03:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
This is probably a good point: MC's descriptor should only be used if there are not sources that capture the overall reception to a game. The latter doesn't happen all the time (likely not for any indie game or sub-AAA) but for any mainstream AAA releases like Fallout, I think it's either VG247 or PC Gamer that regularly tries to give a review score round up. If you can't otherwise get a review summary out of an RS, then the MC statement is fair enough. --Masem (t) 16:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Czar, In the case of Fallout 76, there's enough sources to substantiate that critics were negative. Far more negative then they are with most games (a <50% rating being rare for most critics). However, discussion on how to summarize these articles may well lead to defaulting to metacritic scores as paragraph opener. So, i think the discussion is useful even when applied to Fallout 76. But there's a reason i took it here rather than on that game's talk page. I see an interesting and useful discussion below here, which i think we should continue to pursue consensus.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 13:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
As others have stated, the current wording is primarily meant to eliminate that ludicrous “mixed-to-positive” phrase fans have created to try to POV push a more favorable perception of their subject of choice. The phrase is rarely used anywhere outside of poorly written Wikipedia articles. It should absolutely not be changed. Sergecross73 msg me 04:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
OP is not trying to change WP:VG/MIXED. OP is trying to change the fact we extract directly from Metacritic, which uses the exact language we are attempting to avoid. I brought this up either at WT:VG or on Discord myself fairly recently but haven't chased it anywhere. --Izno (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's a stretch to paraphrase "mixed or average" as "mediocre" or "middling". But I also don't see the issue with reverting to Metacritic's direct quote when that's challenged. Metacritic doesn't characterize the score distribution, just the weighted average. czar 15:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with a lot of "middling" synonyms--we should recommend such if we want to summarize a game's reception, and then also recommend only resorting to quotation if challenged. --Izno (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
What if we add some blurb suggesting what to do when a game is hovering around 45-55 and has platforms on either side of 50? Just pick the kind of phrase we prefer in that situation and MOS it up as guidance. -- ferret (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I've just gone with "mixed" for games that fall into this tier instead of just using a synonym, which seems like something somebody would be more likely to change because of personal bias or whatever. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Same here. In both video game and music articles, when there’s any dispute, I generally encourage people to just use “mixed”, and anything beyond that can be expressed through the prose and review quotes. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. I have to ask how helpful adding this cookiecutter "according to Metacritic" phrase into every game's article even is. I think it would be better if we simply used it as a citation in the lead sentence in the reception section that correlates with the overall summary of critical opinion instead. I think this is what the MOS prefers too (maybe not outright), but it's something we've apparently neglected to do anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I mean, I generally support it - it’s usually more objective than the POV-pushing stuff “fans” often come up with. I just often work on articles that don’t receive an MC rating (song articles, niche JRPG video game articles that only get 3 professional reviews, etc) and then there’s other times there’s just no contention with saying a game was “generally positive” so I don’t bother direct quoting MC. Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I've been contemplating for weeks how to summarize this discussion and bring it all together. I've come to realize a fundamental issue. Let's take Fallout 76 as an example. The MetaCritic scores are on the borderlinge between "mixed/average" and "generally unfavorable". Yet the scores are the worst scores a AAA game had in quite a while. In practice, review sites don't dare give a AAA title less then a 5 or 6. On a scale from 0 to 10, 5 is about the worst you can do and for many sites 6 is the lowest score they give. So, even for a very negatively reviewed AAA game such as Fallout 76, around half the reviews still give a >50% and are considered positive. That means there's two flaws in the metacritic phrasing: 1. "Mixed/average" is vague and should read "mediocre" as discussed above and 2. a 50% score should actually read "worst score in recent memory for a AAA title" (reference). So metacritic just doesn't use proper words to summarize their scores. That's quite a section-wide issue we have here...PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 23:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Erik Kain isn't a reliable source really. If he were, it would only be an additional note in the reception section, not a replacement for the actual Metacritic scores. It's WP:OR and POV-pushy for us to try to pick apart stuff like "Well, it's a triple A game, but they normally get better scores, so we should say "worst triple A" instead of "mixed or average"" -- ferret (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I understand now that he isn't a reliable source, and thus can't be used in the Fallout 76 article. But that's beside the point here. He is still correct on this. The sources that state something to the same extent are plentiful (only they don't directly refer to metacritic). The issue is that MC doesn't properly label their own scores, which is not negated by the source being unreliable.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 23:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Everyone "knows" video game review scores are artificially inflated but we cannot write or use that as editors. I'm sure you can find sources that broadly say that an AAA getting a 50%/5 is death, but we still can't apply that logic to here. The best we can do is lay out all the scores and hope readers implicitly know that these scores are not "average" for a video game but really are "bad", but we simply have no way to say that. I would say to look for language like "lowest-rated" (eg weighing the scores relative to other games) as to get that point across. --Masem (t) 23:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I think you’re getting a little too involved in making a call on it here, in the context of editing Wikipedia at least. You’re veering into WP:OR territory here. As an editor, you need to WP:STICKTOSOURCE - unless sources are coming to similar conclusions, we shouldn’t be wading into all that... Sergecross73 msg me 00:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Serge, I've argued that MetaCritic doesn't properly label it's own aggregate scores. If you disagree, by all means explain why, but please use valid arguments, rather than ad hominem. And as i've stated you won't find any sources calling the game "average". The large majority of the reviews on Fallout 76 is much more negative. And that's just an example of how the MetaCritic labels don't properly describe the scores. That's an issue.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 00:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
You don't agree with Metacritic's scoring labels. That's fine. But they are Metacritic's labels, and when discussing or listing Metacritic's aggregator score, it's only appropriate to use them. We cannot interpret or put our own opinion about Metacritics methods into that. Whether we agree with you or not about metacritic's labels is irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. It's extremely unlikely that we'll STOP using Metacritic as well, so this is just going in circles. -- ferret (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
That does nothing to argue that there isn't an issue with MetaCritic labels, except relabeling it as a personal opinion, discarding the arguments i have put forwards.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 00:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
My argument isn’t an ad hominem at all. You say you don’t like how MC summarizes things. I’m saying your alternative approach/interpretation goes into WP:OR territory. It does so in on the most basic level even - it involves you digging into the data yourself and coming up with your own conclusion. That’s OR. Sergecross73 msg me 01:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
There's no reason to address your argument though. Your position is rooted in your opinion, not in policy. I even agree with your opinion, but that doesn't change how WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, etc, work. -- ferret (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, relabeling it as my personal opinion or OR isn't very productive and an unnecessary ad hominem. The properly sourced reception section on Fallout 76 makes very clear that this game is reviewed negativily and nowhere near as "Average". So it's not OR that "average" does not properly sum up the reviews. As stated above by Czar, the reliable sources that describe the game as below average are abundant. Just because there is one single source that sums up the scores as average doesn't make this an absolute truth. If all other sources, written by actual reviewers, are negative on the game and one sources, an automatic system, sums this up as average, then is that single source automatically right and all other sources wrong? Now that is OR! I understand that using metacritic labels is very much rooted in policy. That is not a reason to dismiss the issue. If the policies lead to use of inproper labels to describe aggregate scores, then there is apparently something wrong with the policies.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 07:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

For a solution, how about we refrain from using the metacritic labels for game's where it's debated how well they sum up the scores and just stick to those scores. Perhsps with a very short explanation on how scores are calculated on Metacritic.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Strongly against that. That’s one of its most useful implementations. Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
What's useful about misleading / incorrect labels?PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 12:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
PizzaMan, it's not incorrect. Metacritic did everything right and it is not their fault some people gave the game positive reviews. The game somehow managed to reach over the 50/100 mark on two platforms and was given the "mixed" rating. You also pass the majority of tests in school/university with 50%, even if with a more than undesireable grade.
Claiming that the score is disputed just because it is wrong in your opinion is original research at best, and you act like your opinion was more valuable than those of critics. Furthermore, if we made an exception for this game other people would come about saying that PUBG, which has good scores but is also hated by many, also has disputed reception labelling. No, that's just wrong. Lordtobi (✉) 13:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
According to the discussion above mixed means "all oover the place" which doesn't sum up the reviews as they're all pretty negative without much variation. Average as in "about half the games are better" clearly doesn't sum up the reviews either. I'm trying to understand how the metacritic label mixed/average is a proper way to sum up the reviews. Perhaps mixed should rather be interpreted as "a mix between positive and negative reviews" and average as "a 50% score means that half of the possible scores ranging from 0% to 100% are better and the other half are worse". Is that how you mean the labels should be interpreted?PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 17:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Not sure the difficulty you're having here. We aren't allowed to interpret their labels at all. We quote what they say and leave it at that. To interpret it anyway without the backing of a reliable secondary source is WP:OR. All we do right now is say "Metacritic said this", which is the simplest and most direct fact we can state about Metacritic's rating. We can't "explain it", tell the user "but it really means negative" or anything like that. -- ferret (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying and that is essential WP policy to just sum up the sources. But that doesn't answer my questions nor does it disprove that the metacritic labels are incorrect in the example case of Fallout 76. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 06:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to be very clear - it is not wikipedia's place to question reliable sources, unless other sources do. We just comment what they say. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
(1) What are your questions? Sorry, I have lost track. (2) The Metacritic labels are correct as per their rating policies. Not our call to agree or not. If there are sources that discuss how FO76's reception was more negative than other high profile AAA releases, you can add on a few sentences explaining that. TarkusABtalk 10:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I give up. Let's just keep on using labels that are clearly misleading and inconsistent with all reviews they're supposed to sum up, just because it's policy.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 22:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
It would still be preferable to making up our own labels thus failing WP:V and WP:OR. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 23:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. While I do agree the reviewing process in the game industry is perhaps flawed, that's not our problem, and the aggregate is very firmly in the mixed reviews category, with some being positive and some being negative. Additionally, it's unrealistic to not expect a spread of reviews for any games ranging by several points, although I don't think any article that states fallout's release was more negative that other triple AAA titles would be appropriate to include (is that's the point of including the review score upon which the reader can conclude that themselves), but one being used to support "this left many worried about the state of BGS' future releases" may be appropriate as that's not something derived from the average overall review scores. CommissarPat (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
My bad, i thought WP policies were instruments for making sure information on WP is reliable and accurate. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 00:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
They are as reliable and accurate as we can verify, and we measure this by one of the strongest review aggregation tools we know. On what measure, other than your own opinion, do find this to be inaccurate? If you whipped out your nearest calculator, summed up all review scores listed for F76's PC or PS4 version, and divided this sum by the number of reviews you added together, you would -- to everyone's surprise -- get the same 53 as Metacritic does. So tell me, is 53 closer to 100 (positive) or 0 (negative)? 100, ain't it? F76 had 50 chances (0-49) to be a negatively rated game, but it somehow got more than 50%. It passed the test, even if barely and undeservedly, and would still have if the score was just 50/100. Vox populi would have been the same anyway, even at a 70/100 score. WP:STICK and get over it. Lordtobi (✉) 01:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The key here is that we all know Metacritic doesn't account for rating inflation in the vg industry, but we have nothing in sources to call that out. The mid mark 50 in all other media forms is a truly mediocre score and does reflect an average work, but a 50 for a game is a bad rating, yet MC simply doesn't account for that. Our hands are tied. --Masem (t) 01:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Metacritic is actually harsher towards games, as it has a greater span for "negative" reception on video games (0-49) than it does for other media formats (0-39).[1] According to their FAQ: "[video game] publications are almost unanimous in indicating that scores below 50 indicate a negative review". Lordtobi (✉) 01:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh so does account for inflation... To a degree. Doesn't change how we should use it. --Masem (t) 01:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
We should be using summarized prose and never any numbers, which will always need more context to explain. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed MoS change: reorganization

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Continuing the discussion started in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games, I believe this MOS needs to be reorganized. Right now it focuses on video games, their characters, their settings, etc and it leaves out sports teams/organizations such as Team Liquid, event articles such as The International 2018 or League of Legends Championship Series, and BLP articles (of which there are two types: streamers and professional gamers, the latter being organized differently because they are closer to traditional athletes with tournament results and such). Suggestions welcome. Derek M (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Why would this need a reorganization? Simply adding an eSports section to it would be enough. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
    • That's true, although would that mean that policies that affect streamers would go in that section? Is a streamer an eSports athlete? Derek M (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
      • The content doesn't necessarily need to be named "esports". We might reasonably call it "multiplayer considerations" or "Internet considerations" or something else. Even so, there's nothing wrong with commenting on a particular specific point that is slightly offtopic to the section. --Izno (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
        • I also strongly agree that it should be reoganized, in part because most articles' infoboxes list "Microsoft Windows" instead of just "PC" when the official game cover art may clearly read "PC CD-ROM" or ""PC DVD-ROM" as opposed to "Microsoft Windows CD-ROM" or "Microsoft Windows DVD-ROM" in order to avoid confusion with the operating system's own install media. My claim lies on the fact that nowadays there are some games which are also compatible with other platforms, such as Mac or Linux, without the need for an emulator. One example I can think of off the top of my head is the flight simulator X-plane [1] --Fandelasketchup (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Official X-Plane Website

Can we remove/revise this sentence about release dates/marketing?

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

... If the game's marketing, release dates, and/or promotional info becomes too large to fit in the development section, a separate release section should be used.

When I look up the "Development" section of a game article, I don't expect to find marketing and promotional info, or even its release date, I expect to find details concerning the design and technical planning, which are the jobs of a development team. In most cases, marketing and promotion is handled by (I think) the game's publishers. And it seems obvious that a game's marketing/promotion is more germane to its sales figures/critical reaction than to its coding. Thus, it stands to reason that "Reception" is the more logical avenue to contain release information. Example: "Game was released on January 1, 2019 amid an expensive marketing campaign. It sold several million copies over the next two weeks and the critical reception was mostly favorable." This is generally how most articles on films and music albums are formatted. I don't understand why video games are treated differently. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Separating marketing from development seems fairly arbitrary. There are other disciplines like concept design or localization, or physical production and distribution, or bulk testing, or porting that are often not done in-house or outsourced. By that argument, they belong in development section even less. (Granted, we have way less sources discussing those.) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it could be tweaked a bit, but the reality of the situation is that a lot of games don’t have all that much of development or marketing/release information about them, and when there is little of either, it makes more sense to lump them together than lumping them into any other standard video game article section. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The general structure of films articles has long-confused me on this point actually, since while the marketing/release etc lead to the reception, they are not reception, and are done during development and etc. --Izno (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The game's release is apart of its development. The game's reception is apart of its real-world impact, so the two aren't really the same thing. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Need for sources for gameplay controls and features?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Plot as well while we're talking about it. There is a clear doulble standard between video games and other media such as films with regards to what does and does not need to be sourced. The plot of a film, book or television episode requires no sources since anyone can watch or read the material and see it for themselves. The same is true for video games.

I bring this up over a discussion concerning the article for Goldeneye 007. Some time back I saw that the gameplay section was inadequate, lacking in many relevant details about its controls and gameplay modes, which incidentally are highly relevant to the article given the game's pioneering status. Said body of edits has been subject to a minor edit war over sourcing, which raises the question outlined above.

Since current policy is clearly inadequate, how do we change it? 86.7.223.84 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The difference is that it’s generally very easy to find reliable sources that outline gameplay and features. Most previews and reviews do this routinely. It’s very rare to find reliables sources to piece together a coherent and complete plot summary. Previews and reviews will touch on a general premise, but very rarely will they outline a complete game. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
There are several discussions in just archive #3 regarding "plot" section sourcing. There's also a question about gameplay sourcing.
As for the specific case of GoldenEye, you should be able to use the official strategy guide for plot, gameplay, and controls, as well as the game manual for the gameplay and controls. That's the bare minimum of course (both by a non-independent publisher) but should get you going in the right direction. --Izno (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
However, if something can be sourced outside of the game, then it obviously should be. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC on using the "As of" template, or some similar wording indicating that the score may have changed over time, for review aggregators

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#RfC: Should the "As of" template, or some similar wording indicating that the score may have changed over time, be used for review aggregators in articles?. A permalink for it is seen here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Limiting review score tabulating

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I suggest adding this as a bullet under WP:VG/REC:

Only include scores in the Video Game Reviews infobox for the original release in addition to ports that received a similar or greater level of critical commentary.

The goal here is to prevent excessive score tabulation seen in cases like Resident Evil (1996 video game)#Reception, Resident Evil 4#Reception, and even Resident Evil 2#Reception. In these examples, I'm arguing that only the PlayStation scores for RE1 and RE2 be retained, and only the GameCube scores be retained for RE4. My reasoning is this:

  • Reviews for ports typically score games on their quality as a port and not its quality as a standalone game. That context is lost in the infobox.
  • At a glance, the reader may not know which version was the original and may draw conclusions based on scores of a port
  • These boxes provide the reader with too much information too quickly
  • Falls in line with policies to limit data aggregation like WP:NOTSTATS

What do people think? TarkusABtalk 17:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

TarkusAB, Template:Video game reviews tells us:

Only include reviews if they are cited within the text.

This does not seem to be the case with many reviews in the examples you mentioned. Lordtobi (✉) 17:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree and that's an issue with those pages too, and my argument is even in cases where a port is cited in text (even briefely), I would argue that the scores and aggregates still be omitted from the infobox. For example see [2] which is the reason I started this discussion. TarkusABtalk 17:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

"Reviews for ports typically score games on their quality as a port and not its quality as a standalone game. That context is lost in the infobox." you said, then you judge that one you left represent quality of game while others only mean quality as a port. umm...If using your sense, all reviews of single port should be banned (even the one you left).180.217.107.153 (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

"(even the one you left)" Which one are you talking about? TarkusABtalk 18:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • If you finally can make a rule to choice the only rating which should be written down, you should mark the hardware of the version rather than making it standing for all versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgfa (talk • contribs) 02:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
my 2 cents: Because we have written so many platforms in Infobox, the ratings of them should not be completely useless or unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgfa (talk • contribs) 02:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to rename Development and Release sections names

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
  Resolved

I think we should consider renaming the "Development" section (and "Release" sections that sprung from it) to "History" in order to standardize video game articles' layout with other articles, specifically technology articles which use this layout a lot. "Development" and "Release" could them be sub-sections of the "History" when needed. What do you think? ~ Arkhandar (message me) 18:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Nah too wide of scope. It's not clear what the section is about to the reader. Also, reception and legacy are also part of a game's history, so you'd have a section head "History" with potentially four or more sub-sections (Development, Release, Reception, Legacy). TarkusABtalk 19:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@TarkusAB:   Agree I incorrectly based my proposal on how video game console and other information appliance articles' layout. I've since checked the MOS of other categories and that rationale now makes perfect sense. Thank you! ~ Arkhandar (message me) 19:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Also disagree on this. I don't see what it improves when we'd still have the same headers, just tucked under another one. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A question on tense of a game pulled from sale

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Overkill's The Walking Dead has had a Windows release, but with the license now pulled, there will be no console releases and there's word that the Steam version will be pulled from sale, and as I understand it, will become unplayable without servers to support it. So while technically the game was released (meaning that we should start the article with "is a game..."), this is a unique case where it feels more correct to call this a past game, and thus "was a game" in the lede. But this would go against the general allowance on tense since at least 100,000 some people bought the game, it can be shown to have existed. --Masem (t) 15:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This is an ugly situation. Perhaps I could offer: "Is a discontinued video game", "is a discontinued online multiplayer video game", "defunct online service" or something. Perhaps some inspiration can come from defunct MMOs? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Use past tense - Only if the servers are being shut down, there are no fan-made private servers, and the game absolutely cannot be played without servers. If people can still play the game solo, even if available only through illegal distribution channels, we should use present tense. Side note: we should also probably come to a similar agreement for canceled games. StarCraft: Ghost uses present tense while Sonic X-treme uses past tense, both featured articles. TarkusABtalk 16:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I thought we already had precedent for this when online-only games, like MMOs, get shut down? We usually just go with "was a video game" instead of adding defunct or discontinued or whatever. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
If it's completely unplayable without hacking the I'd go with past tense. My view with discontinued online games is that we should refer them in the present tense if they still have offline modes unaffected by shutdowns (e.g. Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection titles on the Wii/DS) but past tense if shutdowns render them totally unplayable (e.g. Sonic Runners). JOEBRO64 21:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal of layout for consoles

Latest comment: 5 years ago31 comments7 people in discussion
  Being worked on

We already have article layouts defined for games, characters and settings. However, something that's crucially missing from the MOS is a standard layout for consoles. Right now, console article layouts are all over the place, and it can become confusing to the reader when looking for info. As such I'm proposing the following:

Article layout for consoles proposal
  • Lead section: The console's official name in bold, abbreviations and other names also in bold, its type, release date, developer/publisher and other identifying information go first. Then, a brief summary of the article. Finally, why the console is notable and important; this is the key part of the lead section, because it establishes the main idea that will be carried throughout the article.
  • Infobox: Contents should adhere to the template documentation.
  • Hardware: Detail the console's design, technical specifications, input and/or controllers and accessories. These topics may be divided into sub-sections.
  • Software: Detail the console's system software and its security, services, other media support and other features. These topics may be divided into sub-sections. If the section is small enough, it can be merged into hardware.
  • Games: Detail the console's game distribution, launch titles, third-party support and the console's library.
  • Development: Detail the console's development, design concepts and inspirations, etc. These topics may be divided into sub-sections.
  • Release: Detail the console's release dates, marketing, and/or promotional info. If the section is small enough, it can be merged into development;
  • Reception: Detail how the console was received by critics and its sales.
  • Legacy: If it had a substantial impact on its developer or the video game industry, consider making a section dedicated to its legacy. This can either be put under the reception header or, if there is enough information, a separate section.
  • References: Cite sources! If you are unsure what to include for references, instruction booklets, reviews, and interviews are all good candidates. See this list of sources deemed generally usable or unusable on Wikipedia.
  • External links: When available, list the company and console website(s) if the company website is separate from the console's website. In addition, list all relevant websites for English publications. Other sources that do not qualify as reliable sources may be used if they are not on the list of sites to be avoided.

Thoughts? ~ Arkhandar (message me) 20:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I failed to mention this in the original post but the issue that prompted my to propose this layout is the current state of the History section, which makes no sense unless it also includes Reception and Legacy sections. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 22:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @TarkusAB, Dissident93, Sergecross73, Ferret, Czar, Masem, and Izno: for feedback. Thanks! ~ Arkhandar (message me) 17:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't frequent console articles. Can you share examples of layouts that differ and help me understand why it's a problem? TarkusABtalk 17:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: Sure, I should've explained that in the original post... The problem that prompted me to write this proposal is mainly the History section. It generally includes background, development, release and some sales milestones. The problem with that is that, like you said in my earlier VG proposal, this section's scope is way too wide and doesn't include reception and legacy. And if it did, with end up with one "mega" section with almost half of the article. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 18:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
OK I see where you're coming from but can you share examples of articles with this problem? Several articles with History sections are GAs and FAs. A general MOS change like this would require a lot of rewriting on those pages and others, so I feel we need to see some serious benefits to bother establishing a standard. Perhaps this problem can be treated on an article-by-article basis. We do not need a standard if we have well-written articles without one. TarkusABtalk 19:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: Almost all console articles are using this structure, save one or two that use the video game layout. Recent example include: Xbox 360 (which also absorbed reception, sales and legacy), PlayStation 3, Wii, Nintendo DS (also includes sales and legacy), PlayStation Portable, Nintendo DSi (FA), Wii U, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Nintendo Switch, Nintendo 3DS, Nintendo 2DS, New Nintendo 2DS XL, PlayStation Vita, etc. Now I see your concern about changing GAs and FAs, but I'd like to point out that the changes that would need to take place would be pretty simple to do since the history section is already properly divided in most (if not all article). So there would be no need for major rewrites (just some simple copy-editing), we'd improve the article's layout and align it with other VG articles improving consistency. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 00:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from but I think consistency would do more harm than good. Consoles are each widely different from each other, and sources talk about different aspects of these products more heavily for some than they would for others. For example, the Xbox One article will have much more content about networking and software services than the NES. Sure the Famicom did have some network services (believe it or not), but it's rarely discussed, so the editor should have the freedom to group content elsewhere rather than having short stubby sections just to conform with a standard layout. Or another example, the New 2DS XL article will naturally focus on the hardware changes from the previous models. What little content is written about software should not be shoehorned into a small software section just for the sake of consistency. Consistency is pretty but, I think the current more liberal stance we employ gives the editor more freedom in writing a compelling article. TarkusABtalk 20:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: Yes, I also agree consoles wildly vary from each other; but so do games. It's a layout that I'm proposing, not a way on how to write those sections per se, or how long they should be. And again, most of this is already in use on console articles. The major issue right now is the History section, which makes no sense, that's the focus. As for the software problem, I agree with you. The solution would be to have a Software section that includes games by default; if there's enough content a Software and Games split should be done (just like we're doing with Development and Release for VG articles). I'd be totally okay with that. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 20:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Well the reason I opposed a "History" section for games was because they were games, I don't see the same problem with consoles. Games do vary but they overwhelmingly follow the same cycle of develop, release, and review and there's literally tens of thousands of game articles so coming up with a guideline makes sense. There are around 200 console articles on Wikipedia, and they have longer histories that span several years. Many get new hardware revisions, whether its due to hardware problems or localization. Some have add-ons and accessories released for them that significantly change how they are used going forward. Some are tied very closely with the company that produced it, and were directly responsible for the rise/fall of their manufacturer. You have everything from literally home computers (PC-98), to consoles that used VHS tapes (Action Max), to borderline Tamagotchis (Pokémon Mini). What I'm trying to say is, there is more variety between each console's "story" and if we try to mandate consistent content buckets, it will be detrimental to the editor's ability to present the information in the most appropriate way for each console's respective article. TarkusABtalk 22:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: While I understand your point, I don't think it holds up very well. For one, you first opposed to a History section for VG titles because they have a general cycle. What you said is that a section such as that either also included reception and legacy (which would make way to big) or its title would be misleading. Additionally, there are some exceptions to the VG cycle of develop, release, and review. Such is the case with MMOs such as World of Warcraft, and other games such as Fortnite Battle Royale and Splatoon 2 which are constantly being updated and changed. Yet these do not have a History section and instead use the standard layout; and the article is still easy to navigate and understand. As for special cases such as electronic game consoles, such as Pokémon Mini, a Games section can obviously be omitted. No problem there. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 22:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I think we agree there are unique cases for both games and consoles, but we disagree on the level of variance in console histories and how that impacts writing style. I don't see myself agreeing to any MOS changes regarding this and judging by the comments below, I'd recommend moving on. As others have said, I don't see the problem this is fixing. TarkusABtalk 23:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Actually, for VG articles, development is currently merged with release. It's only an independent section when there's enough detail. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 00:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Right, but that's common sense. We shouldn't force the use of any headers if the prose isn't large enough to warrant it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dissident93: So I guess you're agreeing with me then...? Release is omitted by default in VG articles. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 18:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I suppose I am. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't recall seeing a need to give MoS guidance on this. If it isn't something that editors are constantly getting wrong, then where is the problem that needs solving? If just a few articles need changes, we'd want to engage those articles' editors before unilaterally imposing a MoS standard anyway. czar 04:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I ditto Czar's comment -- is there an actual widespread problem occurring that we need to blanket-solve? I looked at the above example articles and they all seem more or less fine. Sure, we can always improve layout on a case-by-case basis. But I don't see that they should all need a standard layout. There would be far more exceptions to it than "standard" cases. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Czar and Hellknowz: But then again, why do video game titles have a layout guideline in the MOS? And it's not like console articles' layout wildly varies from article to article. They mostly follow the same basic structure. What I'm arguing for is to formalize that layout and solve the glaring problem with the History section. Why would it be okay for console articles to have it and not video game titles when the rationale against it is exactly the same? It makes no sense. Couple that with the fact that I've tried to fix this section on a couple of articles only to get those edits immediately reverted. That's why I started this discussion in the first place. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 14:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Because they follow the same writing style by default in the majority of cases. I think consoles and other game hardware differ from each other way more than two different games would, and thus a strict MOS layout might do more harm than good. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Yet they all follow the same layout anyway. And local consensus overrides the MOS AFAIK; and it's not like we'll be deleting or restricting content overnight. If you do have pratical concerns though, please elaborate with some examples. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 18:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I've personally corrected titles hundreds of times because there are (and will continue to be) many new articles and many new editors who aren't familiar with the standards. If those editors were to question my change, I have resources to reference. If the same were to happen in a console article, the disagreement should go to discussion rather a shortcut to the MoS. czar 23:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
For context, there are around 300 articles on consoles. There are about 30000 articles on video games. That's why there isn't guidance on consoles. --Izno (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Izno: Even though 300 is still a pretty large amount of articles? It should warrant a informal guideline at the very least. Settings, however, have a layout clearly defined in the MOS yet the number of articles doesn't even come close to that of consoles. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 19:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Settings (and other fictional elements) have WP:WAF to consider, so it seems reasonable to me that they should have layouts that emphasize an article structured to conform with the ideals of WAF. Not so much consoles. --Izno (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Izno: Then why not redirect editors to WP:WAF guidelines instead? Especially considering there's only like 20 or so settings articles. But anyway, that's another discussion. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 20:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Because WAF doesn't have that detail at this time. I've had discussion about a potential MOSWORKS (see also some discussion at Talk:Virtual Pool 3) which would hold some of this information better. --Izno (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Generally, if you see issues on the various articles from a structure perspective, try rewriting one or three to be structured more to your vision. It's possible that the changes will be seen as beneficial regardless of any guideline !rule (and I would guess that a 'blah' "History" section is not The Best thing for us), in which case you can move on your way. If not, perhaps the content writers of those articles will have something to say, and then you can do some more hashing on this subject on those articles. --Izno (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Im also in the camp that this is not necessary. I feel like most prominent consoles are already pretty generally written and maintained by experienced editors, because there’s so few of them. They’re not perfect, but the issues generally aren’t structural, nor do I think it’s necessary to rework GAs or FAs into a set format. I appreciate the thought, but it’s more of a solution to a problem that isn’t occurring. Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Thanks for the feedback! Please take look at the note I've just added on top regrading the current History section. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 22:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Esports style advice

Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments9 people in discussion

The page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Esports style advice (formerly at a mangled name like "Wikipedia:MOS/VG/eSports" or something), a wikiproject style advice essay, purports to be a draft extension of MOS:VG with a few points particular to pro gamers. It had some direct conflicts with the real MoS, which I fixed, as well as various crappy wording, also fixed (though some of the examples might need work, I dunno). If this material is worth keeping, I would propose merging it into this page, either as a section or integrated into existing sections. If not, it should be marked {{Historical}} or {{Failed proposal}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The original advertising discussion was in archive 140 of WT:VG. Discussion was never continued on this talk page regarding the content therein. --Izno (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
It seemed like an excellent idea at the time, but it never took off. In its current state, it's pretty pointless. I don't have any fond feelings towards it. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 22:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that’s the recurring issue with esports related content - there’s typically 0 to 1 people interested in creating and standardizing something like this at any given time, and they often (no offense intended) arent really Wikipedia policy/sourcing experts, so the efforts always seem to fizzle out like this. But that’s not even that abnormal for most task forces and smaller WikiProjects either really. Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, me and Masem are probably the most experienced WP:VG members who take the most interest in esports on Wikipedia, but just two people is not enough. The state of esport articles here is atrocious (most team pages are simply copypasted from Liquidpedia with no care for notability guidelines.) so I say we should add something like this to the main MOS page ASAP. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there discrete advice that we have to provide or is it better just to say "meet the policy bar?" Provide a discrete proposal for the change. --Izno (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Izno: What are you asking me? We have consensus on a number of things related to esports, we just need to collect them all and have the community support the addition of it to the main MOS. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
We have consensus on a number of things related to esports What things? --Izno (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
There have been a number of separate discussions on WT:VG (and elsewhere) that need be found and collected again. This is something I said I would do months ago, but I just have not had the time recently to do it. Things such as not including former members of a team in articles (only active/current) and removing game roles unless there is another place on Wikipedia that explains it (such as in the MOBA article for terms like mid, offlane, safelane, etc). Just small things like this that would prevent the Liquidpedia style of formatting that other parts of the current global MOS say nothing about. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd agree we need some language on Esports, but strictly speaking, the Esports subpage was never formally accepted with consensus and was just a draft essay. Should probably just be marked as historical for now until an actual proposal push is made. Should not be merged since it was never accepted. -- ferret (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
IMO, we shouldn't have to have active editors on a subject to need a style guide for that subject. We do need something (As there a tonnes of pages on Esports now, as well as some GAs). I know nothing about esports, but trying to review The International 2017 without a MOS was much more difficult. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the page looks fine and can mostly apply as policy. But I don't think it should be merged as a whole yet. To echo some of the above, I don't know enough about esport and bio specifics to say one way or another. If we had a list of specific changes with relevant consensus or rationale, I could get behind (or against) individual points. Most of it just repeats other MOS parts, but some are very esport-specific. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, anything in the esports essay is a guide, not policy. It would have to have concensus before being approved as a policy. See tag below for more details (It's quite a bit to explain, but basically, you'd need general consensus on it's content, rather than local consensus that things are "a good idea". Policies, such as the MOS for VG have been discussed ad nauseum before they are considered actual policy.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
{{WikiProject style advice}}
I'm not sure why you are explaining this to me. I didn't say that the page was policy, nor did I say it should be approved as policy as a whole, nor did I say it didn't need consensus, nor did I imply that local consensus is sufficient. I said the exact opposite -- to discuss each point individually here to form consensus before adding anything. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I say merge the parts that can be sourced back to a consensus discussion or parent MoS page. Then redirect to the main MoS page. I think this is misleading to simply mark as historical (or even as an essay) if it never was accepted. czar 12:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Month later and comments have dried up. It's clear the essay page as it stands does not have a consensus to be merged in. Are there any specific components of it the proposer wants discussed? Or can we close this and remove the tag? -- ferret (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Video_games/Archive_4&oldid=988065088"