Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposed Merge: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines

Subpage is unnecessary and will only make the page less accessible. This page is too short for it's own policy page. User:Krator (t c) 18:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that, thus the subpage of Article guidelines. --MrStalker ^talk 21:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

...until the convention is accepted. --MrStalker ^talk 13:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Video games naming convention

I feel that it's a naming convention for video game articles missing. We need some sort of rules for how to title video game articles, I'm seeing articles not being consistant in naming because it's no strict rules on this. What about it? Should a article covering a video game series derieved from a game with the same name (for example Age of Empires series/video game) be named "xxxx (series)", "xxxx series" or just "xxxx"? Should both articles be disambiged? Or just one of them? If so, which? --MrStalker ^talk 08:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue off the bat thay any "xxxx series" is bad form; it should be either "xxxx (series)" or "xxxx", depending.

If there's a naming conflict between the series name and the first game of the series (Ratchet and Clank vs Ratchet and Clank (series)), the series page should always be "xxxx (series)" (or "xxxx (video game series)" should there be confliect); the first game should never be disambiguated unless there's further naming conflict, at which point the first game should be "xxxx (video game)". Those are the easy cases.

Given naming policy, one should not really add a disambiguation to an article name unless it is necessary. Thus, if the series article can exist as "xxxx" while all games in the series are "yyyy n", then the series article should remain without the "(series)" (Ace Attorney vs Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney). --Masem 12:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, WikiProject Final Fantasy recently decided that Final Fantasy should be the series and the first game should be at Final Fantasy (video game); In the discussions,^[1][2] almost no one seemed interested in the game occupying the non-paren name.

IMO, when there is a conflict between the game and series names and there is no other reason for a disambig page to hold the name, then unless the series is commonly referred to as "xxxx series" it should either be "xxxx (series)" and "xxxx" or "xxxx" and "xxxx (video game)" depending on the specifics of the particular case. Whichever one gets "xxxx" of course should have a hatnote pointing to the other meaning. Anomie 13:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree there too. Great, let me think about this

There's two ways we can resolve this. One is, we force a rule in the case of series and individual game naming conflict that either one way or the other sites, but this is nearly always a bad idea; the other way is to go by a general guideline of naming that whatever is the more common use of the name is what should get the non-disamb. page. Above example of FF is perfect, as when you talk "Final Fantasy" without context, most people (to me) think the series, not the first game, but then if I talk "Metal Gear Solid", they assume the first game, and not the series. This should be discussed by editors.

Another consideration for the first game NOT getting disamb. is that the series name is usually a derivation of the trade name of the first game. Trade names (assuming no english barriers) get a bit more importance to the game, and since the first game in the series is the one that, by trade, gets that name and that name alone, it could be argued that the game should not be the disamb. title, while the series should.

I'm all for the following guidelines:

1. If there's no conflict between first game and series name and any other name on WP, do not name for disamb. on either page (though it is fair to provide redirects from "xxxx (series)" and "xxxx (video game)" where appropriate.
2. If there is naming conflict between either game or series and another WP artcle, spell out the disamb. for both as needed "(series)" or "(video game series)" if there is further conflict; "(video game)" or "(yyyy video game)" (y=year) if there is further conflict.
3. If the series name alone is more significant/notable than the first game and no other naming conflicts exist, then the fist game gets disamb., the series should stand without disamb., the first game should be "xxxx (video game)"
4. Otherwise, the series should be "xxxx (series)" and the first game is non-disamb. in the name

--Masem 13:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, regarding the Final Fantasy naming, take a look at this requested move debate, and this discussion about the same. The whole problem I'm talking about above lies within; there is to many different opinions about this. IMO, it's clear that the first game of a series should be named "xxxx (video game)" to disambiguate it from the series, since the series as a whole is most often what one thinks of when thinking of "xxxx", and should be prefered to have as the non-disambiguate article. However, the question if the series article should be named "xxxx" or "xxxx (series)" is not as clear to me. I'm leaning towards "xxxx (series)" just to fully disambiguate it from the first video game. --MrStalker ^talk 13:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion from January doesn't seem to have had anything come of it, and the one from April was discussed in the July discussion and the consensus was that consensus had changed since then. Anomie 14:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the possibility of using "franchise" instead of "series" sometimes. You might think it complicates things, but I believe it's sometimes better than series because it's more precise. Final Fantasy for instance is not a series (unless you only count the numbered games); it's a franchise that spans multiple media and doesn't have a set sequential order (The Spirits Within isn't the sequel or the prequel to Dirge of Cerberus for instance). On the contrary, Suikoden is a series and not a franchise since it spans only one media (video games, barring some minor novelizations) and the installments have a sequential order. Kariteh 14:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To throw another case into the mix, what about a case where the first game has a subtitle that makes it unambiguous? Coincidentally, there's a current discussion about this at Talk:Halo (video game), which was just moved from Talk:Halo: Combat Evolved. — TKD::Talk 15:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ragarding Halo, if the game has an official subtitle, IMO, it should be used in the title of the article. The question is whether "Combat Evolved" is a subtitle or a tagline.

Regarding all other articles with similiar issues, there is two options to solve it:

Reach consensus at a case by case basis

OR

Create a guideline supported by the WikiProject Video games community

IMO, the latter one seems like the best. --MrStalker ^talk 15:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there still seems to be some disagreement about the status of the "Combat Evolved" phrase, but the notion of subtitles in general was brought up, so I figured that I'd bring it up here.

As for whether a video game naming convention guideline is a good idea, I do think it's probably worth the effort, instruction creep notwithstanding, given that it's one of Wikipedia's stronger subjects at the moment. — TKD::Talk 16:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The best way to keep it short and simple is to create a guideline so people don't have to do these discussions over and over and over and over again. --MrStalker ^talk 16:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there some discussion in particular that you're trying to create this guideline to avoid? IMO, creating a guideline is unnecessary: If there is no disagreement, then there won't be a "discussion" for the guideline to avoid. If there is, then the discussion will happen anyway and your guideline will just give one side an opportunity to appeal to authority instead of discussing the actual situation. Anomie 20:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, at first, no. But since you ask let me think... hm... I know one, I think you do to: You're reading it. </sarkasm> --MrStalker ^talk 01:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

To throw more fuel on the fire, book articles do not feature their subtitles. American Terrorist, for instance, is the title, not American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing. Subtitles could be used to when there is a naming conflict, like Halo. Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them doesn't include the subittle "A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right". I've been thinking of filing a request to simplify Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Blue Rescue Team and Red Rescue Team to just Pokémon Mystery Dungeon, based on the book convention. hbdragon88 22:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support the proposal outlined by Masem, above. They seem to cover most/all of the bases properly, with the exception of the subtitles thing which I don't have a particular opinion on, outside of just using the most common name. Axem Titanium 16:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Supporting this as well. In policy form: 1. Subtitles are not to be used. 2. The only exception to the above is a naming conflict. There, always use subtitles in favour of (book) or (video games). User:Krator (t c) 23:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO, subtitles should be used. If not, i.g., "Universe at War: Earth Assault" would be "Universe at War", which I don't think would be good. --MrStalker ^talk 09:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have created a new page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Naming with a proposal for a naming convention. --MrStalker ^talk 09:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole "book articles don't use subtitles" is a bad example. Video games don't have subtitles that go on forever like books do. Also, often the subtiles are used to show that the game is a sequel and not the original. --SeizureDog 19:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Often"? Examples? I thought most games used "xxx 2" and the like to distinguish between sequels and originals. Anyway, I was just throwing it out there, not as if I supported it. hbdragon88 20:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal, for one, Advance Wars: Dual Strike for another. Most of the Castlevania series too. I would modify the guidelines to state that if the game uses numerics and then a subtitle, the subtitle should be dropped, otherwise the sub should be used. --Masem 20:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. User:Krator (t c) 20:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so familiar with creating guidelines, but I guess it would be a bit too bold for anyone of us involved in the discussion to call it rejected or accepted. That's up to an admin, right? --MrStalker ^talk 18:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

For determining consensus, wait a little until all major editing is done and involved parties agree. Then open up an RFC. Then wait until that is done, then determine consensus. No admin involvement is needed. User:Krator (t c) 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

IMO, the original version of this page was too prescriptivist (in particular, I think Final Fantasy IV (Nintendo DS) is a much better name for the remake than Final Fantasy IV (2007 video game)), and the current version doesn't really say anything. I've put together a version that tries to simply collect the consensus from previous discussions and common practice. Opinions? Anomie 20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the console name is the best way to disamb. First and foremost, what do you do about disamb titles that span multiple systems? Generally, when there are two media items of the same format with the same name, the disamb is always on the year (Casino Royale for example). It is consistent to use that into video games. The other thing to consider is that with emulation, what may be a game made for one console won't apply if it is released on a completely different console later (eg, there's Sonic the Hedgehog (video game) and Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game), but if I said Sonic the Hedgehog (Xbox 360 game) is that the new game, or the one in the XBLA? (Yes, technically the first Sonic should be renamed to include the year)

The only time that the console names should be included is if two completely separate games with the same name come out in the same year for two different consoles, then the console disamb. is the right one.--Masem 21:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If the game is for multiple systems, then obviously don't use the console name for disambiguation. Years work well for films because often the year of release is the most obvious thing that we can clearly specify: Writer or Director are usually ignored unless the writer or director is extremely famous, and we cannot cleanly specify lead actors. For video games, platform or company (think Tetris, with Tengen versus Nintendo versus Microsoft versus who-knows-what) is often a better determining factor.

Regarding your "Sonic the Hedgehog" example, I think Sonic the Hedgehog (Xbox 360) could be clearly enough not referring to a Virtual Console-type emulation, and if there was really that much confusion a hatnote would be enough to clear it up. But that game is for multiple platforms anyway, and according to the article's lead people commonly use the year to disambiguate that particular game, so the whole example resembles a straw man.

As I mentioned, what I wrote is attempting to document current practice (since there is apparently a call for such documentation). And from the articles I've encountered, platform is used to disambiguate a number of remakes. Anomie 22:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The StH was just a hypothetical example, because off the top of my head, there are no current examples but the potential exists.

I just don't see why we need to vary ourselves from other WP media articles by using consoles vs years. However, spot checking (on Crush) it could go either way: films, TV series and books are disamb with years, songs and albums with artist. What I would think we'd want to do is have guidelines where collisions in the rules (the exception cases) are hit more often than if the exceptions were made the typical. With multi-consoles game, there is much more of a stronger possibility that one will have to drop from the console name to the year, instead of the other case, where two games of the same name come out for different consoles in the same year). I understand how it's clearer to use the console, but this is part of why this entire guidelines discussion game up: we lack good naming standards for video games leading to a large splintering in the naming schemes. --Masem 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How often does it come up at all? Do we have a list? Anomie 22:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to settle the Japanese name thing before putting this up on RFC. Proposal: in principle, use the English name. If the Japanese name is requested, put it up on requested moves. If there has been no debate on the name, and the page is created under a Japanese name, anyone is free to move it to the English one.

The version in your sandbox reads like a personal reflection. It needs copy editing for style, but I agree with the principles. Except, of course, with the subtitle versus (video game) thing. What needs to be added, is that when disambiguating between two games (not series or non-game topics), the subtitle should be used. User:Krator (t c) 21:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Copy editing is definitely needed and welcome. Subtitles for disambiguation are now mentioned. As for the Japanese versus English thing, I think you're forgetting to consider common usage. There is almost no mention of Seiken Densetsu 3 as "Secret of Mana 2" except when stating what it likely would have been titled if an English language version had been made. The first criterion must be common usage; I would prefer the second criterion (once common usage can't be determined) to be Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use English words, but this discussion (other half here) clearly shows no consensus for that. Anomie 22:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Krator, you have basically slaughtered my original proposal.

I disagree with refering to a guideline of a subproject, instead merge that guideline with this one.

I disagree with not using subtitles, reasons see above. I don't see a reason not to include them. Policies and guidelines should be based on common practice, not the other way around. And the common practice is to use subtitles in the name (do I really need to make a list?).

I disagree with making the guideline less understandable and more complicated to comprehend then my original.

--MrStalker ^talk 21:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I edited with the expectation that some of it would be reverted and changed. Feel free to do so. In fact, I would really like it. None of your original proposal is lost, it is all in the history. Something I disliked about the original is the focus on mods. User:Krator (t c) 22:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Okey, good good. I see what you mean. I have done a major edit trying to incorporate both of our revisions into one, as well as some of the points at the Final Fantasy project's naming convention. I think the only real difference from your version in terms of meaning is that "subtitles are allowed if deemed appropriate". --MrStalker ^talk 13:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the current version a lot, though the sentence on series/first game of the series disambiguation in my version was better in my opinion. Please compare the two and write what you think about it. User:Krator (t c) 14:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your original version of that paragraph is a little difficult to understand, but I have changed the current version to have the same meaning as yours. Please tell if you agree. --MrStalker ^talk 14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Does anybody has any more comments on this naming convention? If, not perhaps it's a good idea to determine consensus and make it official. --MrStalker ^talk 11:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read through it entirely as I copyedited. Looks good to me. — TKD::Talk 00:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good too; I added some recommendations for hatnotes and disamb pages, and for pre-titles (eg "John Woo Presents: Stranglehold") (same deal as subtitles). --Masem 03:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

General #2 seems to conflict with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). I'm thinking that Buster Sword would be correct.--SeizureDog 04:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that actually a trademark, or just the name of a weapon in some game? Anomie 11:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote from the guideline you cited: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment" User:Krator (t c) 11:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but standard English would say that a proper noun should have all non-article and preposition words capitalized. So the question becomes -- is it *a* Buster sword, or is it *the* Buster Sword. Trademarks are irrelevent to the issue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My point was that "Buster sword" probably isn't a trademark (it doesn't seem to be listed at the USPTO, anyway), so Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) would not apply. Anomie 17:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Buster sword is not a trademark, that's the point of the example. I'll change it to something more obvious. --MrStalker ^talk 07:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Page move?

Any reason this isn't at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games)? Pagrashtak 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

X games

Is there a consensus agreement on the plurality/singularity of game genre articles? I notice that the articles for most game genres like "sports game" and "music video game" are in the singular, but is this a convention? If not, I propose that it become the convention, and I'll ask for consensus on that. -Thibbs (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I see I didn't look hard enough for this one. For future reference, the answer is that the singular is preferred per WP:VG General Naming Convention Article 3. -Thibbs (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

videogame

Is there any consensus on the use of the term "videogame" as opposed to "video game"? I notice that most articles use the term "video game" (two words rather than one) and I agree with this use. If there is no consensus, can we gain some here? -Thibbs (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. This has been addressed in the main talk. I have made the appropriate change. -Thibbs (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Differentiating between identically titled game series

There were 4 games released between 1982 and 1993 in the original 'Football Manager' series. The name is now being used for the current game (2005-2010 so far) from the team behind Championship Manager. Until recently, these were all under the article Football Manager but they were split with the original games moving to 'Football Manager (original series)' (Football Manager (series)' redirects to 'Football Manager'). This has since been changed to Football Manager (1982 series) but that seems wrong to me - only the first game on one platform was actually released in 1982. I can't find any precedent for this anywhere else but while I don't think '(original series)' was perfect, it was surely more accurate. What about '(1982-1993 series)' or is that too much of a mouthful? I have already asked on the talk page but it might well take a while for anyone to see it there!Retro junkie (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bard's Tale (1985 video game) vs. The Bard's Tale (2004 video game) is the closest i know of both should then have so Football Manager should be moved to Football Manager (2005 series) and Football Manager should likely be a disambig because it is also a term in football.陣内_Jinnai 19:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply but I think a series is different to a game because one year isn't really accurate. My problem with it as it is is that 1982 doesn't apply to the vast majority of releases in the series (there weren't even any ports of the first game until 1984). Retro junkie (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Then what about Football Manager (Addictive Games) and Football Manager (Eidos).陣内_Jinnai 22:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguating series articles

The way this project is disambiguating series articles doesn't make sense. Looking through the history, it seems that the text in our current guideline is based on this edit [1], and I cannot find a discussion that validates it. Wikipedia:Article titles clearly states "Generally, article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article." There is almost no case in which a reliable source would refer to a series without using their own qualifier (unless a qualifier were unnecessary due to the context of the story). So while a journalist might refer to the "Mass Effect franchise" or "Mass Effect series" or "Mass Effect games", or maybe even "the history of Mass Effect", the only time they would refer to the entire series as a whole as simply "Mass Effect" would be contextually, and that would be a stretch. I can't even, right now, think of an unambiguous sentence with "Mass Effect" as the subject, with no qualifiers, that clearly does not refer to the game Mass Effect.

My point is this: if the majority of reliable sources refer to the Mass Effect series as "the Mass Effect series", then why would we name it Mass Effect (series), or even worse, Mass Effect? Why do we not place the article at Mass Effect series? Why would we deliberately move Mass Effect when that is the exact and correct title for that game? I realize that people want to use the official title for things, but most series do not have "official" titles, and when they do (like Compilation of Final Fantasy VII), they are named appropriately. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Because a lot of reliable sources don't tak on the series statement. They just say Mass Effect. While others may use franchise, games, video games, media, etc all inconsistantly and all based on their own ideas at the time.陣内_Jinnai 02:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

color coding similar to WP:MOS

I'm proposing this since we have a lot of specific uses here, particularly in disambiguation. This could coding would be in addition to (not a replacement for) any other markers like quotes or bold. It can help push things out to many readers and help searching. Yes, there are color blind people, which is why this would be in addition to so there should be no accessibility issues.陣内_Jinnai 15:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Mega Man?

I've notice that Capcom USA used Roman numerals for Classic Mega Man games 1-7, but went back to the standard Arabic numerals afterward (like the Japanese games). Capcom USA also used Roman numerals on all 5 Game Boy Mega Man games.

What exactly do we do about these? Do we just keep each title the way it's written? Elm-39 (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit old but the games in question actually used the Arabic numerals on the box arts (with the roman numerals used in the title screens) so we should stick to that for constistancy and the fact that the numerals in question actually were used for the games.--76.66.182.228 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Multiple disambiguation tags

I can see a slight potential problem here: what if a notable character named Steve is in a notable video game called Frank? We can't just make the title "Steve (Frank)," because those are both common given names and it wouldn't make much sense. "Steve (character)" is probably no good, nor is "Steve (Frank) (video game)." What should happen in this scenario?  — TORTOISEWRATH 04:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, what else would Steve (Frank) refer to? There are similar names out there, like Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) (which has its own issues). WP:CRITERIA says titles should be recognizable, but that doesn't mean any Joe could look at the name and immediately know what it is—this wouldn't be practical for most topics. It means someone familiar with the subject can recognize it. Would a Someone familiar with Frank recognize Steve (Frank) as an article about the character Steve? Probably. If you had to come up with something else, you could do Steve (video game character), though it would be a good idea in that case to use a hatnote to a disambiguation page. Incidentally, that brings up Toad (video game character), a redirect to Toad (Mario), which is itself not a much more descriptive title than Steve (Frank). But there's nothing really wrong with it. --BDD (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguating with (S)NES

Are acronyms acceptable for disambiguation, i.e., (NES) and (SNES)? And should we always use the English name, or would (Famicom) and (Super Famicom) be appropriate for games that were only released in Japan? --BDD (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• @BDD: Do you have any preference on this? I recently ran across a conflict in regards to disambiguation in some article titles - (SNES) vs (Super NES) vs (Super Nintendo Entertainment System) - and since no one has responded to your question, I guess this may be an occasion where I would feel okay being bold with updating the guideline. Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably NES and SNES would be my first choices, since they're a primary topic and unambiguous, respectively. I don't like "Super NES" because it seems somewhat uncommon, but I do think Famicom and Super Famicom would be appropriate for games exclusive to Japan. --BDD (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Done with this edit. BDD, does the wording of that addition look proper? Steel1943 (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Situation that is not addressed by the "disambiguation" section

I just ran across a case that this page does not address for disambiguating titles in the disambiguation section: MechWarrior (video game) vs MechWarrior (SNES video game). The former of the two is a computer game, but the disambiguation section clearly states to not use the word "computer" anywhere in the disambiguator. However, left as is, the disambiguator in the former is not enough to distinguish itself from the latter. What would be the best way to resolve this, and should the guideline be updated to address such issues if they are found again? Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of mobile

Hey guys, I'm following up on Talk:Batman:_Arkham_Origins_(app)#Requested_move_19_March_2015...specifically, why are we using the term mobile here? Is it a catchall for Nintendo DS / Playstation Pro games? I bet it means those watch games that simulate pets which you have to feed right?! Is it short for mobile phone application games? It seems to me that using mobile for a game is rather ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamM1rv (talk • contribs) 14:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if you ar tyrying to make a point or are seriously unsure but if not mobile most commonly refers to smartphones and tablets and is genrrally not used when discussing handheld games. I have also never heard of the term being used to discuss digital pets. I am also not sure what else can be used here since it has the same title as the console/PC game, was released in the same year, and the genre is the same.--174.91.187.234 (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Naming of unreleased games that need date disambiguation

This is likely a very rare case, but in the case of The Witness (2016 video game), it started out as The Witness (2011 video game) and we have a version for each year since; it was originally set at the "2011 video game" because of the name conflict with the 1983 video game. However in 2011 we did not have a day-and-month release date, only the developer's expected release. (As of today, we now have a firm day-and-month release date). And since the game has had a long dev cycle, we have to keep moving and leaving behind redirects. It's not an impossible situation to deal with but it is a messy one.

I would like to propose, based on the similar way that we omit games with no day-and-month release date from the categories "Games released in YYYY", that when a date based disambiguation is needed for a yet-released title, that we use "(upcoming video game)" instead of "(YYYY video game)". Once a date is fixed for release, then the proper year disambiguation can be done. Yes, that date could change later, but that's less of a vague situation compared to the situation for the Witness. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support using "(upcoming video game)" for disambiguating yet-unreleased video games, even if the release date is known, mostly per CRYSTAL. I thought that was already the practice, so might as well spell it out in the guideline. Anyone familiar with how articles from other media do this? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with this proposal. --Izno (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• This is fine—I think it's codifying existing practice anyway czar 16:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of (computer game) as a disambiguator

Convention currently [2] reads in part never use "(computer game)" or "(computer gaming)" for any disambig even if the article is exclusively about a PC-related topic.

In a recent RM it was specifically decided to disregard this particular clause. [3] In the discussion it was noted that there was no rationale for this rule (by me, did I miss it somewhere) and that it did not seem helpful in this case.

One of four things should now happen IMO.

1. We might change the naming convention, modifying or eliminating the clause in question. Unless someone can explain what this clause is intended to achieve and why, that seems the obvious course to me.
2. We might change the naming convention to allow some exceptions, citing this case as an example. Again, without knowing what the clause is trying to achieve, it's hard to say why this should be an exception.
3. We might change the convention to clarify the scope and intention of this clause, if it isn't meant to cover this case.
4. If none of those is appropriate, we should revisit the RM.

Comments? In particular, can anyone provide a rationale for avoiding the use of (computer game) as a disambiguator? Andrewa (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Policy/guideline does not need to explicate on rationale. If there was one, it would be WP:NC, bullet 5 "Consistency". We picked a short, correct term to save us having to figure out a term every time. Alternatively, there is the origination discussion in the first section above, from 2007, which may prove enlightening. --Izno (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'd argue that a RM discussion involving only 4 people is far from consensus. If the issue was highlighted at WP:VG, I'm pretty confident we'd have moved it to "video game" than "computer game". --MASEM (t) 15:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: Speaking on the specific, I just tried. We'd have to add the year of release, but I can't decide which year is the best year given that the page seems to discuss a multitude of games, with two (one from 85 and one from 86) being the "first versions". --Izno (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Given that the article appears to be based on the 86 BSD version and that it is the one that spawned the other games, rather than the 85 version, I think "1986 video game" would be better. The '85 version should still be mentioned but if it is as the article presents, that everyone remembers the BSD version moreso, then 1986 makes more sense. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think this was a good call. I'd be for reopening the RM with broader participation. czar 15:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The clause is achieving consistency and recognition from WP:NC. They are all "video games" and contemporary reliable sources use the term as such. If we add further categorization, like "computer" or "arcade" or "DOS", then we are straying from conciseness and into unnecessary precision to distinguish it from other topics. When multiple "(video game)"s clash, then a year is more than likely the best disambiguator because it's the most recognizable to a general reader. It also ensures consistency, because most games cannot be easily disambiguated by (recognizable) platform. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What about mixed reality games like Ingress (video game)?

Transreality / mixed reality games like the location-based game Ingress wrongly have (video game) in their titles - they aren't just video games.

Article-titles should always and foremost be accurate.

So I think this naming convention needs to be updated for such games.

I created this discussion so that we can collaboratively find a way to deal with these games.

Should they get

• (game)
• (mixed reality game)
• (transreality game)
• (location-based game) / (augmented-reality game)
• something else?

added to their titles instead? (Which of those?)

--Fixuture (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:VG pinged. I'm currently in the "it's still just a video game" camp. -- ferret (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

As am I. Even these games still require looking at a screen of some sort. --Izno (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: Yes, but how does that classify them as full-grade "video games"? There are many other things, sports etc, which also require "looking at a screen" - does that make them video games just because of that?! Ingress and alike are no video games. In the case of Ingress: that's a location-based mobile game (or more generally a mixed reality game).

Don't force false terminology onto people just because it fits your contemporary stylistic way of things and because you're apparently unable to distinguish!

On Wikipedia it's important that we use the appropriate and most accurate terms.

--Fixuture (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fixuture: Two behavioral reminders you probably need:

1. It's generally a bad idea to personally attack someone. Especially, a personal attack makes it hard to convince them that you're right and they're not.
2. It's generally a bad idea to soapbox, especially by attempting to right a perceived great wrong.

I don't think I'll respond to the rest of your commentary except for one comment, as the others have already done that to mostly-sufficient degree: we are writing a generalist encyclopedia and so the terms we use to disambiguate should be recognizable to the majority of people. This is another point for "video game" besides the below. --Izno (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: I did not personally attack anyone - or at least I didn't intend to and am unsure of where I allegedly did so.

And you might mistake my quest for accurateness for soapboxing.

we are writing a generalist encyclopedia and so the terms we use to disambiguate should be recognizable to the majority of people

Alright, that's a point. But by that (game) should be fine as well. And I'd suggest that as it's recognizable to the majority of people, entirely accurate and evades any specific definition of the type of game at hand. --Fixuture (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• The only real question that matters here is: do reliable, secondary sources describe Pokémon Go, Ingress, etc as "video games"? If so, then we should, too.--IDV^talk 19:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@IDV: The question is: are there reliable, secondary sources that describe Pokémon Go, Ingress, etc by the correct terms? And yes, there are reliable sources calling them location-based games for instance. --Fixuture (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

We don't decide whether a term is correct or not - RSs do. I am unconvinced that a source calling them "location-based games" means that the source does not consider them video games, though - it might only be a more specific term, like how Street Fighter being a fighting game does not mean it is not also a video game.--IDV^talk 20:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@IDV: I'd agree that Ingress etc are also video games. But a game in which you have to walk around and do stuff outside can't be described as "video game"-only (without any other additional terms). It's only a subgenre of video games in the sense that it's also a video game but it's not a subgenre proper of said. For instance such article could simply get the (game) addition which evades what exact kind of game they are. --Fixuture (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

These are good examples of what you can do with the video game medium, and I would personally find it odd that people may say they aren't video games at all. But yes, let's look at sources: Matching "Pokémon Go" with "video game" on a Google news search gives many more results that matching it with "mixed-reality game" or "location-based game". Same is the case for "Ingress". You can find plenty of people describing these video games using these kinds of words, but I think the only term that is currently universal is "video game". ~Mable (chat) 20:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: That's just the numbers of the search-results. Instead compare the news articles that use the video game term with the news articles using all the other more correct terms (and also take a look which source is saying what). Also "video game" only is false. People often use wrong (/ old) terms for new things (e.g. because they aren't aware of the more accurate new terms). --Fixuture (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The search results show that only a small fraction of news websites that refer to these video games use terms such as "mixed-reality games". I'm not sure how else to go about this. None of the suggested terms seem more popular or more correct than the others, and last thing we should do is try to push a certain word. Wikipedia follows the lead, it doesn't decide out of its own what the correct terminology is. Whether "video game" only is false is apparently subjective, however. This all just reminds me of people disregarding walking simulators as video games or disregarding auditory games as video games - it's just putting the weight on what happens to be the name rather to what the medium is actually about... but that's just my two cents >.> ~Mable (chat) 21:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Maplestrip:

None of the suggested terms seem more popular or more correct than the others, and last thing we should do is try to push a certain word. Wikipedia follows the lead, it doesn't decide out of its own what the correct terminology is

Good point. Because of that I'd suggest going with (game) as that evades choosing a specific term and simply uses a broader and correct term. --Fixuture (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

As you can imagine, I don't like going with "game" because I believe "video game" is perfectly accurate and more specific, but we won't come to an agreement here. "Game" is definitely the best of the suggested options. ~Mable (chat) 22:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I prefer "video game" regardless of the non video aspect, for the same reason we don't distinguish between computer and video game. As long as the results are given to players via an electronic visual medium, its a video game. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: But computer games are a proper subgenre of video games.

As long as the results are given to players via an electronic visual medium, its a video game.

Again: there are many other things, sports etc (e.g. lasertag, sprinting), in which "the results are given to players via an electronic visual medium" - does that make them video games just because of that?! Sincerely that's a ridiculous argument. I'd suggest the (game) addition which evades what exact kind of game they are.

--Fixuture (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Do RSs describe sprinting as a video game? Probably not.--IDV^talk 21:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@IDV: No, but that wasn't my point: it was that your argument doesn't hold and there are also RS calling Ingress etc a location-based game etc. --Fixuture (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The way to think about it is from the unaware reader's perspective. They might know that Ingress or Pokemon Go are games played on the phone but interact with your physical location. Do you think they will call these "video games" or "location-based games"? The latter is more precise but it is not obvious nor the common terminology; it looks and acts like a video game, they will think of these as video games.

In generally, we really should be careful about anything that comes under the concept of a video game about using any more narrower terminology for disambig titles. We have a scheme that works neutral of hardware save in extreme cases, and we do avoid gameplay genres as such. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I've just created redirects from all of those, so in addition to

• Ingress (video game)

now any of

• Ingress (game)
• Ingress (mixed reality game)
• Ingress (transreality game)
• Ingress (location-based game)
• Ingress (augmented-reality game)

will take the user to the page. Whether they are looking for a video game called Ingress, or a mixed reality game called Ingress, or any of the other terms, they'll find it. That's what redirects are for.

--Thnidu (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixuture said above

• Also "video game" only is false. People often use wrong (/ old) terms for new things (e.g. because they aren't aware of the more accurate new terms).

As a linguist, I am quite aware that language changes. I am also aware that changes can be short-lived, especially in a fast-moving and popular industry like video games (in the inclusive sense). "Old" terms (here, a decade or two) are not necessarily wrong, and there's good reason for a certain conservatism in formal and academic writing, including encyclopedias: first, the newest and most faddish terms may well be unfamiliar to many, even most, readers; and second, we can't tell in advance how long they will last. If we always go with the newest and most specific terms, we'll be excluding many readers and revising our articles (and arguing over them) so often we won't be able to keep track of the changes.
Therefore, I urge that we not feel compelled to switch to newer and more finely-chopped terms, especially since redirects such as the ones I've just made can make articles accessible through any characterization that is appropriate, new or old, broad or narrow.
And given these arguments, I also suggest that it would be best to title the article conservatively rather than with the newest and most narrowly defined term.
--Thnidu (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Save for "(game)", the rest of those redirects appear unnecessary. If you search on WP for "Ingress location-based game" (nothing else, including parens), the Ingress game article is the first hit. Same with the other terms. Redirects like that should only be used if there is a need to catch a potential legit search term to avoid conflict with other meanings. (Eg we don't flood redirects with things like "Doom (first-person shooter)".) --MASEM (t) 03:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that the redirects are excessive. Please {{ping}} me if they go up for deletion. czar 18:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright all, many have brought arguments forward against a narrower term for disambiguation. If there are no objections I'll move the page to Ingress (game) as it's a) accurate b) a term used in RS c) doesn't require a change to this page and d) is common language understood by readers.

--Fixuture (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Both Masem and Mable already said earlier in this discussion that they prefer "(video game)", and for the record, so do I. Your arguments for moving to (game) also apply to (video game).--IDV^talk 17:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And the earliest video games used computers to turn lights on and off—the point is that it's a game played primarily through a computer's interface, which is what makes it a "video game" (as computer games are known). Don't see the case for changing the disambiguation. czar 18:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fixuture and Czar: Same here. Keep it at "(video game)". And I'm Ok with deleting my new redirects as Masem suggested , i.e., all except "(game)", but can't now, in a hurry. If someone else wants to start process, go ahead. --Thnidu (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I see that someone has deleted those redirects. Thanks, whoever.--Thnidu (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Text-based computer games

It seems very counter-intuitive to me to call every game that involves a computer a "video game", regardless of whether it uses video graphics. Text-based interactive fiction games such as Zork are...well... not video games. They were played on computers that often couldn't display images, including printing terminals (picture a typewriter connected to a computer). Pounding that square peg into the round hole of a "video game" places consistency above accuracy. It's like insisting that we call e-books "movies" because people often read them on screens that can also play motion pictures. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh boy, not again. My opinion has always been to keep "(video game)" as broad as possible and to use it for everything reliable sources use it. Books on video games may point out that something is "more like a virtual toy" or "more of a text-based game", but they always tend to go back to referring to the subject matter in general as "video games". I don't see any real reason to create unusual disambiguations like "text-based game", as it's more about genre than anything. As for e-books, they would be more like webcomics than movies, I'd say. ~Mable (chat) 16:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, troublesome solutions tend to lead to objections coming up repeatedly. (By the way, "text-based" is not a "genre"; that refers to content, not format.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Mainly because we already were in this soup before, disambiguating every "type" with a different tag ("computer game", "PC game", "home computer game" etc.). It got unwieldy really fast and took months of cleanup. At present, it is best that some (types of) games don't fit neatly into the term than having lots of ambiguous ones. At this point, it's the common name in the industry and is applied retroactively to older games. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a complex taxonomy. Far from it. I'm just arguing that a one-size-fits-all rule – one that says digital games must be called "video games" (regardless of whether they're actually video-based) – is unnecessarily inflexible. The example that brought me here, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (video game), is a "game". No further disambiguation needed. If there was more than one game by that name – e.g. a video game, a board game, a text-based game, a VR game, a handheld game – then and only then would more specific disambigs be needed. It's how disambiguation works in pretty much every other area of Wikipedia: start with the simplest and most generic possible (e.g. athlete) and if that doesn't do it get more specific (cricketer, footballer), and even more specific (footballer, born 1939) only if you absolutely must. Jumping directly to "video game" in all cases ignores the principle of keeping dabs short and simple. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a feeling that using "game" to disambiguate any video or board or other type of game from a non-game, assuming there's no other game to worry about, is something to take to a wiki-wide level, and not just limit here. I've found resistance from both VG and board game sides to use the simple "game" when they sorta want to keep things separate. I'm not suggesting either way is right, but isolating this suggestion to the VG project is not going to get the proper traction it needs for review. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

One could ask whether many text-adventures are even "games" in the first place, especially when it comes to visual novels (though I guess those are their own category as well now?). Erm, "video game" simply tends to be nicely neutral, as it doesn't describe what kind of thing it is at all as long as you don't attempt to take the "video" and "game" parts literally on their own... Currently, I assume we'd use the disambiguator "video game" for audio games as well, correct? ~Mable (chat) 21:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(as an aside, your typical text adventure game (Zork, Spellbreaker, etc) is way closer to a point and click adventure game than a VN, despite the genre names. I love the VN genre, but text adventures are way more gamey in general)--IDV^talk 06:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Keeping disambiguation as simple as possible is already policy at the top level of Wikipedia. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Another "(series)" issue

Separate from the above about (series) or (video game series):

The current "Exception:" line under when to use (series) is a bit weird. The advise is pertaining to when the series name and the first game in the series have the same title. A handful of things:

• This is actually not really that "exception", more a rule for most series. That's just a wording aspect.
• An issue was the "3 games + one media" line. I have no idea where that came from in context of a "series" , but I do remember we used to use that as the metric for a "franchise". In any case, that line is very much unnecessary in the context and should be removed, it's noise here.
• The advice is to establish that for nearly all cases, we want the series to be the primary name and the video game as the disambiguated one. What is exceptional is the rare case of where the first game in the series gets the attention, the rest of the series still notable but not with the same pedigree. The prime example of this is Myst, the first game alone has a huge legacy, the series had some high points but it sort-of petered out. Another example would be BioShock for similar reasons. In these cases, generally shown by recent move discussions, that the first game should get the primary name, and the series disambiguated. But again: this is the rare exception. If in doubt, series is the primary topic.

The changes I made and refined I felt captured this appropriately, but since were reverted, so discussing this to move on. --Masem (t) 17:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

A series should always be considered primary above any individual game. The game, after all, lends its notability to the series... the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The equivalent of putting a game first above a series would be to put an individual episode primary above the television series it is part of... or a single book ahead of the series it gives it name to. I'm not aware of any case where we do that other than here in video game fandom. The BioShock (series) gained in popularity as it grew (BioShock sold 4 million, BioShock Infinite - 11 million copies). The Myst franchise is popular due to its game mechanics, and while later game sales slowed, when people talk about Myst its in the context of the mechanics and general series, not just the first game. Copycats are described as "Myst-like" which is a statement about the mechanics of the franchise, not a specific reference to the first game. -- Netoholic @ 17:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

A series does not happen unless the first game sells well (most of the time; in rare cases a series is planned before knowing how the first game will go), so your logic would say the first game should be the primary name, which is obviously not a good approach considering standard naming conventions. Most series generally get better with more games in it, latter entries being more impressive than earlier ones, and the series gains the popularity and notability over any individual title. That said, there are exceptions, and Myst is the principle example. Naming conventions overall are not hard rules, they have logical exceptions and that's what is being evoked here. --Masem (t) 17:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

My major complaint with the wording was the odd "three games and an unrelated media" bit as the test. Netoholic's change of removing the whole bit is probably for the best, as it leaves it up to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I think it may still be worth keeping a line about series often being the primary topics over games of the same name vis a vis WP:BROADCONCEPT, as in some cases the evidence will point the other way. For instance, in many cases the first game may well have higher page views over an article on the series, even if the series is a better BROADCONCEPT fit for the base name. Otherwise, we're going to have a lot of RMs that go one way while others go the other.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. "three games and an unrelated media" was an odd test condition. For series, I agree that shose articles should strongly be pushed toward primary topics per WP:BROADCONCEPT. Right now, the video game space is incredibly inconsistent with some games at primary and some series - and a lot of them are just dead wrong right now. I'd also like to incorporate (franchise) disambiguation method using wording from WP:NCTV/WP:NCFILM, as all these guidelines should be consistent in their use of it since it crosses all those subject areas. -- Netoholic @ 19:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I remember an RM at TimeSplitters that ended with the status quo explicitly because of that condition, even though the second game was a much bigger hit than the first. It may be a good test case to revisit that. I'll take a stab at some wording in a moment. I agree that "franchise" may be a better fit in many cases, but "series" is so well established here that I don't know if it would fly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Mario (franchise) and others exist. I think it just needs to be documented. A game series is just games, whereas a franchise is when it crosses media types (film, TV, etc.). The current RM discussion at Talk:Ys (series) is heading that direction as well. -- Netoholic @ 19:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

There needs to be more to a franchise than just one additional media type. For example, Persona (series) has several anime based on the games, but I don't think anyone calls this a franchise. Pokemon is the principle example of a franchise, but you'll notice that its video game segment has a wholly separate article. --Masem (t) 19:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, but I did google that one and found some uses of "franchise". Likewise, a lot of sources will refer to a series of video games as a game franchise, even when it doesn't cross over to other media. -- Netoholic @ 20:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Naming conventions are meant to provide consistency to avoid edit warring, but they are not hard rules, they are meant to be guidance. The video game disamb space is actually pretty straight forward, only this "important first game vs series" is where there have been debates, but again, the goal is not to make a consistent scheme but simply to help get a unique name if disambiguation is needed. --Masem (t) 19:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Re series vs. first games, how about adding "Naming conflicts often arise between a video game and a series based on it. The conflict should be settled according to the disambiguation guidelines and the specific conventions below. In many cases, the series will be the primary topic as a broad concept article covering all the related uses, including the original game. In such cases, the series should take the base name while the video game article is disambiguated, for example The Legend of Zelda (the series) and The Legend of Zelda (video game) (the first game)." I'd add this to the top rather than the list of guidelines.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

In terms of placement of this advise, I was definitely thinking if it should be moved higher or outside the list, since it's about resolving between two of the conditions listed, and not a singular one. This is regardless of how the above discussion goes. --Masem (t) 20:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Cancellations

What's the general naming scheme for canceled video games (and/or what have you seen in the wild)? Bumped into Gauntlet (Nintendo DS) today and it should probably have a different disambiguation. --Izno (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Cancelled games should still be at (video game), however, because of the iterations of Guantlet, this might be difficult. We don't usually use platforms unless that's the only way to distinguish something (Over the Hedge , IIRC). I think "(cancelled video game)" is your best option, since I cannot see how someone ever could get to this directly. --Masem (t) 19:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Use Gauntlet (2008 video game) or Gauntlet (cancelled video game) either is fine. I've seen both of them in the wild for cancelled games. - X201 (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

If I'm reading it right, this game was a relaunch, not just a port, so using the platform as disambig is incorrect. Gauntlet (2008 video game) is the most consistent method per the guideline and fits with Gauntlet (2014 video game). Putting "cancelled" in the title is extraneous. -- Netoholic @ 21:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

2008 is no better because the game wasn't released in 2008--it wasn't released at all. "cancelled video game" seems more reasonable from that point of view. --Izno (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd use "cancelled video game" as well. Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with "cancelled video game" as shortest precise DAB. "2008" is not correct -- the game was not released that year (it never was). And if the year refers to it being cancelled/announced/started that year, then the title would be misleading. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no documented naming scheme for cancelled games. Since this is a unique situation, I suggest going through a formal WP:RM process to determine consensus if you think the standard naming convention doesn't apply. -- Netoholic @ 05:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Clearly there is no documented naming scheme, hence why I asked to see if others had a thought. :) --Izno (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Franchise section

I have twice attempted different edits to clarify what we're talking about in the "Franchise" section of this convention. Netoholic has reverted, apparently because he feels it the text should say that if the article is on a franchise, "then an associated overview page... should occupy the primary article title" instead of "should usually occupy the primary article title" or similar. He says the wording should follow the wording at related guidelines, but the wording I introduced is taken directly from WP:NCFILM. It's also basic common sense - we shouldn't imply something should "always" occupy the base name when that's not going to work for a large number of articles, including two of the examples given here. The reverts also removed video game-specific examples from the running text in favor of Star Trek, despite the fact that that article barely touches on video games. I suggest that the "usually" be restored per WP:NCFILM and general Wikipedia reality, and the examples be restored (which is, again, how they appear at WP:NCFILM).--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

One thing I would want to be a bit careful of is from a recent discussion at WT:VG , in which just because there's a video game series with some associated non-VG media does not make a franchise, particularly if the other media elements do not have standalone notability from the video game series/titles. For example Persona (series) is a case where while there's anime and manga adapted from the game, these are non-notable on their own, so it doesn't make sense to call this a "franchise". Basically, if you have a "franchise", there should be clear notability (standalone articles) of the cross-media offerings. --Masem (t) 20:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Masem: That's a good point. I would support adding something of that nature to this guideline. A video game series that has some spinoff media isn't necessarily a "franchise". Of course, that only comes up in cases where it's also not the primary topic, and (series) or (franchise) needs to be added for disambiguation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

To editor Cuchullain: - Your first edit changed it from "should" to "often", which represented a serious softening in tone. The second edit is more similar to the other guidelines, but still removed "Star Trek", which is included as probably the most well-known, clearest example of a franchise which crosses all media and has significant WP coverage. You also put examples into the prose, which affects the readability of it. The use of "usually" though is something that was added to WP:NCFILM and one I also disagree with as it softens the tone. There is an awful lot of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in fan-based areas (as illustrated by Masem's example), and those should be seen as exceptions, not the rule. A guideline should try to define things in absolutes, because any softening leads to more fragmentation of its application. Lastly, you tried to define franchise summaries as WP:BROADCONCEPT and that's not exactly accurate. An article on a franchise is covering one thing - the franchise - not a broad set of topics which share a name like the WP:BROADCONCEPT#Common examples give. -- Netoholic @ 02:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A guideline should try to define things in absolutes No, guidelines are not meant to be rules; they are meant to be descriptive of practice, not prescriptive. Guidelines should present a base system that uses common sense and consensus driven exceptions where appropriate. --Masem (t) 02:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Occasional exceptions and common sense application are built into the concept of guidelines (WP:GUIDES). We don't need to further include softened wording within the guideline itself. A guideline should state things as simple and straightforward as possible to reduce confusion and prevent fragmented application. -- Netoholic @ 03:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not so much that when a franchise is a franchise that we should use "(franchise)", and for a series to use "(video game series)", but that just because a video game has other works in other media does not necessary make that a franchise. Mario, Sonic, and Pokemon are clearly franchises with multiple notable works in multiple media formats. Persona is less so; the games are notable but not their anime adaptions. We would not consider that a franchise. That's where some discussion, evaluation of sources, and common sense need to be used. --Masem (t) 13:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Masem is correct. A guideline should certainly not present things in absolutes - it should present what we should do generally, where it's practical. Implying that we should "always" put a franchise article at the base name just makes the guideline out of step with policy and practice, as there will be dozens if not hundreds of examples where the franchise isn't the primary topic for one reason or another. Adding the word "usually" (or "generally", or whatever) doesn't "soften" the guideline, it brings it in line with reality. That's presumably why WP:NCFILM includes the "usually" - and why it should be added here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Masem's point is whether not not a topic is actually a franchise or not. If its not, then the (franchise) disambiguation doesn't matter at all. -- Netoholic @ 18:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Masem is correct that "guidelines should present a base system that uses common sense and consensus driven exceptions where appropriate." In other words, they should not imply something should always be the case, when it should just usually be the case.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, Netoholic, is there a specific reason not to include the video game-based examples? If it was just a blanket revert, I'd like to see this element added back in, as it's a lot more useful in the running text.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

There are video game examples, in the bullets under the main text. But the main text should be kept in line with other guidelines, so "Star Trek" is used as it is commonly known to all. -- Netoholic @ 18:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want it "kept in line with other guidelines", then the "usually" should be restored, as that's the wording used at WP:NCFILM. At any rate, NCFILM also includes film-specific examples - Star Trek, Harry Potter, and Alien (franchise) - in the main text where it makes sense, instead of in an unweildy bulleted list below. Star Trek is essentially irrelevant to this guideline, as the article mentions covers video games.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You keep mentioning NCFILm, but are ignoring WP:NCTV#Media franchise which doesn't use "usually". Also, bulleted lists for examples are commonplace among the various NCs. You call them "unwieldy", but including so many examples in the running prose here as you did reduced its readability. If you want to replace Star Trek, that's fine, but suggest another franchise to use which is fully recognizable in film, TV, and VGs. -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't notice WP:NCTV. That's inconsistent. I suppose we should have a centralized discussion about all three - they all should say "usually". I'll think of some other examples. The ones that come to mind are Resident Evil as one that doesn't need disambiguation, and Mario (franchise) as one that does.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"use either '(gamer)' or '(video game player)'"

I have found that a vast number of pages of eSports players with parentheticals for disambiguation were moved from (video gamer) to (<specific game> player) by User:Prisencolin when it was not needed. Most pages in Category:League of Legends players were moved from parentheticals of (video gamer) to (League of Legends player), and from a sampling of American eSports players, Ksharp (video gamer) and Universe (video gamer) were renamed to Ksharp (Counter-Strike player) and Universe (Dota 2 player) by Prisencolin as well. I haven't been able to find any rationale other than WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:ASTONISH, which don't seem to apply to the parentheticals or supersede the naming convention already in place, and an RfC mentioned by him that I can't find.

It seems to me that the (<specific game> player) parenthetical is only needed when there is another video gamer with the same name or nickname. What brought this to my attention was a recent failed move proposal for Faker (video gamer) to Faker (League of Legends player) started by User:Slightlymad, in which User:SnowFire opposed the move due to a lack of necessity for the (League of Legends player) parenthetical if there are no other video gamers with the same recognizable common name.

Do Prisencolin's renames reflect consensus here? Should they be moved back? Am I interpreting Disambiguation#11 wrong? And should these parentheticals even be standardised? 9³ (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I would lean toward moving them back to just "video game player" or "video gamer" or the like, as appropriate. SnowFire (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"Video gamer" is not one of the potential choices, but I doubt anyone would be bothered by it. "Gamer" and "Video game player" were most-supported; 'gamer' for conciseness and 'video game player' if for some reason you doubt that 'gamer' is not a NEO-term. --Izno (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Prisencolin's moves were made before that naming convention was added here; those phrases in the guideline presently are consensus. (As an aside, that discussion was not formally closed, which is why there's a 'use one of these' rather than 'use this one'.) The specific games's names miss WP:RECOGNIZABLE-factor. --Izno (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I currently have drafted a mass move for Category:League of Legends players with the specific parentheses to (video gamer) parentheses due to the two-editor consensus for the no-move of Faker (video gamer), which should definitely be moved if User:Prisencolin's not-unreasonable moves stand. 9³ (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

And apparently I should also read more of the section above started by iio as that pertains more to this issue than the ambiguous wording of rule #11. 9³ (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The wording of #11 is not ambiguous.... If you plan to submit a mass RM, please use either "gamer" or "video game player", as in the guideline. --Izno (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I have changed it in my proposal, but in terms of actual articles (video gamer) is of at least equal prevalance to (video game player) and (gamer) is practically nonexistent. 9³ (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

(gamer) is colloquial and should be removed from the guideline and deprecated, same with (video gamer). Use (GAME player) for players known for only one game, or (video game player) for those whose notoriety crosses significantly into more than one. This is consistent with WP:NCSP. We also need some guidelines around what names to call people. Too many articles use gamer tags rather than full names. That's a unique situation to video gaming which this guideline should resolve. -- Netoholic @ 01:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer this, and the comparison with WP:NCSP e.g. "(bandy)" or "(Ice hockey player)" was one of Prisencolin's reasons for the move. 9³ (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

As for pseudonyms, I think WP:COMMONNAME would apply here. 9³ (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to start an RFC for "gamer"--the word first appears in the 1970s, so I'm a bit skeptical at "colloquial". The RFC was fairly clear that the specific game is not appropriate, regardless. We write for a general audience--and "Dota player" showing up in the disambiguation does not help a general reader. As for article names (tag versus real name), that same RFC fairly clearly concludes that WP:STAGENAME is sufficient--where a 'tag' is a clear analogy to a stage name... Either way, if you want your changes, those would require RFCs of similar size and responses to the previous. --Izno (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Izno - Please link the RFCs you're mentioning. I don't see them on this page or the single archive. And I agree that "gamer" has a long history, used for board or tabletop roleplaying games before it was used for video games. This makes (gamer) insufficiently clear as to what type of gaming - much like how "(athlete)" is mentioned in WP:NCSP as too generic for most use. I am fine also dropping the (GAME player) usage too, in order to make it the main goal to standardize on (video game player) - with special cases being exceptions to that. -- Netoholic @ 05:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The RFC in question is linked in my comment above (which is the edit which added the text to the guideline). --Izno (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not an WP:RFC. That's a straw poll. Verrry shaky to base a consensus on that because its at best a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of the 6 or so people that happened to see the discussion 2.5 years ago. -- Netoholic @ 13:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Verrry shaky to say that a discussion tagged with the RFC template is not an RFC. ;) --Izno (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Why does the archive link not include a closing statement? Did the RFC header just get removed and never officially closed? -- Netoholic @ 13:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

To answer your second question directly, yes. Less directly, RFCs have never required formal, third-party, closures, which are a fairly-recent convention (review WP:RFCEND). (I suggest that the increased politicization of Wikipedia, and increased maturity of guidelines and policies, are the primary drivers for content and rule-making RFCs respectively.) --Izno (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Creating a consistent naming convention style for character names across media types

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Creating a consistent naming convention style for character names across media types . Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop use of (series) dab

Come on folks. Outside of video games series means books or TV, that's why the other projects use (TV series) and (novel series) as dabs, not just (series). Please consider non video game readers and editors and go back to (video game series) for video game series. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The advice has been there for a literal decade--"going back to" isn't even a thing. If other pages are advocating an un-WP:CONCISE disambiguation, that's their prerogative. As it is, if there is need for a longer disambiguation, we still have access to it. --Izno (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. Per WP:CONCISE, if there are no other "series" to disambiguate from, there's no reason to add "video game". Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: @Sergecross73: so you'd be happy if all (TV series) and (book series) articles moved to just (series) when there's no video game series competing? I'm not sure if that's what you're saying? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Yes, I would have no issue with that path. --Izno (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Nor would I. Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Same here. The disambiguation needs to be precise but as short as possible. There's no reason that any TV show, film series, or the like can use "(series)" as well, since we do not expect readers to have those memorized - that's only for the technical convenience of avoiding duplicate article names. --Masem (t) 15:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but I agree as well. I'm not sure why other topics qualify their "series" further. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this also. (Series) should solely be used per WP:CONCISE unless there are competing series._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but at this point this has merely verified a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here. Rightly or wrongly this project is titling differently from TV/books/films. But all projects co-exist in the same larger project. FWIW I observe WP:CONCISE cited on its own is typically misused misapplied and generally reader-unfriendly. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree, (series) alone is not enough to remove ambiguity in page names - no matter the subject. Frankly, its almost as generic as using (thing), (place), or (person) - certain words just apply so broadly as to not communicate the proper scope - the disambiguation is still ambiguous. (video game series) is perfectly in-line with the way all other media naming conventions denote series: WP:NCTV uses (TV series), WP:NCFILM uses (film series), etc. Any argument advocating that one subject area be able to keep using (series) is an argument that ALL areas should - and that is a recipe for long-term confusion and inevitable retraction back to the clearer methods we use today. -- Netoholic @ 13:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

If there happened to be a "person" and a "location" with the same name, than using those two disambiguations would be fine, actually. "Thing" doesn't disambiguate, however, because everything is a thing. ~Mable (chat) 15:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

And likewise, (series) could apply to almost every "thing" which can be grouped and ordered. (series) doesn't really disambiguate, and if we were to allow its use across all subject areas, it would quickly become the most widely used parenthetical disambiguation in the encyclopedia (other than perhaps (disambiguation) itself) and as a result it'd lose almost all informative value. -- Netoholic @ 16:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, a series of X, whatever X could be, is sufficiently disambiguate by "(series)", unless there also happens to be a second series of X in a different form. And remember, the point of disambiguation is not to provide informational value (though for searching purposes, it can help), it is it to clear out a technical hurdle that we can't have two pages as the same exact name. That's why we want to be concise on these. --Masem (t) 17:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll join the pile-on: the Book style guidelines are the ones doing it wrong, not the VG project. (TV might be a special case since such series are usually casually referred to as a "TV series"). The article title is not a place to stick extra information; the article itself is the place to do that. In an ideal world, parenthetical disambiguation would never exist, it's solely a technical tool as Masem notes. So there's no expectation of such information being included in the title. If you do think such information should be in the article title, it should presumably apply to currently undisambiguated titles as well, so move Devil May Cry to Devil May Cry video game series, move The Sopranos to The Sopranos television series, etc. (Which I think would not find much support.) SnowFire (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• User:Netoholic has moved several "series" articles to "video game series" (and many accompanying edits) while this discussion is in progress and without holding any RMs. Given that I don't see consensus for this above and that they are an active participant, this feels like very bad form. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

  The discussion in this section was about eliminating (series) use entirely. My moves are in line with the current guideline. These moves were only in instances where there was, say, a TV series named the same as a game series. So I've moved the game article to (video game series). -- Netoholic @ 23:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  I agree, these are becoming problematic. Netoholic moved Portal from (series) to (video game series) claiming that the (TV series) necessitated it. It is clear that currently, the primary topic of a "Portal series" is the video games. The conventions are not hard rules but they are treating it as such, and making a mess to clean up. --Masem (t) 22:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

  Having a guideline that is so arbitrarily enforced is functionally the same as having no guideline and just making each decision arbitrarily. Too often what happens is that an entrenched interest group uses their guideline as a hammer when it suits them, but then plays the "not all guidelines are hard and fast" when it suits them differently. That's "problematic". Also, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't apply to parenthetical disambiguator, but WP:INCDAB does. That said, in this case I did at least leave the Portal (series) redirect in place. -- Netoholic @ 23:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  There might be validity for moving it, but that should have been done after a conclusion to this discussion was made. You are appearing to be making this moves in a very pointy way, which is a disruption of WP. Remember, above all else WP:IAR applies. --Masem (t) 23:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  Like I said above, this discussion was about eliminating it completely. My moves were within the existing bounds, resolving articles that are abiguous with other series, exactly as this guideline is written. And no... "above all else WP:IAR applies"... NO NO NO. Above all are the actual WP policies. IAR is for when the policies get in the way of writing an encyclopedia... and I'm sorry, but a debate about a page disambiguation does not qualify. -- Netoholic @ 23:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  But the discussion was not completed or decided yet. You jumped the gun; that's disruptive and actionable for admin action if it persists. Also, naming conventions (WP:NC and its subpages) are guidelines, not absolutes. IAR perfectly applies. --Masem (t) 00:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  The number of rules on WP is daunting, and not all of them may be correct - if these facts are preventing you from improving or maintaining WP, then that is when you can IAR and just get to work. But you cannot cite IAR just to escape following a rule once you've been made aware of it. -- Netoholic @

  Please read WP:BURO. We do not have rules that have to be followed, short of things like BLP, NFC, and 3RR. --Masem (t) 00:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  If you're trying to say that guidelines aren't "rules", then you can't invoke "ignore all rules" to justify varying from guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 04:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  That's exactly what I'm saying. You're reading things far too pedantically that use on WP, and creating problems that need to stop. You're not consensus building here. --Masem (t) 05:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  This thread has become far to logically-inconsistent... but logic is probably another rule, which seems to have been ignored. -- Netoholic @ 05:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  (←) @Masem and Hellknowz: I see his moves as fine seeing as the prior text of the guideline supported them (precisely, Disambiguate by appending "(series)", or, if necessary, "(video game series)". The former is preferable. plus the text at WP:INCDAB). If there is a reasonable dispute as to the WP:PTOPIC in any particular case, go hash out the specifics elsewhere with a WP:RM. --Izno (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  if necessary is the key point here. The articles were "series" and were presumably the primary topic. Moving them to "video game series" implies "series" is in some way insufficient, such as not being the primary topic. So yes, a WP:RM should hash out the specifics. But it shouldn't be an RM after the move. May be it is INCDAB, may be it isn't. The articles have been around for a while, so it stands to reason a slightly longer discussion than just a bold move should occur. Such as dropping a note with the intended moves at VG at least. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  That's on the assumption that because a different series exists that we must chose the more descriptive one. That's the question being asked and yet unresolved here. Making those moves (and effectively making them irreversibly by making sure the incoming links all changed) is not appropriate bold action when one well-knows it is a point of contention they are involved in. Maybe it is right that we do have to do those more precise names, but that hadn't been decided yet. --Masem (t) 14:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  That's on the assumption that because a different series exists that we must chose the more descriptive one. Huh? That doesn't parse. Regardless, WP:INCDAB requires us, where (series) is still ambiguous (because e.g. a TV series exist with the same name), regardless of anything WP:NCVG has or had to say, to title our articles with (video game series), unless we have the belief in those cases that the video game series is the primary topic. As for the point of contention, I made the original reversion of the removal of (series) as an option (ref [4]), which is what the original contention was over. --Izno (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  There is nothing in any NC that says that a parenthetic title could not be considered the primary topic for all other works that would share that same parenthetic title (that is, nothing in NC says we are required to be more precise when two or more works of the same name could potentially share the same parenthetical). That was the question at hand here that hasn't be answered yet, in addition to if that was to be handled case-by-case, if those cases that were moved already should have been moved or not (eg I would very much argue that Portal the video game series has much more influence than the short-lived G4 show to be considered the primary topic). --Masem (t) 14:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic is mostly right in that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is about base names, not what goes in the disambiguation. There are very few cases where incomplete disambiguation was upheld at RM despite the presence of other ambiguous titles, and that's always when the topic is so much more prominent than any other use that an "ignore all rules" case is made. HOWEVER, there is no point in adding verbiage to the title if the incomplete disambiguation is still redirecting there. The incomplete dab should redirect to a dab page, or be left alone. I've reverted the move of Portal (series) and started an RM. Netoholic, please do not move any more articles if you're not going to clean up the redirects. RMs will work fine for that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Netholic to their benefit did try to clean up all redirects left by the move; that's why I didn't revert at all because that would have been doubly messy to cleanup, and why I noted the move was more permanent by that action. --Masem (t) 17:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Portal (series) was left redirecting to Portal (video game series), which shouldn't happen. I also reverted several others where the same thing happened, pending an RM, while leaving in place moves where "Xxx (series)" had been redirected to the dab page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I was going to formally suggest an RFC to present 3 options:

1. Status quo: VG's use (series), while other works have the more detailed title - no change but may continue to create disagreements among editors
2. VG brought towards other works to use (video game series) - avoids most naming conflicts in future but does change a long-established process in VG naming
3. Other works brought towards the concise aspect using (series) where possible - would require a lot of change and still much potential for name collision but removes some of the disagreements

However, when I write them down like this and consider the benefit of WP as a whole, I think the choice that creates minimal disruption becomes obvious. (that is, switching to (video game series)). I know us VG project editors like (series), but I can see why standing too much on this might create more problems than status quo. However, I would still offer if we should do a more formal RFC since option #3 requires more Wikiprojects' input for this. --Masem (t) 16:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't favor that "minimal disruption" path. I think the rule as it stands now is quite fine: "use series unless another series exists" (and quite frankly, it's a rule that could/should be used external to this page). That said, if we really want to talk about harmonizing every one, that's a task that will be a bit more involved than just this specific line. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Technically, while taking no action should be "no disruption", its clear from the thread that having VG's at "(series)" and everything else at a more precise "series", that there are editors that want to take action to make these changes, so there is definitely still issue for disruption. Moving all VG "(series)" to "(video game series)" should be a purely automatic change (including all redirects), rather than a major human editor task. --Masem (t) 16:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm also of the opinion that we should be using "(video game series)" as "(series)" isn't "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". --woodensuperman 09:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  If there are no other series, of course it unambiguously defines the article scope. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Was this eventually settled? --Gonnym (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Status quo has remained in place, no change. An RFC was mentioned but never done. -- ferret (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say this was addressed somewhere in this series of edits. A number of page moves have gone through successfully changing to "video game series" where there was a possible ambiguity, so I think that's the other way this has been taken care of. --Izno (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation by platform

I've made a bit of a bold edit, here's the details and why, obviously if there are strong objections there can be discussion.

1. I've placed "how to disambiguate by console with long console names" as a sub-point of "when to disambiguate by console", which seems like the way it should have always been.
2. The guideline said to disambiguate by plaform for remakes/ports but I feel a majority of the time when we disambiguate by platform it's NOT straight ports, but just completely different games with the same title where disambiguation by year would still be ambiguous. Think Jurassic Park (disambiguation)#Games and its many same-titled games in the same year. I've reworded "platform-specific remakes/ports" to "platform-specific versions" (which covers the same ground but slightly broader) and mentioned that this is speficially for when dab by release year would remain ambiguous.

And lastly, an unresolved point we should agree on:

1. The guidance is unclear on whether to use the console name or the console name + video game; as the guidelines read, we should use the platform only, and then the platform + video game only if we're abbreviating a long console name. I can't find many examples where we're disambiguating with unabbreviated console names but I just tried to bring consistency to the main Ninja Gaiden#Video games ports and realized the guideline was unclear.

Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Uh, well, I followed up your edit without realizing you were commenting on it: We always use [console] video game from the practice that I've observed.

There's a rule currently missing in here I think where the platform without year might still be ambiguous, so we should advise "year platform video game". --Izno (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

That certainly makes sense to me; if that's what we go for there'll be a few existing examples that would require renaming (including the Ninja Gaiden ports I mentioned above and made internally consistent today before realizing the guideline itself was unclear). I seem to recall one instance of games being released with the same name, same platform, different years, where we would need (year platform video game) but I can't pinpoint which it was. Of course the guideline is just a guideline, there will always be a few special cases like Disney's Aladdin (Virgin Games video game) / Disney's Aladdin (Capcom video game) (1993 would be ambiguous, and both were multiplatform), or Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit video game) (1991 is ambiguous, and this lower-gen version was multiplatform too), but I don't think we need to mention every single use case in the guideline, which should just be general principles. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are going to be exceptions (that said, why isn't Sonic "platform" and "console"?).

I might also be amenable to "(platform game)", since the platform is reasonably presuming the existence of "video" i.e. "Jurassic Park (NES game)". --Izno (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• I do always believe that a disambiguation should include the words "video game", because this thing titled "Jurassic Park" is not an instance of an NES. It is an instance of an NES video game. I think using platform where year does not suffice is generally a good idea, but I agree with Salvidrim that you will always have special cases of multiple multi-platform video games being released under the same title in the same year. I think solving those on a case-by-case basis is fine. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Primary topic and incomplete disambiguation conflicts RFC

Your comment is requested at WT:Disambiguation#Primary topic and Incomplete disambiguation conflicts. --Izno (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"Series" article name

When was this wording removed from this policy:

"...If a video game series has a naming conflict solely with the first game in the series (e.g., Final Fantasy), the series page should reside at the primary name if the series possesses a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item. Otherwise, the first game in the series should occupy the primary name, and the series article should be disambiguated with "... (series)"."

...And why? (I didn't not realize this part was removed until now, so I'm trying to figure out what happened to it.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

...Ah, I see now. It happened back in February 2018. I think this wording should be returned since it sets a specific guideline for when a series article should by default be located at the ambiguous title (provided the name doesn't conflict with subjects outside of the related video game series, of course.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Why? It seems WP:PRIMARYTOPIC solves any issue. "3 video game and one unrelated video game" is just pure randomness. If it's primary, it's primary, regardless of how many items it has. --Gonnym (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is still present on this page at #Please stop use of (series) dab (which I anticipate will fall into the archives now that we have a new section :). You might consider reviewing that discussion as well. (There might be another one in the immediate archive.) --Izno (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

And a direct discussion is at WT:Naming conventions (video games)/Archive 1#Another "(series)" issue. --Izno (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Eh, okay. It just seemed nice to be able to define when such an instance is uncontroversial, but it is what is is. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Mass RM of video game players

Watchers of this page may be interested in this discussion regarding a mass requested move of "(video game player)" to "(gamer)" article titles. --Izno (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• ...I have a rather strong feeling that discussion may result in there needing to be another discussion and/or RfC to update the section on this page which states to use "(gamer)" or "(video game player)" for these article's title, especially since the section currently doesn't state which one is preferred over the other. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: "(gamer)" or "(video game player)"?

(gamer) shall be used unless further disambiguation is necessary. Per WP:PRECISION, "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." It is apparent from the discussion that (gamer) is a less precise choice that nonetheless is sufficiently precise for the vast majority of cases, hence making it the superior disambiguator in terms of scope. The only concern then is whether the term would be not readily recognizable to people. However, the fact that Wikipedia has an article at Gamer and the multiple mainstream sources using the term "gamer" provide strong evidence that it is sufficiently common usage to be recognizable to most of our readers. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 19 April 2020 (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.

---

Per the close of Talk:Ninja (video game player)#Requested move 12 January 2020, the fact that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games)#People says that the disambiguators "(gamer)" or "(video game player)" can be used in titles to describe a person who plays video games professionally is problematic seems evident. So ... which disambiguator should be stated in the aforementioned guideline? ...Since apparently, only one can prevail. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

(Pinging participants in the move discussion (who are not currently blocked) who have yet to participate in this discussion to hopefully garner more participation in this RfC: Gaioa, Gonnym, Red Slash, Zxcvbnm, Ortizesp, Maherhimri, Tbhotch, Xezbeth, Joel B. Lewis, Þjarkur, IJBall, Spy-cicle, Brojam, Dekimasu, and Sergecross73.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Spy-cicle, I just saw your comment below. I can't revert the ping, but I'll strike out your name as proof that I messed up and acknowledged it. Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• (gamer) only - while it is theoretically possible that an overlap in article naming could occur between a video gamer and, say, a board gamer... I feel like that is an exceptionally rare occurrence. To be WP:CONSISTENT, we should choose one method rather than keeping both. Using the term (gamer) meets more WP:CRITERIA, especially conciseness, -- Netoholic @ 07:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• (video game player). Wikipedia is for a general audience. I will concede that actual enthusiastic video game players may prefer "gamer" but other people may find that term a bit confusing. I find it confusing, and I have been an occasional video game player since the days of Pong and Asteroids back in the 1970s. To me, "gamer" can mean a gambler or small time con artist, or an athlete who goes all out with their efforts, or a player of board games . . . or a video game player. We should use terminology that reduces ambiguity rather than increasing it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• (video game player) or if they are a profession esports player (esports player). "Gamer" is just too general and slangy for a general audio, and either of these terms are less likely to cause any confusion with the general reader while still remaining accurate. --Masem (t) 01:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  We should shoot for one and only one disambiguation here. "esports player" is too specific and requires a bit of specialist knowledge that we should avoid encoding into our article titles. --Izno (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  We should go with the specific game over the generic "esports player" if we did that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Respondents to this RFC should review the previous RFC which instated the current text; see WT:WikiProject Video games/Archive 117#Disambiguation. --Izno (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• (video game player) per my old comments and others here. Maximizes precision. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Maximizing precision is exactly what WP:PRECISION says not to do: titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. Note also that the goal to "unambiguously define" applies to the title in whole, not independently to the disambiguator itself. If there are ten John Does and only one is a gamer, then (gamer) alone as disambiguator meets WP:PRECISION; (video game player) violates it because it makes the title John Doe (video game player) "more precise than" what is required to "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article", which John Doe (gamer) accomplishes, and WP:CONCISEly. --В²C ☎ 17:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• (video game player) to lessen the ambiguities. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Changed vote to (gamer) as per the reasonings by Born2cycle and Spy-cicle. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• (video game player), for WP:PRECISION. Video game streamers and let's players, esports players, video game record holders and others can all be identified by this disambiguator. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to "(gamer)" (see below). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - it should be pointed out that "video game player" is a redirect that points to the main article "gamer". If that term is fine for the main article title, its fine for the disambiguator. -- Netoholic @ 10:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily, gamer starts off with: "A gamer (sometimes also called player or electronic athlete and eathlete) is a person who plays interactive games, especially video games, tabletop role-playing games, and skill-based card games, and who plays for usually long periods of time". We're making the distinction for players of video games; players of tabletop role-playing games and and skill-based card games are thus excluded. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. If someone is confused what the "(gamer)" covers,t hey can just look up gamer and know. This naming convention can point to gamer and instruct people to use (gamer) as a disambiguator to anyone that falls in that article description. Any article that uses (gamer) would likewise use a gamer link in the lead sentence. Why is this naming convention trying to invent a new definition to justify using a phrase for which we already have an existing article? Yes, "gamer" is a broader term in that it can cover more than video gamers, but it doesn't logically follow that we must use a more specific term in this case. Even the encyclopedia itself doesn't make that distinction by having separate articles. It is EXTREMELY unlikely we'll run across two gamers with the same name but who play in different categories of games. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, many participants here believe disambiguators are supposed to be unambiguous in and of themselves. I'm baffled as to why they believe this. I'm not aware of any other disambiguators subject to absolute general precision like that. In fact, I can only think of ambiguous disambiguators, like "actor", as in Seán Barrett (actor), not Seán Barrett (English actor born in 1940), for example. --В²C ☎ 17:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Either per WP:CREEP. I don't see why we only need one. In fact, whichever one an article uses, there should be a redirect from the other as {{R from alternative disambiguation}}. I like (gamer) since it's WP:CONCISE, but (video game player) is more specific and recognizable. I think this is better as a case-by-case determination rather than a general rule. If the subject's name is long, we would want a concise disambiguator. If the topic's not clear, we would want a more precise disambiguator like (video game player). This doesn't strike me as one-size-fits-all and I don't think it has to be. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, with the way that the move discussion I linked in my opening statement went, I really don't think that is going to fly anymore. Declaring one over the other will have the end result of preventing having to "reinvent the wheel" and making it clearer what should be done so that there isn't a need to have a rather long and controversial debate again. Declaring one over the other saves editors' time and energy. Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Maybe I'm just out of touch then. I'm fine with either, but if we're going to have guidance, I would prefer the guidance be "should" rather than "must". — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
      • @Wugapodes: I totally understand what you mean. I mean, anyone can invoke WP:IAR when it is for the better of the encyclopedia. I know I'm not afraid to do so if necessary. Steel1943 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Why not both? We can prefer (gamer) where it's sufficient as disambiguator, and use (video game player) where the additional precision is necessary. I mean, that's how we manage with every other disambiguator on WP. Not sure why so many seem to think this one has to be an exception. --В²C ☎ 17:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
          • ...Because of the exact reason I stated below for why I believe "(video game player)" should now be the choice of the two. (In all honesty, I think the section at WP:NCSPVG may need to be moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) and then create a new section on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games) for other types of people related to video games that are not professional video game players, but that's a discussion for another day.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
            • Please explain how Video game player being merged into Gamer, or "video game player" being a subtopic of Gamer, precludes us from using (gamer) as disambiguator in any situation where none of the other uses are gamers of any kind. Surely you're not also buying into this argument that suddenly disambiguators have to be generally precise all on their own, independent of the particular titles being disambiguated? If so, then we have to change almost every parenthetically disambiguated title on WP. --В²C ☎ 19:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
              • I apologize, but my below comment, my proposal, and my participation this far contain all I care to add to or participate in this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
                • I respect your right to leave me, for one, baffled by your reasoning, though I am disappointed in your apparent unwillingness or inability explain. --В²C ☎ 16:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• (video game player), which is ironically contrary to my vote in the move request I posted in my opening statement. After discovering that Video game player was merged into Gamer on 16 January 2006, as well as realizing that "video game player" is a subtopic of the article Gamer in its current state, I am now convinced this is the right path to take. Steel1943 (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Leaning (video game player) for consistency and less ambiguity and better recognition for general readers. Previously, I considered either case, but I guess practice shows that "gamer" has the issue of being a jargon/technical term. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm still leaning "video game player" looking at below arguments, but for consistency I would support any outcome if the decision is on the fence, as long as there is an outcome that standardized this. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• (gamer) per WP:CONCISE in all cases except where that's ambiguous. Only when another use of the title in question is also a "gamer" of some kind should the more precise (video game player) be used. The idea of using such a long and unwieldy disambiguator when totally unnecessary is unprecedented. Consider that we use "(actor)" and not, say "(British actor)", unless there are two actors with the same name. The same principle applies here. --В²C ☎ 17:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Right, its almost like someone insisting we must use (stage actor) rather than (actor), simply because they want to distinguish them as a category from (film actor)s. -- Netoholic @ 21:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• (gamer). I too was in favor of "(video game player)", but Born2cycle has convinced me otherwise. Maybe 'gamer' in a not too distant past was slang, but if mainstream reliable sources are using the term, it's time Wikipedia should do so too. If mainstream media outlets are using 'gamer', then it is safe to assume the general reader of Wikipedia is too. Initially I went for WP:PRECISE, saying that other players of video games, etc., can also be called "video game player", but they just as easily can be called 'gamer'. And it is more WP:CONCISE. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• (gamer) per conciseness and naturalness with no downsides. It is more concise as it uses the one-word "gamer" as opposed to the clunky three words "video game player". It also more easily fits the naturalness criteria (The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English). As seen on this Google Trends ([5]) comparison with "Ninja gamer" having significantly higher interest than "Ninja video game player".

Just to break down some of the previous arguments to prevent this discussion from going round in circles:

• "gamer" is too informal
• Neither the Cambridge Dictionary [6] or Merriam-Webster [7] note the word "gamer" as informal (in addition to the Collins dictionary [8]). Additionally, general audience RSs have been using "gamer" for a while take for instance:

1. BBC News (since 2004 [9], [10], [11], [12], [13])
2. The New York Times (since 2005 [14], [15], [16], [17], [18])
3. The Daily Telegraph (Since 2003 [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25])
4. The Guardian (Since 2001 [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34])
5. Fox News (Since 2004 [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40])
6. CNN (Since 2001 [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50])
7. The Independent (Since 2005 [51], [52], [53], [54], [55])
8. The Hollywood Reporter (Since 2006 [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61])
9. The Economist (Since 2005 [62], [63], [64], [65])
10. The Times ([66], [67], [68])

• This widespread usage of in mainstream non-specialist RSs (i.e. not IGN, GameSpot, Eurogamer, etc.) in addition to the dictionary sources conclusively proves that it is not informal.
• "gamer" is too specialist/JARGONy
• As seen above, its widespread usage of in mainstream non-specialist RSs (i.e. not IGN, GameSpot, Eurogamer, etc.) also shows that it is not specialist jargon/language.
• "gamer" is not precise enough
• WP:PRECISION does not really in this situation here is what it says: Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. Let's take the example of Ninja (video game player). The disambiguator "video game player" is needed here as it differentiates it from the noun and its other uses. "Ninja (gamer)" could also be used here because there is no other board "gamer"/role-playing "gamer" called "Ninja". But even if there was we could differentiate based on nationality (e.g. Ninja (American gamer); Ninja (British gamer)) which would result in it being more concise. In a very rare situation where two gamers (one who plays board games and one who plays video games AND have the same nationality) a IAR situation would make sense to have use "(video game player)" and "(board game player)" in order to differentiate the two.

I urge the closer to consider the weight of each argument as opposed to a vote. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• (gamer) First of all, "video game player" could easily refer to an inanimate object such as a console that plays video games. It's awkward and long. "Gamer" is shorter, which is what WP:CONCISE is all about. It's as simple as it gets - someone who plays video games._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• (video game player) as the best balance of WP:PRECISE with WP:CONCISE. "(gamer)" is not precise enough. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Et tu, IJBall? Can you identify any other situation anywhere on WP where PRECISE applies to the disambiguator alone? As you well know, it’s the combination of the topic name and disambiguator together — the title — that needs to meet PRECISE. Why are you (and others) applying title criteria to just the disambiguator portion of a title? That’s unprecedented. There is no basis for such reasoning, not in policy, guidance nor in practice. And for good reason. Please reconsider. —В²C ☎ 07:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• (gamer), I guess. User:Born2cycle makes a fair point. Gamer means both "video game player" specifically, but -- if you consider that too technical -- also means "game player" generally, of which video game players are a natural subset. So we'd only need more info if there was a video game player and, say, a poker player of the same name, I guess. I disagree with Born2cycle often enough, but its not like conciseness doesn't matter, this is one case where using one word instead of three is what we want. Herostratus (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• (gamer), per WP:CONCISE. In contemporary English, it is more than precise enough. People like card players are not called "gamers" (even if within the gambling industry the industry calls itself "gaming", a usage that the common people do not engage in, much as within the pool/billiards industry, manufacturers and tournament organizers like to refer to pool as "pocket billiards", which no one else does (including players), except as a joke.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  PS: A compromise position would be (video gamer) (which is WP:CONSISTENT with Video game, so don't use a hyphenated or fully compounded spelling). It's not the most concise choice, but it isn't ridiculously excessive like "(video game player)", and it's also more precise, though this level of precision is not actually necessary (15 years ago, maybe, but not now). I would consider this compromise approach my second choice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Gamer is neither informal nor slang, nor is too vague as disambiguator

• Regarding the argument that gamer is too "informal", that ship has sailed. It is common usage in reliable sources like the NY Times, LA Times, BBC, WaPo, etc. etc. I know many here are trying to move away from language they believe is slang, but since it is widely used by reliable sources the argument that it is “slang” doesn’t sound like following usage in reliable sources. It’s bordering on violating WP:NPOV. We should not be trying to influence usage; we are supposed to be following common usage.
• As to it being "too vague", that's not a requirement of a disambiguator. The logic in the argument that we can't use "gamer" as a disambiguator because "gamer" is ambiguous means we can't use "singer", "politician", "album", "writer" or "footballer" as disambiguators either, because they too are "vaugue". That of course is not the case. Yes, a "gamer" can be a "video game gamer" or a "role-playing game gamer"... so what? A singer can be a rock singer or an opera singer. An album can be a country album or a photo album. A writer can be a novel writer, a science writer, a journalist or a playwright. A footballer can be an "Australian rules footballer" or an "association footballer" or "American footballer". Yet we use all of these "vague" terms as disambiguators all the time. The only requirement is to distinguish from other uses of the same name, which gamer does as long as the other uses are not gamers (of any kind). Why the insistence that this term cannot be a disambiguator due to its ambiguity when we're perfectly fine with using countless other ambiguous terms as disambiguators? It makes no sense, and I hope the closer of this RFC discounts !votes based on this argument accordingly. —В²C ☎ 17:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• To add another aspect here: of recent years, the term "gamer" specifically as applied to video games from people involved with the media but not with video games has negative connotations due to the fact of things like Gamergate controversy, swatting, etc. It is a stereotype, and not so much a professor or the like. Yes, there are many segments of English-speaking society that do not see it that way, but there remains a significant fraction that do, and it is one of those things we should avoid ourselves. "Video game player" as a phrase may carry the stereotypical picture of what a gamer may be pictured as, but its not the wording, just the activity, whereas "gamer" is a specific wording that is a potential problem. --Masem (t) 22:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. But isn't it a violation of NPOV to reflect a concern we perceive that is generally not reflected in reliable source usage? I mean, if the NYT, the BBC, CNN, The Economist, Fox News, etc. are all good with using gamer, who are we to say it's problematic? —В²C ☎ 03:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Who are we to say it's not problematic? Cf. the "'gamer' is a slur" meme. I think usage in mainstream media sources is being overrated in importance/relevance to this discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

What? Usage in reliable sources (which includes mainstream media sources) is the gold standard in title decision making, from WP:COMMONNAME determination to deciding on a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But with regard to deciding whether gamer is a slur (never mind it's the long-standing title of the WP article on the topic), we're supposed to dismiss the gold standard? Trumped by a meme used in social media??? How does that make sense? It's acceptable as an article title but not as a disambiguator? The machinations people will go through to rationalize their JDLI opinions apparently knows no bounds. --В²C ☎ 15:58, 11 March 2020 (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.

Post-RfC cleanup

Using this search there are 109 articles disambiguated with (video game player) that should probably be moved. --Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)