Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Screenshots for F1 games

Is there the possibility for someone to secure some F1 game screenshots. Of course, you might need to go through some copyright issues, & I can't really do it, as i am only 13. TollHRT52 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2012 (AEST)

Status

There is apparently an RFC on this page, what is the status of it? Does it still need closing? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I'm blind and it was closed ages ago. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it was closed months ago. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Unusable plot summary referencing

I noticed the strange phenomenon of plot summary referencing in video game articles the other day and was somewhat baffled. The guideline here says:

• "[P]lot sections should also be sourced; again, the user's manual and reviews may help here, but one may also find sufficient information contained within strategy guides or FAQs. Often, using quotes from within the game or transcript can help support statements via {{cite video game}}; however, take care to keep such quotes short and to the key points"

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources goes into further detail by claiming:

• "It is very hard to find proper sources for sections about the plot or setting of a video game without using the game itself."

The interpretation of this can be seen in articles like Shadow of the Colossus, Grim Fandango, Half-Life 2: Episode One, Final Fantasy XII, ToeJam & Earl, etc. (I'm sure there are countless others.) Articles about works of fiction (books, films, radio programming, etc) assume that the reference for a plot is self-evidently the work of fiction itself. Specific quotes are referenced, but that's it. They don't reference basic summaries of the plot, but video game articles have established the inexplicable habit of referencing just about anything, which has resulted in pure reference padding.

Notes like this one are for all practical purposes pseudo-references since they don't specify anything meaningful and don't make it easier for anyone to verify the fact (which is of doubtful usefulness to begin with). All of the above examples are essentially bloated, highly formalized ways of saying "see this game" along with plot trivia in the form of quotes.

References have only one meaningful purpose: to make articles easier to verify. How do these reference examples achieve this goal?

Peter ^Isotalo 21:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

USing the game to reference the plot is completely appropriate, and generally will be asked for by FAC review. As noted, the full plot for most games can't be gotten by sources ; most reviews simply cover the setup and go from there. To get those sources, we use the video game itself, but for us, unlike films or books can easily cite a time frame or page number, the best we can do is use appropriate quotes from about when the events occur. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

See also Talk:Command & Conquer (1995 video game)#Article subject as source to itself.

"assume that the reference for a plot is self-evidently the work of fiction itself". "Assume". That word bothers me, that we are assuming anything on any articles. I'm actually surprised that fiction sections are not challenged more often than they are (and they are challenged; I've seen it!).

"which has resulted in pure reference padding." Is there something inherently dangerous about this? I can only assume so, but you do not clarify why this is a problem.

"since they don't specify anything meaningful and don't make it easier for anyone to verify the fact" Sure, but that means the quote cited is poor, and seems particularly anecdotal, if that's the only specific citation you find issue with in that article. I would disagree on the latter clause of your statement here as well; I have verified, from the text (albeit, the text could have been vandalized, though this is true of any quotation, not simply in fiction), that the user stole the guy's body. That was pretty easy.

I think my chosen defense of video game citations would be that, unlike fiction in the form of films or shows or even books (with the rise of Google Books), verification of the video game requires hours of playing said video game. Then there is the case that video games come in so many different physical forms, requiring so many different physical interfaces to your television or computer, that it is simply unreasonable to expect to need to verify these. Should we throw our hands up in the air and cry "oh, this is unverifiable"? No, plainly not, and this is what other fiction articles do: their related guidelines simply say "plot is expected to be self-referencing", without need for further referencing. But I find this to be only a short way from throwing our collective hands up and saying "let's not verify, but only assume verifiability". Someone, somewhen, decided that that wasn't how it was going to be with video games. I would agree with that someone's (or someones') choice(s). --Izno (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

All other works of fiction are assumed to be the sources for their own plots. You have to read the book, watch the film, listen to the radio program or play the game. A reader who doesn't realize that right away is never going to be helped by a bunch of quotes.

What we're discussing here are actually not references since they don't provide more specific directions than "play the game". Even if you subscribe to the notion that video games are unique in that they require highly detailed references for plot summaries, these notes are merely saying the same thing as the article content, except in more detail. They contain no meaningful instructions beyond what the article already says. It's the equivalent of referencing a book by quoting it, but without giving a page number.

Regardless whether they're "inherently dangerous" or not, why have guidelines that force editors to waste time adding them in the first place?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This seems to me to be endangering the presence of a plot section at all. Quote references seem to me to be useful things (and they can alwasy be checked up by a second source to make sure they are correct). Many videos where you can find these quotes, in cutscenes or in gameplay, are available on Youtube and IGN (depending on whether the game has merited a full walkthrough or a video series on a game's story in the case of the latter). These two sites seem to be accepted on Wikipedia as reliable. Certainly the synopsis for Final Fantasy XII seems a little heavy on references, but that can just be trimmed. In fact, for all those cases, excess refs can be trimmed. No need to call hundreds of plot sections into question, perhaps starting an unhealthy deletion movement or something like that (which would I certainly think, annoy and anger more people than it would satisfy). --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Masem and Izno here. Part of the benefit is that they provide a supplemental way to verify statements. The medium here is prohibitively difficult to use for the purposes of research and verification: some games require hundreds of hours to access all the material; for older games you need access to a working game system and a working game cartridge; and for import games, you would need special adapters to get the game to work in a foreign country. All of these make it extremely difficult to verify the content of some games. Quoting key dialogs provide a supplemental solution and provide evidence for possible challenges, as well as a starting point for someone that does wish to verify the material with the actual game. I see many benefits to having them and few downsides. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Also on a related point: there are games out there that are no longer playable unless one turns to methods of questionable legality (eg using emulators though the emulator itself may be legal, the ROM image is not); we are the only medium that has this inherent problem (movies and books and others can simply be reprinted). Sure, most of those games now are the earliest titles from the industry and the story is about as thin as paper, only needing a sentence or two, but this will continue through in the future. Quoting the game at least assures some permanence in a more long-lasting medium. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Like the CP System II's suicide batteries. Or arcade games in general. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear here: there's no such thing as "quote references". You can quote something and reference it, but the reliability always depends on how specific the reference is. It's still just something written by a Wikipedian, just like any other statement. A more specific statement is not inherently more reliable than a non-specific one.

I'm definitely not questioning the presence of plot sections. I'm trying to point out that WP:VG seems to have placed demands on articles that are viewed as meaningless for other media. And the problem is that these demands can't really be fulfilled because of how video games are constructed. The result is a lot of time wasted on coming up with thousands of basically meaningless "quote references". Who actually needs these quotes? Is there any indication that plot summaries (not the dinky details) are contentious in the first place?

Peter ^Isotalo 16:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Plot summaries for anything - not just video games - can be considered contentious particularly if the work is more esoteric. Yes most modern video games are extremely transparent when it comes to plot, eg like Gears of War, but that's not all of them; Japanese RPGs are notorious here in part to a combination of localization problems (or lack of such to begin with) and more speculative fiction than scene in the west.

Additionally, video games are non-linear. For films I can always quote you a time stamp; for books, a page number, but for video games, there is no marker like that. The length to play and verify a video game is also much much more time consuming since you rarely can just fast-forward to that point. Our cites are there to at least help someone that needs to verify that to narrow down to a specific level or scene or the like as that's the best resolution we can do. There's also the case that a player may not experience every element of plot that a game offers (eg Bioshock with voice recorders that provide a history of Rapture, these not always easy to find). Films and books don't have such "hidden" plot elements but video games do, by their nature. So again, this helps providing sourcing.

That all said, the only place where I've been required to add sources for a video game plot is when I go to FAC. If I am working towards an FAC and can find sources to establish the plot outside of the game like I have with Portal 2, I'll add them, but if not, I'll leave the plot unreferenced, which is 99% of the time just fine. Only at FAC will I worry that the unsourced plot may be called out. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, plots can and are occasionally challenged. Having quotes from the game, even if they are just written by another Wikipedian, can help in forming a consensus because they give editors insight into where they will find the relevant dialog within the game even years after the original author of the article has left. In ways it is similar to preemptively archiving a link with WebCite. Both are used to help deal with future challenges: one where it would be otherwise impossible to verify and the other where it may be prohibitively difficult to. A few other examples might be that some plot is gleaned only from the manual, some is found only in alternate scenes for the game, and some is found in audio that is difficult to obtain (like the tapes in BioShock): these should all be cited. I can think of many reasons where it would be either necessary or extremely helpful to include. I'm somewhat divided on whether or not references in plot sections should be required at FAC, but apparently some do not require it. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

One thing I don't understand is how detailed quotes solves any of the problems discussed here. Video game plots, especially today, aren't in any way text based. That's quite similar to how films work. This means that most "quote references" make little or no sense, even taken at face value, like in Half-Life 2: Episode One. One paragraph with plenty of plot details is referenced with just "We'll see about... that!". A different paragraph is referenced with a very extensive dialog excerpt that for the most part is meaningful only with the context given in the article. And I'd say that would go for just about any video game quote. In just about any situation of disagreement, you wind up at the point where you simply have to play the game to verify something.

Verifiability is all about allowing people to check up a statement independently of the article. If quotes are there to help form consensus among editors, they aren't references. They would be an example of talkpage discussion spilling over into article space with the false assumption that additional detail results in improved verifiability.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's a pretty ugly example. I'm assuming it's just supposed to be referencing his displeasure, but it's still not very informative. But poor usages of quotes for referencing doesn't mean the idea itself is bad. It really depends on exactly what is being said, and what is being referenced. Plenty of video games have fairly straightforward expository dialogue in places. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not about the quality of the quotes or the dialog or whatever. That was just a way to illustrate that the whole idea is flawed from the start and leads to some downright weird situations. And as far as I can tell all "quote references" are equally "ugly" in that they appear more authoritative than they are.

The point here is that it doesn't matter one bit how much or how little detail you add; you still have to play the game to verify the statement. As an almost exact parallel, If I provide a statement from a book and cite the entire book, it doesn't matter how much I quote from it; you still have to read the entire book to verify the statement.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

As we've explained you can play a video game and not experience the entire game due to the inherent non-linear nature of interactive works (eg Bioshock's recorders that have to be found but aren't required to complete the game). By providing some pointer of where within the game (by level/map or through quotes), at least this will help guide anyone that needs to verify where that is. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Masem here. I definitely see issues with trying to shoehorn in quotes that don't actually reference the statements except with a heaping of (missing) context, but that's a problem with editors, not the source itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) Which has kinda been my point all along; video game editors are piling on pseudo-references and referring to this guideline to motivate why they're needed

But, Masem, please note that quotes are useless as directions, since you can't search for them or anything like that, and even less relevant since plots generally aren't played out merely through text or dialog. You get far more adequate "directions" from the plot summary itself than the "quote references". If there's actually a need for more specific instructions than those already provided in the article itself, it should be in the form of "directions" that specify game levels/chapters or identifiable milestones.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Soundtracks and audio

There is a current discussion going on here Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Discussion about how Soundtracks, and audio are presented in the articles. Since there isn't much listed here about it, other users wanted to start a discussion on it, and the results will effect this page also, so if your interested please contribute to the discussion. (Floppydog66 (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC))

Question about article layout

In all do respect to everyone, I have been around the block a few times and knows that the history and background is ALWAYS before the PLOT. This is always to in everything from films, books, music, television programs, sports teams (slightly different style but similar to this), and business / religion. And so, please tell be why in God's green earth that Plot comes before development? Also, why is game play of a second, third, fourth (, and so on) generations game play is before some highlights of the games' history and development? Why? Sundogs ^{Wikia UserPage} 03:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement on the order for any article, so the "always" isn't true. Also, in most of our other articles on fiction (outside of video games), the plot is nearly always the first section after the lead. We only like to put the gameplay first as this is more critical for video games over elements like plot. --MASEM (t) 03:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Let us use The Sims 2 and The Sims 3, shall we? They came after The Sims, right? Is The Sims 2 and The Sims 3 stand alone games or is it a series franchise of games? If it is the latter, why do you insist have game play before history/background? That is my argue based on the distinction of is it the franchise series, like Pokemon, Animal Crossing, W.W.E. Smackdown vs Raw (series latter to W.W.E. styled series), The Sims franchise, and countless of others are distinct that they are franchise series. So, I prefer, like most things in the world of reality, have history and/or background first. Just thinking out load that if a person does not know if it is a series, like noted games above, then why should you forced feed the gameplay first? Logically speaking, most cases, the majority of manual of styles rules. I have checked around on Wikipedia's' manual of style and I am correct, History and or background prior to development then, depending on subject matter which in this case video games, the game play is after the history and or background. Sorry to make you have to change things around but I was raised and taught by dedicated teachers and professors telling us students history and or background has ALWAYS before subject content matter such as, in this case, video games, then gameplay. Why do you insist telling the plot of a series before the history? I hope you understand my logic that is the traditional method of the world. Sundogs ^{Wikia UserPage} 03:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

A proper lead for a game that is a sequel or later entry in the series is going to name and link to the series (for series of 3 or more) or the previous game, which will provide the history for the series/previous title. We treat games otherwise as standalone titles, and thus gameplay and plot are the important topics. And exactly where do you see in policy that history or background must come first? I'm pretty confident we don't have a policy in that fashion. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Time to implement the character notability proposal?

Should we make the character notability proposal a guideline? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this isn't actually a community-wide guideline. Someone just slapped a tag on it back in 2007, with zero WP:PROPOSAL or discussion. So I don't think that you need to have this RFC at all. This is not a community-wide guideline, as the page title indicates. This should be re-tagged as one of the WP:Advice pages from WikiProject Video games:

• {{WikiProject style advice}}
• {{Wikiproject notability essay}}
• {{WikiProject content advice}}

The advice given by that group of editors is really up to them, unless there is some serious flaw (the same kinds of standards we apply to essays written by individuals). You need to change the tag, and you can skip the WP:PROPOSAL process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't think changing the tag should work without requiring discussion with WT:VG. But man oh man, do the guidelines keep changing over time. However, I think the best bet is to ask WT:VG about changing the tag. I've started a discussion there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's relevant. Whether or not it's actually a "Wikipedia guideline" (to be slightly bureaucratic, a Wikipedia guideline in your terms is a guideline defined as having community-wide support created via proposal or discussion), the user has asked for comment on his proposed addition to the page.

I might suggest you split your comments which are relevant to a separate section. While I see where you are coming from, we've treated it as a guideline for a long, long time, and the majority if not entirety of the page is supported by the consensus of community practice. It is referenced non-trivially at WP:FAC and elsewhere as well, and there are very few instances where the matter is substantially rejected (which does come up for discussion, naturally, and it does go through a normal change process). In essence, it has become a de facto guideline even if it were not the de jure guideline created by the bold edit referenced. :) If you think it's necessary, feel free to see about a wider consensus, but my gut feeling is that this would pass muster external to the WikiProject, given the number of WP:FAs which have been promoted based on following this guideline.

But I digress; these comments are not for this RFC. --Izno (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If so, then the page needs to be WP:MOVEd to a new title. Community-wide guidelines are not supposed to be housed in WikiProject namespace, because it implies that the WikiProject (a group of editors that never reaches even 1% of our active editors) OWNs the community-wide guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this proposal not already an individual's essay, regarding their opinion on video game character notability? As far as I can tell, in the section about splitting a specific character to have a standalone article, it requires the subject to already meet WP:GNG from reliable sources, so why have another guildeline that spells that out when there is already GNG? Is that something special about video game characters that require additional guidance above and beyond GNG?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Multiplatform games and PlayStation.com

Hi guys,

Robertpattinsons (talk · contribs) main interest on Wikipedia is adding a link to PlayStation's own page dedicated to this or that game. For instance, this revision had this external link for Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon. Completely unnecessary. Can we maybe add to the guideline that in case of multiplatform games, we should't choose one system of the other by adding those to the external links section? --Soetermans. T / C 14:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Cast lists

"Generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices, likenesses or motion capture acting performances for video game characters is not appropriate."

Why are they not appropriate (regarding voices that is)? And if the actors are notable, why is it that it should not be longer than 10 voice actors? To me, it's like saying the voice actors aren't important unless they're a big star outside of games.

I've always wondered this since I first saw this rule and am finally asking about it. --JDC808 ♫ 04:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, what is this bulls**t policy, because I've got a user citing it over at Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance as gospel, when I'm not including cast in list form but integrating it into prose. There is no excuse whatsoever for not including the voice actors of the major characters in a story driven game. It's a stupid guideline and should be discarded immediately. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Archive 2#Cast?. --Izno (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Unlike films and televisions, where characters are generally critically reviewed in light of the actor, video game characters rarely get that. Some will, and in some games, the cast list may be appropriate (for example, all the vocing in Portal 2 is noted by numerous sources in a critical fashion). But it is usually better to describe VA in prose rather than a list. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

So you can describe them in prose? Because that is my concern with this guideline as it was cited against me including the cast in prose. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late to this but for the purpose of helping people who find this in a search at a later date: Yes you can describe them in prose, just not a very long tedious list. The purpose of the guideline is to say that lists like this one are the wrong way to go about things. Short lists of 10 people are OK but "Person of interest in the pre-order DLC case "The Naked City"" may not be the most important actor in the title. - X201 (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I have now read several people arguing against the inclusion of various lists in VG articles and I have yet to see the motivation for it. It seems to me that this is the type of information Wikipedia excels at presenting; after all, where else are you supposed to find information like cast lists (except perhaps on IMDB, which is also a wiki)? Can someone point me to where the motivation for this exclusion? Loonybin0 22:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loonybin0 (talk • contribs)

I think this would get a wider airing an more responses at WT:VG. Try starting a section there and link it back here. - X201 (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Style->Non-English games

I was told to come here. I believe this particular part of the guideline is in error, for the following reasons:

"Zelda no Densetsu" is not an alternate form of an 'equivalent' "The Legend of Zelda", despite how much Nintendo has tried to standardize the logo from Ocarina and onward. The games are released in Japan as "Zelda no Densetsu"; the games are released outside of Japan as "The Legend of Zelda", with few exceptions (China).

"Clump Spirit" has absolutely nothing to do with the title of the game known as "Katamari Damacy". At best, it's a cute little fact to be buried in some etymology section, kinda like the corruption of "Damacy" from "damashii" in the first place.

Whether or not it's "commonly used in English" is irrelevant, and it's also nebulous. It entirely depends on whether sources want to make up translations or go with romaji, and just how long the dates between an original release and some kind of localization are; these two things seem to be separate from each other, for the most part, especially since localizations can replace made-up titles wholesale, both factually and psychologically.

("Official" romanization, you say? What's so "official" about it? Put that aside; what about the fact that the character is correctly known as "Zelda" and the katakana is simply a pronuncation? Never mind that the katakana is generally more correct than a romanization for a moment.)

What's official about a thing will always trump some ideal when it comes to discussing that thing. The only problem is figuring out how best to work this information in. If a guideline gets in the way of fact for the sake of "ease-of-use", that guideline needs to be reconsidered; it is the former that is the bare minimum, not the latter.

Aside from all this, I do not see how romanizing mere transliterations is going to help or inform anyone. You still require an understanding of how the Japanese language works to properly understand romanization; at that point you may as well just run the characters through a chart. Then there are translations, which are not official, yet are still treated as such. No one will notice or care if you claim they're unofficial because they're in quotation marks or whatever (I will, because I care, because I know no one else cares); they will mindlessly treat them as official because these translations are there and can be easily seen (this means a lot more when dealing with a new game that very likely has its translation coming from non-official sources).

It's actually kinda weird to see that "Readability issues" bit, when all the previous sections make it clear that everything is an exception to that principle. Why do numbered sequels get some kind of exception, anyway? People don't go carefully studying all the earlier games when they want to play a new game (except for, again, crazies like me). As for official translations... if they're far removed from the actual title and its presence ("Devil's Castle Dracula" is a great example of this), then they should be paid no attention except when talking about the title's meaning. Again, this is not stuff for official anything; it's for cute little facts buried in an etymology section.

oh god what is this i'm so sorry there's just so much to say on this i don't know how to make it concise so hey it just mirrors the complete mess that i'm talking about help Despatche (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This has been debated to death. I agree with you that the "official" romanization is kind of silly and tells us nothing more important to the game than providing an IPA phonetic version of the original characters. Especially silly to me is when a number like the "3" at the end of Super Mario Bros. 3 is helpfully romanized to "Surī" as if "3" wasn't already a common-use Roman character. Anyway if you want to dig into the matter more fully, you should start with Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Video games developed in Japan which as far as I know is the most recent compromise on this issue. -Thibbs (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Revise GAMECRUFT points 1 and 5?

Gamecruft point 5 reads: "Excessive fictional details: A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting. Information beyond that is unnecessary and should be removed, as articles should focus on the real-world elements of a topic, such as creation and reception."

Gamecruft point 1 reads: "Non-notable articles and spinouts: Avoid creating new articles on non-notable topics. A notable topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A smaller article should only be split from a larger topic if the new article would itself be notable. "

Since there seems to be a consensus that lists such as List of Pokémon (1–51) (the first of twelve lists covering 650 Pokémon), List of Call of Duty characters, and List of Skylanders characters are acceptable on Wikipedia, I feel like we should revise these two points. These types of articles generally do not demonstrate the real-world elements of a topic, and include copious amounts of information that is unnecessary, but are allowed to stay on Wikipedia because they represent portions of large franchises. In practice there seems to be a consensus that spinout articles for notable franchises are inherently acceptable because the franchise is notable, which directly contradicts rule #1. We sometimes see the argument that a particular article should be maintained because it theoretically could be sourced, but of course it never will be, and the Pokémon list for example has been tagged for its extensive reliance on primary sources for four years.

I feel that these points, as written, have lost their relevance, and need to be revised to reflect years of practice. Some guy (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The different is primarily between single game or a 2-3 game series, and a franchise, for the most part. I would be reasonably sure that franchise articles (like Pokemon, etc.) where there is a long extended fiction outside would have support for a list of characters. Points 1 and 5 are still valid on single games and/or smaller series. Note that I have seen single games support separate character lists, but this is usually when the characters have out-of-universe sourced discussion (primarily the Final Fantasy games). --MASEM (t) 02:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying, as I am saying, that the rules only apply to small games. Doesn't this indicate the rules need to be rewritten? Some guy (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No, as first these are guidelines and not requirements, and thus we use discretion as appropriate. In general we avoid these but its difficult to make the distinction clearly in text. --MASEM (t) 01:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

CoD 4 Naming Conventions

Is anybody able to aid in this discussion on Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare? When I read through the article, I noticed that the article uses three different conventions when addressing the game which I thought would be confusing to the non-gamer. CR4ZE (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

New sections pertaining to Non-English games

I have proposed two new sections in addition to the section on Japanese titles, one pertaining to use of Japanese language outside of the titles, and another pertaining to where it may be appropriate to use an animanga infobox. Since a certain someone seems to object to everything I do, I'd thought I'd bring the discussions here for approval. Any suggestions on how to improve it are welcome.

Japanese elsewhere in the article

• As with the header, English terms should be used over other Japanese terms when available, most often when an official English version of a Japanese-made game, featuring its own terminology, is available.

Example:

In Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Dual Destinies, the "Mood Matrix" mechanic, known as "Kokoro Scope" in the Japanese version, should be written as "Mood Matrix" instead of "Mood Matrix ("Kokoro Scope" (ココロスコープ, lit. Heart Scope) in Japan)", as it is the established English terminology.

• Examples where Japanese should be used include the description or mention of characters in Japanese-oriented games such as visual novels, (provided it is not already listed in a seperate article)...

Rintarō Okabe (岡部 倫太郎, Okabe Rintarō), the protagonist of Steins;Gate

• the mentioning of related titles that do not have their own article...

Example:

Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4 had a PlayStation Vita remake, Persona 4: Golden, known as Person 4: The Golden (ペルソナ4 ザ・ゴールデン, Perusona Fō Za Gōruden) in Japan.

• or when describing systems, terminology or a game mechanic unique to the game which benefits from having Japanese text included, such as terms from games not announced for English release and/or have no discernable English equivalent or mechanics that retain a Japanese-style name in their international release, which can then be provided with a literal translation.

Example:

The cutting technique in Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance retains its Japanese name of "Zandatsu" and should be written as "Zandatsu" (斬奪, lit. "cut and take").

• In-game terms based on English words in the original Japanese version, or are more or less direct translations, should not be presented in Japanese outside of a terminology listing.

Example:

A "Fairy" class in a role-playing game does not need to be written as Fairy (フェアリー, Fearī), unless it is referring to the game's title or the name of a character or notable item.

Animanga infoboxes

As a general rule, most stand-alone video games should be assigned with the appropriate video game infobox. However, if a Japanese-made video game has spawned various Japanese media based on the game, such as manga and anime (examples include Steins;Gate, Danganronpa: Trigger Happy Havoc and Senran Kagura), an Animanga infobox listing the game and its spin-off media may be used in its place. For larger articles, an Animanga info box may also be used seperately from the video game infobox to represent the additional media. This is not neccessary for games in which the spin-off media is listed as a seperate article from the game or franchise (eg. Devil May Cry: The Animated Series or Pokémon (anime)) and should not be used for Western animation/comic media, as it does not fall under the category of manga or anime (eg. The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3).

Wonchop (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with all of these proposals. Just as the Japanese language title provides cultural information, so would its inclusion with terminology. You are essentially suggesting that all Japanese text be banned from the prose of the article if an English language localization was made which goes against common sense. If it's a game made originally in Japan, then the article should include Japanese text beyond the title as per WP:MOS-JA. Also, video games should use the dedicated video game infobox rather than the animanga video game one just because it may be a visual novel or it has an animated adaptation.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I've converted your headings above to bold sections, just for the ease of discussing in a single section. As to the proposed content, it seems a bit wordy and unnecessary. I can't think of any similar topics we cover where we spend time giving translations throughout the article. How is knowing the original Japanese name of a gameplay item doing anything but cluttering up the gameplay sections, which often suffer from being dense and impenetrable for non-game players? It would be akin to listing the ingredients of a Sauerbraten in English and German. What's important is that it contains cloves, not that in the original German it's gewürznelken. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the point I'm more or less making is that the Japanese should be used sparingly where it benefits from being translated, such as the aforementioned Zendatsu example, rather than just being there for the sake of it being about a Japanese game. If you have suggestions on how to simplify it, feel free.Wonchop (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow that is a really out of there comparison. Giving the Japanese language text for phrases invented for the Japanese language game is nto cluttering anything up. It is giving a real world perspective showing that a video game originally made, developed, and sold exclusively in Japan had unique words for these things rather than just presenting just the information from the English language localization. It is nothing like saying "this recipe includes cloves (Gewürznelken)", but rather "this recipe includes a kind of clove known as [proper noun]".—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

To put it your way, "それはちょうどあなたの意見です". The only time we really need to bring a Japanese term over for an internationally released game is if the Japanese terms is used in the international game itself. For example, if the English version of a Japanese game uses the same "Matsuri Time" system used in the Japanese version, then you could have a Japanese explanation explaining its origins. Otherwise, we just use what the English medium uses.Wonchop (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no. There's absolutely no reason to omit information simply because a purely English language proper noun replaced a Japanese language one. And stop being a smartass. There was no point to use Japanese other than to provoke me.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Nor is there any reason to provide Japanese translations of English words, especially when they were English words in the Japanese version to begin with.Wonchop (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact they are the same means we can show the reader that it's called the same thing in Japanese.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is about as pointless as saying "Sonic the Hedgehog is blue, which is also the colour of the sky." Remember, this is an English Wikipedia, not a 'we <3 Japan' site.Wonchop (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop using shit comparisons. We know we're not going to convince each other of shit. And I'm sorry if one of thosethi ngs I'm never going to convince you of is "if something is Japanese in origin we should probably have Japanese text within the article beyond the title".—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, there's no should about it. We're technically not obliged to include any Japanese text whatsoever. We just add what's necessary and then say the rest in our own damn language.Wonchop (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly this. Wikipedia:MOS-JA#Using_Japanese_in_the_article_body states that _{"Japanese script for a word can be added to the text the first time it is introduced"}. Nowhere does it state that a Japan origin article should use Japanese text, only that it can. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

←Rylulong, the Manual of Style specifically says that foreign words should be used sparingly. We are an English-language Wikipedia. If you can show me an example in a video game where the difference in titles was critically remarked upon by English sources, then that might well be a reason to include the original Japanese term, but otherwise it's falling into the realm of minutiae. If there aren't these sources, then I think you're giving undue weight to an aspect of the topic not relevant for understanding it as a whole. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

So, as far as the first section goes, how about something along the lines of: "Outside of the titles, the use of Japanese text should be used sparingly and only the first time a word is introduced, with editors encouraged to use official English terms if they are available. Japanese text may be used when describing an element that benefits from the use of Japanese text, such as gameplay mechanics that retain a Japanese name in its English release (eg. the "Zendatsu" technique in Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance) or the mention of other Japanese titles that do not have their own article. I'm not the best writer out there, so any suggestions on how to phrase this better would be appreciated. Wonchop (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with the spirit of your proposal, Wonchop, I think we need to keep in mind that the article guidelines for video games are all derived from the more general guidelines and policies for ALL Wikipedia content. As such, I think this proposal is too narrow in scope (there are other languages aside from Japanese that should be covered by this), and really not necessary, given that guidelines already exist in the Manual of Style, which Der Wohl pointed out above. I don't see that this really adds anything that isn't already covered elsewhere.

The purpose of this Guidelines article is to clarify information specific to video games that the MOS doesn't cover - for instance, the inappropriateness of scoring details and strategies. But inclusion or exclusion of Japanese terms with or without translations is a more general issue that also affects articles about books, movies, art, businesses, art, etc., and as I mentioned, this also seems too narrowly focused on Japanese text seemingly at the exclusion of text in any other language where the same rules should apply. My opinion is that this is a well-reasoned, good-faith effort, but that it isn't necessary. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: Ryulong, watch your tone. You're taking this way too personally. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

He formulated this whole proposal because of a dispute he and I are having on another article and he purposefully has done things with the intent to piss me off.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That being said, this is too restrictive. We should not be restricting anything. As pointed out by Blake, WP:MOS-JA says it can (rather than should) be added and I did add it. Whether or not it should be removed is not covered by anything, but I feel it adds more to the article. Also, David Fuchs, this isn't about titles. It's just about simple terms that may or may not be called something different in the other originating language. I doubt that anyone is going to go and discuss it ever. This project as a whole has had some sort of weird abhorrence to using Japanese text at all, which is what spawned the creation ofof the "Non-English titles" section that I helped draft up. And I do not see how adding upwards of 6 strings of Japanese text is adding undue weight when the subject is originally Japanese. It might not be useful to add something like "Sukai Batoru" for "Sky Battle" but the difference between "Mood Matrix" and "Kokoro Sukōpu" is a fact the readers might want to know.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That's mainly your opinion that comes from a general preference of Japanese media (considering most of the articles we tend to have debates on tend to revolve around anime, sentai and JRPGs). You need to realise that fans of general games made for an international audience, as opposed to some of the more Japanese-centric visuals novels and dating sims where Japanese characters are terminology are frevalent, don't neccessarily have an interest in Japanese, and these people will only find the added Japanese translations to interupt the flow of the article. Try reading the Pokémon X & Y segment out loud and see how the rocky the explanation gets when you have to say "English word *pause* Japanese word *pause" every time. This is an English Wikipedia, so you need to bear in mind that it's mainly going to be read by English people with an English mindset. Also you're not really helping your case by resorting to 'he started it' arguments.

Kiefer Skunk: So in lieu of having a section all to itself, do you think it would be worth expanding the existing section to cover mentions of Japanese outside of non-english Titles, with a possible reference to the MOS-JA for more information?Wonchop (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Video games originally made and released in Japan and then released internationally should not completely ignore the Japanese origins outside of mentioning the Japanese title in the lede or on some character lists. You should not speak for other editors or readers as to what they are interested in or how they read pages just because in your head you read both terms.

And you are the one who decided to parse the intent of WP:OPINION in Japanese text on this page and using ad hominem attacks in your posts to the article talk page and WP:3O by referring to me as "a certain editor". It's also not my fault you abhor using your user talk page and do not like it when people post on it despite it being the whole reason the page exists. And beginning these revert wars when I've personally told you several times that if you get reverted you are the one who has to start a discussion and not continue to revert things back and forth. I have tried to work with you but you refused and insisted on making all of these pages the way you want them to be without acknowledging my view points because you feel your version is infallible. Why else would you keep reverting to the form you prefer when you do not have an existant manual of style that backs up your edits and you have to resort to edit warring on another one to get your way?—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Good job trying to disprove Kiefer's point that you're taking this way too personally. Either way, there's been various arguments against the use of unneccessary Japanese inclusions whilst you have more or less just been repeating the same thing over and over.Wonchop (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In your interactions with me you have been unnecessarily provocative, and you definitely drafted this up after I had revealed in discussions that I was involved in creating WP:VG/JP. And "unnecessary" is subjective.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, me trying to make improvements to an English language article by limiting unneccessary elements and simplifying descriptions and providing guideline suggestions how to improve articles is all part of some evil scheme to specifically get on your nerves. If you've got nothing productive to add to the topic at hand, namely the proposal of additional sections to cover aspects that are generally left vague, I suggest you leave the discussion to other people, because right now, you're just giving off an "it sucks because he made it" tone. Wonchop (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That is not what I'm talking about. It's the tone you've taken here, here, and here. But you are right that I should not focus on this.

You act as if all foreign languages should not be mentioned at all outside of line 1 unless they meet some unnecessarily strict criteria you came up with. I am not opposing this because you wrote it. It's not useful. We should not forbid the use of Japanese text or Korean text or French text or whatever in parts of an article on something that originates from Japan or Korea or France just because it has been released in English with different terms. Maybe the ones I had been adding to Pokémon X and Y are superfluous. This project cannot come with a guideline saying "Do not ever include the Japanese (or other language) terms for a video game that has since been released in English" when it conflicts with "Generally, Japanese script for a word can be added to the text the first time it is introduced..." I've already seen that there's no consensus at the X and Y page and I'll live with that. But there should not be a rule here that codifies that.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Noone said it was forbidden. It was just being said 'by multiple people' that we don't need to hear every single bit of terminology in Japanese simple because it is a Japanese article. Sonic articles don't mention 'ringu', Metal Gear articles don't mention 'Koudekku', Mario Kart articles don't mention 'Taimu Torairu Modo', etc. Even when it's not about Japanese, articles based on things originating from other countries don't use examples of said languages when not neccessary. It has namely been your attitude over the apparent neccessity that we know what Fairy means in Engrish. Noone's forbidding Japanese, we're just saying to tone it down to where it is appropriate, namely when the terms have a particular relevance to Japanese in which a Japanese translation would benefit the article. In the case of Pokémon, the game is being released in English as a simultaneous worldwide release, with almost all the terms having direct parralels to the Japanese terms, and as an English article, people expect to read about it in English. Even in articles of Japanese games that haven't been released into English yet, people would much rather just read the articles in natural English without having Japanese stuffed down their throat every five seconds. Wonchop (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What is it with this WikiProject and it's abhorrence of Japanese? I remember having just as many problems when drafting the "Non-English titles" section. Fine. The items are not necessary. But that does not mean we should rule out their usage in the ways that you want them to be. And all this constant "This is the English Wikipedia" stuff is getting annoying. All Wikipedias regardless of their language include other languages within the prose of their articles if the subject is something other than the language of the main project. Video games for whatever reason are constantly being treated as being something that should be an exception to everything else. Special rules for the romanization part of the {{nihongo}} template. Special rules for hiding long Japanese titles. Special rules for when and when not to include other language text in the prose. No other set of articles has made their content this specialized and it's just so damn annoying. I don't see the extreme negative consequences that led to our edit war of having メガシンカ or ポケパルレ on Pokémon X and Y just because the former was translated directly and the latter has a different localized name.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Dropping the whole language matter for now, since that is more relating to our current dispute on the Pokémon X and Y article than anything else, how do you feel about the mention of the 'Animanga infobox'? There are various examples, such as visual novels like Steins;Gate and Danganronpa: Trigger Happy Havoc, where a game with large amounts of spin-off media, such as manga and anime, benefit from having an animanga infobox included to list its various media, whilst Ryulong appears to be firm in his stance that video games should only use vg infoboxes regardless of spin-off media (one case was brought up concerning Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4, which I have recently compromised by including a seperate animanga infobox for the other media), albeit once again, his reasoning seems very much in the "it should be this" manner, but I don't think it's explicitly stated whether this is allowed or disallowed. My general feeling is that vg infoboxes should be used for most games whenever possible, but certain Japanese-developed games that have a self-contained franchise consisting of various other media may use the animanga infobox where appropriate. I'd just like to hear the opinions of those besides Ryulong, and whether or not it should be clarified better in the guidelines. On another note, I'm kinda curious over whether the VG infobox should possibly adapt a multi-box format similar to the animanga one, in which multiple games in a series (in which individual articles are not available) or minor sequels/remakes can be listed together without the need for seperate infoboxes. Wonchop (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

My brief exchange fwith Ryulong over that exact subject at Attack on Titan leads me to believe he is an aggressive edit war user who refuses to accept any reasoning that is not his own even if he supplies none, so any discussion with him is not going to go anywhere. It ISthe English wikipedia, and the only Japanese text should appear if and only if a game was released in Japan first under a different title, otherwise supplying english articles filled with Japanese text is worthless and that is not a knock against Japan or the Japanese language, it is a basic fundamental aspect of the English wikipedia being read by people who speak English. That said, my argument with Ryulong was over him creating an infobox for every single item of media related to the previously mentioned anime, which contained incredibly basic information that was unnecessary, harming the article visually, and could have been covered in more detail in prose. Not EVERYTHING requires an infobox simply because it exists. Foreign text should be used sparing where important per the MOS and not used just because it is foreign language. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The infobox stuff at Attack on Titan has nothing to do with this. I did not create an infobox for every single item of media on that page. Someone else did. You removed it, and I reverted it. Why are you bringing it up? Why doesn't anyone know about WP:BRD? The discussion on this page about infoboxes is whether or not Template:Infobox animanga should be used on video game articles for video games that are similar to anime and manga. And the English Wikipedia is read by people who speak every language. However, for articles where the subject is not from an Anglosphere nation it should be expected that the language spoken in that nation would be used in some form on the article. Maybe it's not useful to have "Sukai Batoru" or "Fearii" on Pokémon X and Y. But if it's an anime or a video game or a television drama, and you're introducing a term that's integral to the fiction, it would be useful to provide the original form of that word.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, the discussion's been quiet for a little while now, so here's a few thoughts:

• I'm sticking to my guns that I think the proposal in general is well-reasoned but unnecessary - it doesn't add anything to the project's guidelines that would specifically benefit the project compared to the general MOS. It's too specific and limited in scope, and Wikipedia as a whole has a lot of rules and guidelines already that deal with this issue in a much broader scope. I don't think we need to put them here.
• On the Animanga infobox issue in specific: IMO, video games are video games, not manga, not anime. There is obviously some overlap between them, but claiming that a game is a manga or anime (or implying that it is by using that form of infobox) is likely to confuse readers. We wouldn't go putting a video-game infobox on the movie Macross Plus (as an example) even though someone also made a game based on it. I think it would be wrong to say you can do that in VG articles, and to my knowledge there is no consensus for that.
• On the personal dispute involving Ryulong: I have advised him to back off and cool off (though he keeps deleting my comments in his Talk page, so I don't know if he's actually read anything I've said to him), as I don't see any evidence that anyone else in this discussion is being deliberately antagonistic toward him. I believe many of Ryu's points are well thought-out and valid, and I happen to agree with some of them, but I think he is taking this too personally and is perilously close to violating several of WP's user-conduct policies, including WP:AGF and WP:BITE.
• Everyone needs to remember to deal with the content and stop attacking the contributors. Differences of opinion are healthy, and discussions about those differences can lead to greater understanding and mutual respect, and are ultimately beneficial to the project as a whole. Things tend to break down when discussions turn into edit wars and personal disputes. That goes for all sides. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleting the only comment you ever left does not equate "keeps deleting my comments". Also Template:Infobox animanga/Game exists.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I suppose this comment doesn't count, because it was in reply to someone else's use of a template (into which they inserted a lot of non-templated text, I might add)? Perhaps you should consider actually reading things before you just blow them away. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That was the one I was referring to. Is there another one I should be aware of?—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

For reference: your talk page's recent edit history. And apparently, then, you missed my FIRST comment on your page. Yes, I used a Twinkle template, but I wrote a fair amount of my own text into it as well, as is standard practice with a lot of editors here on WP. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

My query was mainly in the context of why an article of a video game that has spawned a lot of manga/anime should specifically have to use a VG infobox on the grounds of it being a video game when an Animanga infobox which can list all relevant media (naturally with the game listed as the primary media) would be more convenient. A lot of articles based on things like visual novels and JRPGs have used this format without quarrel so it'd be unfortunate if they were suddenly determined to be not allowed just on the grounds of 'x should use x things'. I think unless the template of VG Infobox were to be expanded to allow the listing of other related media, the animanga infobox would more than suffice due to its convenient structure. Admittedly, there are a lot of vaguities and exceptions that summarising it would be pretty difficult. I guess unless the hardcore Wikinuts really take an issue with the use of animanga infoboxes, we can more or less leave it ambiguous so as not to specifically approve or forbid it. Wonchop (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Template:Infobox animanga/Game is intended for when a video game is not notable for its own article but it can be included within the context of the anime and manga. If a video game has its own page then it should utilize the video game infobox rather than the anime manga one. The fact that it falls within a small range of video games that may be covered is irrelevant.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

But like I said, there's nothing specifically enforcing that. And like you're always telling me, 'should' is subjective. It's not like it is specifically saying a game is specifically anime, it just means it has a lot of anime and manga related media that would otherwise make the article look messy if they were required to be put in seperate infoboxes. Wonchop (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not messy if they get their own dedicated articles like Persona 4 The Animation did.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a relevant topic for this talk page, but only the episode article should be neccessary, particularly since the plot is identical to the game and a lot of information you have on your dedicated article could easily just go on the episode article. Wonchop (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

In principle, I disagree, actually. Just because an anime's plot may be identical to that of a game doesn't mean it can't be stated in two different articles. As I said below, it's a question of independent notability and coverage - if the anime is itself well-covered and notable, it deserves its own article separate from that of the game, and it's appropriate to either re-describe the plot or make reference to the game's plot - eg. "The plot of Persona IV closely follows the events in the game by the same name". Usually, articles strike a balance by letting the 'parent' article (in this case, the game) describe the plot in detail, and the 'offshoot' article (the anime) would briefly summarize it and provide a {{main}} link to the game's plot section. Does that help? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying in this case, the plot of Persona 4: The Animation isn't distinguishable enough from it's source material for it to warrant two seperate articles for both the anime adaptation of a video game and its episodes, when they can just be put into a single episode article. The anime itself is only 26 episodes long so it wouldn't need to be split up into seperate season listings. Wonchop (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There are some differences in how they are presnted and what has been chosen to be presented though. What characters that are choices in the video game and the characterization of the protagonist, as he is no longer the player character, exist.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wonchop, if I'm reading this correctly, it seems the main crux of this debate has less to do with anime/manga topics specifically and more to do about how to handle overlapping genres in general. I personally believe that there should only be one infobox for the main subject of an article, and that having multiple infoboxes on a single page makes the article messy. But then, which infobox to use? The main subject of the article should be clear enough to decide on the most appropriate infobox, and IMO "compound" infoboxes can cause more confusion about the subject of the article than they seek to clarify. Again, if it's a game, use the VG Infobox. If it's an anime, use whatever the appropriate box is for that. If it's an article about multiple subjects under a single title, where none of those subjects have enough notability to warrant their own individual articles, then it's not likely to be in the same category of articles that would use the VG infobox to begin with. And in that case, one would wonder if the VG guidelines as a whole would apply to that article, or if it falls under a different MOS entirely. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe he is referring to instances where video games receive unique anime or manga adaptations, such as what has happened with Persona 3, Persona 4, and Steins;gate, and there would not be a new article simply dedicated to the anime or manga created but rather sections of the article on the video game and separate episode/chapter list pages.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Kiefer seems to have it about right. For example, series that have heavy amounts of animanga media, such as Steins;Gate, would definitely benefit the animanga box more, but the same would not be said for say, someone doing a manga adaptation of Assassin's Creed IV. Again, it is a very hard subject to pin down to a particular ruling, given all the potential exemptions that could be brought up. The main question is, what really is the difference between a game infobox and an animanga game infobox, aside from maybe the ommission of certain categories like disc formats or something? For a lot of Wikipedia readers who aren't involved in the editing process, they're both just boxes with information. So yeah, in summation, there's a lot of grey area surrounding the use of animanga infoboxes over vg infoboxes, but it's too vague and obscure to put down as an enforcable guideline one way or the other. Wonchop (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Also Ryulong there shouldn't really be seperate articles with seperate episode listings for anime that doesn't neccessarily need it. In the case of Persona 4, it is a direct adaptation of that game and only requires a solitary episode article, as opposed to something like Sonic X, which is part of a franchise as a whole and isn't a direct adaptation of a single game. Wonchop (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As with all things, it's not whether the manga adaptation overlaps with, or belongs in, the game article (or vice versa) - or more accurately, it's not up to us to decide the merits of the individual topics in terms of whether they get their own articles or are part of an existing article. The point is, WP policies (most particularly on notability and reliable sources) tell us how to determine that - if the manga adaptation of Persona IV has sufficient independent notability and coverage, it can and should have its own article, and then the topic of the adaptation should be mentioned and linked in the game article. If it doesn't have that, then making a section for it in the game article is sufficient. But in the latter case, having a separate infobox for that adaptation is almost always overkill and tends to just clutter the article - the idea being that that topic should only take at most 2-3 paragraphs of the whole article, so another infobox stands a good chance of being bigger than the prose itself.

I get the feeling that the "Animanga Game infobox" (I haven't seen it) is a "hybrid" infobox - as in, it's trying to serve two or more purposes in a single template. You have to be really careful with templates like that - as I said earlier, they can cause a lot more confusion than they resolve (is it a game or a manga?). On Wikipedia, article topics really need to be specific and well-scoped, and to use a business term, the concept I'm hearing in this Animanga box sounds an awful lot like scope creep. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well upon further reading, there's a bit pertaining to visual novels at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Visual_novels, so that more or less covers games like Steins/Gate and Danganronpa. I guess that mainly just leaves JRPGs, although most of those that get anime adaptations are part of franchises themselves. Well, I'll leave it for now. Thanks for the feedback. Wonchop (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for being receptive to feedback. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"Translations" of Japanese titles

Instead of romanization, what about these translations? As always, titles are not about meaning, but about them existing and being different from other titles for the same work. Further, only the creator of the work has any freedom to name their work.

These extra translations (sometimes not even that) are usually completely fabricated and have nothing to do with the title from which they are "inspired by", therefore saying very little in exchange for a bloated lede. Why?

And what about things that are not translations? You can't "translate" words that have already been transliterated; "ポケモンスタジアム2" reads "Pokemon Stadium 2" and is supposed to read or otherwise match up with "Pocket Monsters' Stadium 2"... which is already there. That also applies to pretty much every Pokemon article versus that guideline... Japan doesn't use "Pocket Monsters" anymore outside of the katakana.

The romaji actually seems completely reasonable compared to these fake translations. Despatche (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? "ポケモン" is formed by joining Pocket Monsters, as I'm sure you know, in the same way パソコン means personal computer. How is translating Pokémon as Pocket Monsters not what it's supposed to be, if that's what you meant? DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 05:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Despatche, stop forum shopping. We are not switching to Bulbapedia's ass backwards way of providing the Anglicized Japanese language names of these items simpply because you've realized that The Pokémon Company no longer uses the English phrase "Pocket Monsters" to promote their product in Japan and several items now have mismatched Japanese language names. The {{nihongo}} template is set up to deal with this. It's set up as {{nihongo|English item|Japanese language text|romanized Japanese language text|extra information, usually used for literal translations or official translations}}. There is no need to turn everything on its head just because "ポケモンスタジアム" was written in English as "Pocket Monsters' Stadium" in Japan and "ポケットモンスター" is now solely written as "Pokémon" in English within Japan.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

After looking into it, I thought this may have been from some sort of dispute like this... But I have to put it out there that I fully support the structure of the Nihongo template, as described by Ryulong. DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 08:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

But... why? The romanization field already covers what you actually need; the main title or the romaji already covers them somehow. We don't need these unofficial translations that are completely removed from the actual titles we were given; at least romaji is somewhat close to the source. Despatche (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do people keep saying that? This isn't about the stupid Pokemon dispute unless you want it to be; you are the one "forum shopping", and I wish people would realize that. I brought it here because it's an issue with the basic standards themselves that I've encountered literally everywhere, and these articles were the last straw. And that's not even what Bulbapedia does--they do what you want--so please stop mentioning them; you are all doing this ass-backwards, and you need to fix your system.. I only linked there because I was trying to have the same discussion on three different sites, that's it! Ryulong, please stop lying. That's all I ask. Despatche (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It does not cover what you need if the title contains kanji and you cannot expect the lay person to understand the romanization field anyway. Literal translations are encouraged on Wikipedia, even if they may happen to differ greatly from the trademarked translation. And I am not forum shopping. I am not the person who opened up discussions on three separate pages on this website in order to change the same information. You are that person Despatche.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Literal translations are wrong. The layperson cannot understand them, because they don't fucking exist! The actual titles given are the only ones that matter, ever. All facts.

You're the one who turned a general discussion into a limited one in order to make it very clear what you're taking issue with. You're the one forum shopping, and you're the one lying all over the place. I'm sick of having to deal with your completely unhelpful and malicious character, I really am. Despatche (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, easy Despatche. I had a chat with Ryu a bit earlier, and I hope that'll ease the tone of the conversation. But I think you need to calm down too. Let's back up a little and see what needs to be addressed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's try this again

Okay, let's see if we can get this discussion back on track. I was trying to figure out who was arguing what above and feel like I'm missing several pieces of the argument. Here's what I've got - please correct me on your side of the dispute only, and please refrain from arguing with each other for the moment. I'd like to keep this civil, and I know from first-hand experience how these can spiral out of control very quickly.

Okay, so, if I understood correctly, Despatche says that "literal translations" of the romaji used in the nihongo template are unnecessary and unhelpful - they are frequently incorrect or outright made up, and often have little to do with the official title of the work. I'm not sure I see a strong argument against what he said here - it appears everyone involved in this discussion agrees that we should be avoiding incorrect translations, so what is the issue here? That literal romanizations of any sort are unhelpful? Or that the template is being abused by inserting translations that don't make sense?

If you want my opinion, I've been saying for some time now that I find only limited benefit from reading the romanization of Japanese characters - the vast majority of the time, it just reads like the original English title as though spoken by someone with an extremely heavy accent, and the "literal translation" usually ends up meaning even less. It also strikes me as a template that tries to pack in an awful lot of information into a tiny space, and I don't think it does that very well. My personal view is that the nihongo template should only spell out a romanization or translation of Japanese text when it's substantially different from the equivalent English (or is used in a context that doesn't have an English equivalent) - eg: "In the US release, the main character is called John, but in the Japanese release, he is [Japanese text) (Asato-san, lit. 'Monkey in the Clouds')." If I understood this dispute correctly, it would seem my opinion falls in line with Despatche's, but I don't actually understand the response from Ryulong or DarkToonLink well enough to say what their opinions are. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

From what I can gather, Despatche believes that the literal translations of the Japanese titles are "fake" because the creators of the work have decided on trademarked English language titles within Japan that differ greatly from the literal translations. This does not make them "fake" or "incorrect". They are just not used as the trademark in Japan. I believe that the official trademark and the literal translation should both be included because they differ so much and it is a harmless bit of information to tell the reader that "Pokemon Sutajiamu" does not literally translate as "Pocket Monsters' Stadium" but rather "Pokémon Stadium", even if the former is the trademark in Japan.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So, from a correctness standpoint, I posit that it's difficult for your average person to verify that a literal translation is correct - for instance, I don't know how to read Japanese script (I don't even know how to tell the difference between kanji and katakana most of the time), so short of copying and pasting the script into Google Translate (which we'd be foolish to trust), I can only trust that you folks who do understand it know what you're talking about. That generally doesn't meet the bar for verifiability.

From a "need-to-know" standpoint: I'm not sure I believe that literal translations necessarily meet the notability bar in most cases. The litmus test I use is: Is it relevant? Does it improve my understanding of the subject? It may be technically correct, but if it's not actually telling me something I really should know, I would still vote for excluding it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's another contrived example to explain my point: Let's just say that the "official" translation of the Japanese script for "Mega Drive" is "Mega Drive", but the literal translation came back as "Enormous Engine". While that could in fact be a perfectly correct literal, nobody ever refers to that console as the "Enormous Engine" in any of our sources, so adding it to the article seems both irrelevant and possibly stepping into the realm of original research. HOWEVER: If one of our sources mentioned that the Japanese script translated as "Enormous Engine" and Sega made a conscious decision to re-brand it as "Mega Drive" because that name would be better received, then the point would be relevant and would probably warrant its own line of prose in the Development section.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of translation services and dictionaries out there that would allow the average person, if they so wanted, to determine that "poketto" is "pocket" and "monsutaa" is "monster". And WP:N does not determine article content anyway. It determines what articles we can have but it does not prevent anyone from adding any information to articles so long as it can be verified per WP:V, and a literal translation can be easily verified, as I stated before. And if the Genesis was simply trademarked as the "Mega Drive" in Japan and its name was radically different when translated from Japanese to English, the article lede would appear like such:

The Sega Genesis, originally released in Japan as the Mega Drive (kanji, romaji, literally "Enormous Engine")...

—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:N was the wrong policy to quote, but WP:NOT and WP:MOS have a number of things to say about article content. I'm not up to doing an exhaustive review of them right now, but I know that in the past, there've been plenty of initiatives here and in other WikiProjects to follow the spirit of WP:NOT in terms of removing unnecessary content. I'm just saying I don't see how a literal translation of "Enormous Engine" is at all helpful in an article about a subject where the literal translation is never used, never referenced, and otherwise has no meaning. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the parts of WP:NOT that are likely most relevant here are "not a dictionary" and "not an indiscriminate collection of information" (though the latter is mainly geared toward such cruft as lyrics and statistics). The former links to WP:DICTIONARY, which goes into greater depth, but still doesn't specifically address translations. I'll open a discussion there to get clarity, since frankly this topic has a much broader scope than just video game articles. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Started up a topic at WT:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Literal translations from other languages, in case you're interested. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If we ignore the fact that the Japanese text has a meaning other than what the trademark states then that is providing a disservice to our reader who may believe that in this hypothetical situation that the Japanese text provided literally means "Mega Drive" rather than it simply being the trademarked name.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see how it's a disservice to readers to provide them with the relevant information. Is the fact that the Japanese may literally translate to something slightly different than the official title actually essential information? Is it something that's caused controversy? Does it have any significant coverage? Or is it simply a piece of trivia? Moreover, who cares about this discrepancy? Is the average reader who can only read English actually going to be affected in some way by reading what to them is undecipherable foreign characters and not seeing their literal translation? If they want to go see what the script means, they could go consult a translation service or dictionary and discover the literal meaning - we don't need to spell it out for them, methinks. (And if the difference between literal and official translation really is significant, I would expect it to be cited.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a disservice by not presenting information as posited. And all these questions are the same ones posed over the inclusion of Japanese language text in any of these pages or the Hepburn romanization which resulted in the drafting of WP:VG/JP when "Fainaru Fantajī" was previously also deemed irrelevant to the articles on Final Fantasy just as you are positing that "Pocket Monsters Platinum" is irrelevant on Pokémon Platinum simply because the English language trademarked title is the same in Japan as it is everywhere else. "It's not sourced," "Why does it benefit the page?" and the like. I'm not going through this bullshit again just because Despatche raised the question over the utility of a literal translation of a title when a trademarked English title exists in Japan.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see the issue that if the game was first released in Japan and later in the West under a different name. For example, Final Fantasy (as I understand it) doesn't need it as the game title is the same meaning and words in both languages - it should be implicit that if we don't mention the original Japanese name the title was the same. On the other hand, something like Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, which, after going through translation, is translated to "Turnabout Trial: Revived Turnabout", is different, and so both titles can be included. Note that I'm only saying this is good for retail titles; characters or other facets do not need this unless there's something said about the translation aspects (eg in the case of say Phoenix Wright (character) how the Japanese name is specifically punny, in a similar fashion as the English name.) --MASEM (t) 20:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

My reference to Final Fantasy was this project's intense abhorrence to including the Hepburn romanization for the exact same reasons that Despatche has been arguing that the literal translation of the title should also not be included simply because a trademarked title with a different translation exists. Including the Japanese language title (in the Japanese language scripts) is spelled out on some other manual of style and including the romanization is required per WP:ACCESS.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything in ACCESS that requires us to include translations. If we include them, the {{lang}} template or the like is required, but it is not necessary to include the foreign translation in the first place. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) describes how the foreign language version should be included along with a Latin alphabet transliteration. By association, WP:UE states something about translation. But these are not really the point of this. Despatche wants the complete omission of literal translations of video game titles from Japanese into English should the Japanese edition have at some point had an English language trademark that may or may not differ from the localized English language trademark and he is using the same arguments that opponents in these three lengthy debates from 3 years ago also used.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say what you think. If the only proper name for a game is in Japanese, then yes, UE absolutely applies. (for example, Gyakuten Kenji 2, of which there likely will be no Western version, and thus we need to give the UE name). But when we have an English name that is used in addition to the Japanese game, UE no longer applies. We still can include it, but UE does not require it as you think it does. --MASEM (t) 22:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I also don't see that this has to be an all-or-nothing thing. I'm not (in fact) arguing that we should delete ALL translations - I just want to be sure that we know when they're appropriate and when they're just trivia. There are most certainly cases where the literal translation actually adds real value to the article. I've just been saying that, as a more general rule, I find most of them to be useless, uninteresting and to have no apparent relevance to the subject, and so I would be in favor of removing them in favor of shortening the opening sentence of the lede. (Also note that just because *I* find it uninteresting or useless doesn't mean others will - people who are interested in the Japanese language, culture or business will likely find this more interesting. But we have to be careful - we already have guidelines about keeping game articles free of jargon, so I would imagine keeping them free from language elements that require special knowledge to understand would fall into a similar category.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The Japanese name should be included for Japanese topics, but since a lot of readers can't read Japanese, doesn't it make sense that a literal English translation should be provided on the English Wikipedia, of the Japanese, for those who cannot immediately understand the Japanese? DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 02:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Masem, you're just displaying more of this WikiProject's complete abbhorrence to having Japanese anything in the articles. For any video game originally released in Japan, the article very well should include the Japanese language title and its romanization. That's what a year's worth of debating in 2010 and 2011 ultimately decided was best. It does not matter if the game was subsequently released in English or not. But we are not debating this again. What Despatche believes is if there is a trademarked English language name within Japan (such as "Pocket Monsters' Stadium" for Japanese text that would normally be read as "Pokémon Stadium"), then no other translation of that title, should be used, even if the translation differs. He claims that listing "Pokémon Stadium" as the translation for a string of Japanese text when "Pocket Monsters' Stadium" is already found on the Japanese packaging is providing false information, simply because it was not the form that was trademarked by the company for use in Japan.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that if the game's english name from the Japanese release is, for all purposes, exactly the same (Final Fantasy as the prime example), its wasting space to remove the translation aspects in the lead sentence. If the Western name is different from the JP release, then by all means include it. A reader should be smart enough to understand that if the game is released in Japan but we don't make any mention of the original name that it should be taken as the same as the English name, and avoid unnecessary text in the lead that gets to that same conclusion. --MASEM (t) 03:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, that's not what consensus states. Articles on Final Fantasy will include "Final Fantasy", "ファイナルファンタジー", and "Fainaru Fantajī" at the beginning of the page. There is no way that "ファイナルファンタジー" or "Fainaru Fantajī" should be omitted.

And, again, this is going off track. Despatche, for example, wants the text "Pocket Monsters Platinum" removed from Pokémon Platinum because the English language trademark in Japan is "Pokémon Platinum" and not "Pocket Monsters Platinum", even though the Japanese text is clearly read as "Pocket Monsters Platinum".—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

See, again, I say that knowing the Japanese text literally translates as "Pocket Monsters Platinum" means absolutely nothing to me as a casual reader. It's trivia. It's not actually telling me anything other than what amounts to a quirk of translation. I don't see how it helps me understand the subject in any way that isn't covered by the rest of the article. And for "Fainaru Fantaji", I have a hard time believing that that is anything more than a pronunciation guide for the kanji (see my comment above about extremely heavy accents). While it may be interesting, I don't see how it helps. On the other hand, my hypothetical "Enormous Engine" example would be a case where there's enough of a difference between the official and literal names that it could be interesting to know, but I would still want to have a citation as to why that's significant.

Also, tone warning: Things are starting to get a little heated here again. Let's try to keep the frustration to a minimum. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Things are getting heated because I do not want to have to argue that this WikiProject should be required to follow the rules set out at WP:UE, WP:MOS-JA, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), and WP:ACCESS when it comes to including the title of the video game in Japanese, the romanization of that title, and any alternate translations thereof, again. It took a year to come to a consensus after Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/VGGL, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/VGGL2, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Video games developed in Japan and you are just rehashing all of the arguments in opposition from 3 years ago and it is getting annoying. Articles that feature text in any other language other than Japanese do not experience the problem that articles on Japanese video games seem to engender because of the mindset of a very small number of people within this WikiProject who espouse the same ideas you do.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Now you know how I feel about the ongoing dispute over Sega Genesis vs. Mega Drive. :P

Where was the consensus actually established? Do we have it codified somewhere? I was not aware that there was an existing consensus - perhaps a link to the guideline/policy page where the consensus has been firmly recorded would have helped us avoid all this. (The talk page discussions are interesting, but spread out, and it's often difficult to gauge how everyone's agreeing on a consensus in those discussions.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm sure you're aware that consensus can change - it seems my opinions on this topic certainly aren't unique. But I'll read through the prior discussions when I have time and see if I can determine if I really am in the minority on this - if so, I'll be happy to drop it. But if it looks like there's a strong contingent for changing the consensus, we should determine if there's a better place (and with better information) to discuss it. I'll note that the same thing has been going on at a much larger scale in Talk:Sega Genesis for years, and our current stance there is that there should be no further discussion on it without bringing new information to the table. I'll be mindful of that with this debate as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:VG/JP was created as a result, although in practice people have not really kept with the "it's okay to omit things sometimes" approach that was so much requested.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's compare it to other scripts, notably Russian which uses a modified Cyrillic script. Some articles use it like President of Russia and Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, but is it really necessary? An editor at anime tried to resolve a similiar issue with making part of it into a note; and perhaps the idea could work to resolve the issue without omission. For instance, the official name followed by the original languages script with a note pointing to a transliteration or other variants - including a literal reading for those that different like Neon Genesis Evangelion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, to point out to Ryulong, all those policies say is that if the Japanese name is included, we must include the translation. But that's not the issue here - the issue is whether to include the Japanese name (and subsequent the translation) in the first place. Nothing in the MOS requires this. MOS-JP does say for Japan-related articles it should be included, but its difficult to argue that a video game that includes major Western translation is a "Japan" related article. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If the video game was made in Japan then it's a Japan-related article. The fact it later got released internationally is irrelevant. And I am not going to argue this point, again. This project already came up with an extensive set of rules and regulations on the inclusion of Japanese text and undoing that is pointless. There's nothing that makes video games different from any other set of articles that may feature non-English text that warrants treating them differently.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Masem, I actually agree with Ryu on this one - I don't see a problem (either in principle or with our guidelines and policies) with including a Japanese title for context. And since there actually is consensus on including the translation (I'm sorry I didn't see or understand that earlier), I don't have any further arguments. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed link

I'd like to add a link to this WP:VG/RS subsection at the end of the "A 'Reception' section." line under Essential content. This would mirror the link added in the line below (i.e. "See Wikipedia:Categorization."). In case that wasn't clear, I would like the final version to look like this:

• A "Reception" section. This shows the impact that the subject had on the game industry: commercially, artistically, and technologically. For additional guidance see this guideline.

Are there any objections to this addition? Could it be better phrased? -Thibbs (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Y Seeing no objections I've now added it. -Thibbs (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

System requirements

Following this discussion that resulted in a consensus that System Requirements for video games are generally not required in articles, I've drafted up a version of the guideline for inclusion here.

Please comment and suggest improvements. - X201 (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No comments, in the last seven days, so I'm going to add it as is. - X201 (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice this until I saw the template for system requirements were to be deleted. I know I'm a bit late, but if I may chime in: the systems requirements are notable because they concisely and objectively describe the constrains these games were developed in. What brought this aspect of Wikipedia to my attention was how the media was reveling how video games are becoming increasingly realistic, and part of what's made that possible is the increase in system requirements. This information is something I'd much rather see it in a table form rather than worked into the prose as the proposal suggests. If it were worked in the prose, I don't think it would be "easily understandable" to even technical people. 155.99.180.65 (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose per 155.99.180.65. I see no reason to determine system requirements as UN-notable. Firstly, it is needed for reader who play game and, secondly, it reflects the game graphic. And I am not an technical people, I find system requirement is one of the most easy-to-understand information of a game.--27.74.16.39 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is is that we're not writing for gamers, we're writing for the rest of the world that has no idea what these are. That's why if they are significant, sources will discuss them in text to put their importance in context. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that gamers are also readers who read Wikipedia like 'the rest of the world that has no idea what these are'. Your argument insults 'gamers' and violates WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV so I strongly disagree with it.--27.74.22.81 (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written for a general audience and it is not a violation of either WP:CENSOR nor WP:NPOV to omit such technical information from an article. It seems like you are simply arguing that it should be included as to make it so Wikipedia articles are some sort of computer game consumer guide rather than an encyclopedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Even for gamers, the only time the specific requirements for a game are important is during the buying process, and because we're not a catalog, that's not helpful. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well not quite. 27.74.16.39 and I agree on the same point, but for entirely different reasons. I agree with Ryulong that it's not a violation of WP:CENSOR or WP:NPOV. It's been tossed around by 27.74.16.39, probably out of ignorance -- however, whatever tangent this may be, it completely ignores my central argument in my original post.

I've reverted X201's addition to the guideline per WP:BRD. I'm sorry if this is a bit late, but I wasn't made aware of this guideline change until the TfD for the system requirements template got my attention. I appreciate X201 proposing this change before he made his bold edit, but the lack of discussion does not imply consensus. Let's discuss this change as X201 originally proposed before moving forward. Sounds fair? 155.97.192.173 (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify a few things. The removal of System Requirements was proposed by Soetermans. Labelling my edit as Bold and lacking discussion paints an incorrect picture of my actions. There was discussion, the addition to the guidelines was clearly indicated a week before its addition and at the time of addition on this page and WT:VG. To label it as a "Bold" edit on my part portrays it like a guideline I just dreamt up myself and decided to add on the off-chance no one would notice. - X201 (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no mean of being ignorant or tossing anyone's words. The NPOV and CENSOR talking points are just my opnion. I could be wrong as I am not active in this Wikipedia. And they are not related to 155.'s points. I am just happen to agree with him/her.--27.74.20.146 (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

27.74.16.39, please read the guidelines you are citing. A neutral point of view means being neutral in tone and letting all sources have their say in an article. Having a system requirements template here doesn't change anything about being objective. We wouldn't be censoring either, as we've already come to the conlusion that if system requirements are somehow notable they can alwasy be mentioned in prose. --Soetermans. T / C 13:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to clarify my point (again, correct me if I am wrong and please kindly do not attack personally).

IMO, by removing 'System reuqirement', you make the article biased as it doesn't include the information that is important to game players but including only information for non-gameplayers?. This action directly violate WP:WEIGHT of WP:NOPV. In adttional, the removal of an approriate content due to some personal judment of disliking (many people don't need it or it is too technical) could be considered as a violation of WP:CENSOR because only one part of the audience don't want whist other part need it so badly. Lastly, I strongly disagree that it is not useful that many of people consider hardware demand of games as an important factor to build a PC. And it is also not too techinical because there are thoudsands of hardware's guide available online phttp://www.explainingcomputers.com/hardware.html like this one] or this one . Many customers (yes, not all of them are nerd or tecnical peopel) even disregard everything but hardware specs in their decision of buying a gear!. If you can, please counter ALL of my points so I could gratefully shut up (and if you want to do so, please don't single out some points and keep beating them like above, I won't respond to such a bad-faith behavior).--27.74.20.146 (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Here you go then.

• Omitting system requirements does not make the article biased or non-neutral in any way and therefore it cannot be in violation of WP:NPOV. An example of violating NPOV would be to produce an article that praises the subject without adding any negative criticism it received. Another example is only showing one side of a debate and completely ignoring the other. So you are completely wrong that omitting the requirements makes the articles biased towards non-players. This isn't a bias. This isn't a point of view. Producing articles for a general audience is the scope of this website and this WikiProject.
• The omission of system requirements also does not violate WP:CENSOR, which regards material that may be taboo to certain groups, such as photographs of the nude body, or removing information considered a "spoiler" in a plot summary. Your claims of censorship are hyperbole.
• Wikipedia is not a PC building guide nor is it a consumer guide for video games. Wikipedia is a general audience encyclopedia. If people need advice on either of those subjects, this is not the website for them.
• Also, you should always assume good faith of others, which you clearly are not.

—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If you are right, I may be too sensitive on NPOV. I will try to reread the whole policy. For the CENSOR part, I found this following part is applied for my argument

"However, some articles may include images, text or links, which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content."

I consider your removal of system requirement are:

1) because you object 'SR' as unnecessary content for general audience.

2) because you think it is too technical to many people to understand (in other word, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia).

As your group think it is unnecessary and some other people (including me) think it is necessary. I don't think I went to far when I considered you are censoring disliked content from Wikipedia. And again, correct me if I am wrong.

And could you please don't toss my words. I meant that system requirement is a kind of reference which is good for including in Wikipedia, I am in NO WAY advocating to turn Wikipedia into a game guide for video game. If people need advice, I would point them to Wikipedia:Reference desk].

I may speak bluntly because it is my usual way of discussion. I am so sorry if any of you feel bad of it. I absolutely have no bad faith towards any of you.--27.74.20.146 (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing about censoring in this decision, and to paint it that way is completely out of line. We are choosing not to include it unless for the general reader it helps to understand the larger discussion about the game, which is our goal as a tertiary source. We are not going to excessive lengths to completely remove any mention of system requirements in any part of WP. There's a huge difference and assuming we're trying to censor is assuming bad faith in the decision. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The omission of system requirements is not a violation of WP:CENSOR. WP:CENSOR is used to address people who remove content from articles because they usually fall under the following categories: nudity, profanity, strict religious mores, plot summary considered a "spoiler". No one is removing system requirements because they object to them in such a way. They are being omitted because they are not relevant to the discussion of the subject for a general audience. It is not important to know how much RAM or what video card is suggested to run any given video game in order to understand what the game is about or its impact on the industry, which is what the Wikipedia article should cover. Your claims of censorship are unfounded and somewhat childish to be honest.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Show requirements - Per the most recent arguments at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_5#Template:Video_game_requirements and my previous arguments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_100#System_requirements. The system requirements denote the target platform for PC games to the same level of fidelity as console games. - hahnchen 17:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  That debate is only stating that the template has its uses outside of video game articles. And Wikipedia is not a technical guide to show what video games can be played on what type of PC build nor is it a proxy for the PC/console wars.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  You misrepresent the debate. There are significant voices in that discussion which clearly disagree with your interpretation of what the system requirements represents, and the applicability of NOTGUIDE. I'm not sure why you even mention the PC/console wars. - hahnchen 16:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

  Commentors at the TFD note that the video games project no longer uses the template, and feel that it has better usage elsewhere. And I mention the PC/console wars because you blatantly mention PC games and console games in your previous comment.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

  To state that the TFD discussion is "only stating that the template has its uses outside of video game articles" is to misrepresent that discussion. You misinterpreted my comment if you think it has anything to do with console wars. - hahnchen 02:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

  You mentioned that it shows the difference between console and PC gaming. And the discussion has only found that it has uses outside of video game articles because so very few people (yourself and the dynamic IP above) see its utility.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If track list is fancruft and deleted.

Then why this is not fancraft (From Gran Turismo 6)?

[[Category:Video games set in Australia]] [[Category:Video games set in Belgium]] [[Category:Video games set in California]] [[Category:Video games set in England]] [[Category:Video games set in Florida]] [[Category:Video games set in France]] [[Category:Video games set in Germany]] [[Category:Video games set in Indianapolis, Indiana]] [[Category:Video games set in Italy]] [[Category:Video games set in Japan]] [[Category:Video games set in London]] [[Category:Video games set in Spain]] [[Category:Video games set in Tokyo]]

SYSS Mouse (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for setting guidelines regarding aggregated user ratings of pc games

Please fix this problem and reach a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Born on Setons (talk • contribs) 19:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and it was decided against including any kind of user ratings unless they are covered by an independent, reliable source. For example, if IGN makes an article describing how Game X has terrible Metacritic user reviews, then we can mention it. If however Game X has terrible Metacritic reviews, but the press doesn't cover this, then we don't include it. I don't see where the problem lies, and I don't see what solution you are proposing? All I see is a previous edit of yours related to user reviews of a game that then got reverted and now you are trying to change the guideline. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that is was talked about is not apparent from the page. A distinction must be drawn between user reviews, which are definitely an unreliable source and aggregated user ratings. I have provided two sources that support the inclusion of aggregated user ratings. I can provide a lot more. If you could provide a link to the previous discussion, that would be useful. I would also like to stress that I am not attempting to change guidelines, I am attempting to make the guidelines more visible if they exist, or to help create guidelines, if they do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.250.160.54 (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

So I guess you've read the current section on user reviews that already exists? You seem to indicate you believe no mention of user reviews or how they should be treated exists. -- ferret (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Please reread the sentence above. "A distinction must be drawn between user REVIEWS ... and AGGREGATED user RATINGS" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.250.160.54 (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

For the purposes of current guideline -- that an independent source has to cover them -- it does not really matter if it is one review, a thousand, or an aggregated score. We make the decision based on the coverage by the reliable sources as long as it is not undue attention. How aggregate sources change consumer perception or how well they represent the actual quality is not something that we can take into account, because we don't include them directly. Which ones reliable sources decide to cover is up to them. We only decide to use the reliable sources, not the original scores. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification, I can see the merit of having this policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.250.160.54 (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A couple of months ago, there was an organized campaigning to "0 bomb" the user scores of MechWarrior Online on Metacritic do to a small group of people not liking a recently introduced feature. This lowered the user score into the 3 point range until a counter bomb brought the score up to 5.6. Now the score sits at 5.2. What does this demonstrate? That the user scores are untrustworthy and are easily subject to review bombs to swing the score one way or the other. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That is true and that was one of the focus points of my suggested policy. The fact that a subset of the ratings is done by people who don't care about the game itself has to be taken into account, but it shouldn't make the rest of the ratings irrelevant. There are ways to get around these things when the number of ratings is high enough, which is the first requirement to using aggregated user scores. I will concede that wikipedia does not have to provide this service, but the argument that a small subset of games getting their ratings trolled makes aggregate user ratings useless doesn't hold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.250.160.54 (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that user ratings and scores can be manipulated is plenty of reasons to not trust them as reliable sources. What I described is an actual case of manipulation of a score, not just "theory" on how such manipulation can occur. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If you are able to see the distribution of scores you can see when they are manipulated, given that there is a large number of ratings. I agree that reporting a single number to represent a distribution is very weak and a proper way of reporting user scores would be to include the position of all maxima, if more than one exists. This kind of analysis would actually give a more complete story of the game's reception by gamers, some were pissed off and decided to troll, the rest thought the game was pretty good and all this data is contained in the aggregated user ratings. The only reason I do not see a point of pursuing this matter further is that wikipedia is not obligated to take on the challenge of making sure people do the correct analysis of all the distributions for all the different games. The philosophy of wikipedia is to be strictly a secondary source, even if primary sources are quite bad, wikipedia doesn't judge them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.250.160.54 (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

But how do you determine how much of the user score is do to manipulation? That would involve engaging in original research, which is strictly forbidden for editors to conduct on Wikipedia. Secondly, user score manipulation isn't always the result of trolling. Also, it is Wikipedia's policy to depend on reliable sources to verify information. If a source is bad, then it won't be considered reliable. And because of the ease at which a user score can be manipulated, how can they considered reliable? 24.149.119.20 (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly right. If there was some type of "trust system" like how Ebay has trusted sellers and buyers, where the most trusted user reviews were ranked higher in calculating the aggregate, that might mean something. But as long as each user score is treated the same, this leaves the door open for mass influence on the user score which has happened in the past for issues typically unrelated to the game. Ergo the more reason to avoid these, unless other sources talk about the low scores. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Given the law of large numbers the standard deviation around the score given by non-manipulative reviews will be narrow enough that it will be possible to separate it from the rest of the data. This is not something difficult and anyone would be able to see it if the data was plotted in front of them. With regard to your second point, you repeated exactly what I said in your own words. It is not the duty of wikipedia to do this analyis or to make sure it is done properly, so we agree. Your last sentence should be answered if you read what was said above. "Reliable sources" don't have any incentive to produce content that would empower source other than them, therefore aggregate user scores are not likely to ever be used by wikipedia. I think this example nicely demonstrates how information available on wikipedia is limited by the selection of "reliable sources". I am not saying there is a better way to do things, but it is a fact to be aware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.250.160.54 (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't work - that becomes akin to original research to decide what scores to drop and why. Plus, again, given the effect of socials like 4chan and SA when they really don't like something, their contributions can easily skew the results just for the lulz. All the more reason to avoid user scores. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"I think this example nicely demonstrates how information available on wikipedia is limited by the selection of "reliable sources"." That is the point of Wikipedia, we don't write new content, we use sources. For a project where users create their own content, one needs to look elswhere -- verifiability is the core policy here. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The lack of reading comprehension here is impressive. It has already been stated that wikipedia can't use aggregated user scores because the data is too raw for the editors. A source that doesn't meet wikipedia's requirements is not necessarily unreliable it just needs proper treatment that wikipedia is not in the position to provide. All that skewing and manipulating you keep bringing up has already been addressed. In statistics you cannot erase information by addition as long as it is all documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.138.122 (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability

I have created a handful of articles for recently released pc games. Some of them were flagged for not being notable; others were not. Can somebody give me a brief summary of how to know whether a game meets notability guidelines or not. I have listed the articles in question below:

Not_The_Robots

Teslagrad

Zigfrak

Dead_Sky

Rust_(video_game)

Verdun_(video_game)

A_Virus_Named_TOM

10,000,000_(video_game)

Tales_of_Maj'Eyal

--WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

For one , we have an article on 10000000 (note lack of commas) so I redirected that one. For notability, at minimum, reviews from any reliable cite listed at WP:VG/S (that is not a situational source) should be good. Just because it is listed on Steam or Metacritic doesn't assure notability, though Metacritic will point to reviews that exist out there and those need to be added, at least basic links to show notability. For example, I do see sourcing for "Not the Robots" from RPS and Destructiod and IncGamers, so that at least is a start. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Clone notability?

I noticed we have the guideline for homebrew clone notability (i.e. they're usually not notable) spelled out for external links but not for the body. Some of our articles here have lists of clones in them and you get people every so often trying to add modern homebrews in them (advertising). Should we be adding an area in the guidelines regarding main body content as well, or is there another previous guideline that already does this that I'm missing? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

About inappropriate content #9

I think it's important to include a list of changes and release date for the versions of the emulator because the reader wants to know how active the project is, and how much it has improved and for other useful things. at least we can make it hidden (collapsed) by default. --Kuwaity26 (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That's information they should be able to find on the developers site. Wikipedia doesn't need to host such information, and it would often end up out of date. -- ferret (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

However, I think it would be relevant to mention the latest version's date and/or the most recent work done on the software. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

For emulations which are pieces of software, there is usually a field for latest version and release date. That would at least give you the idea of how active it is. Further, "major" revisions can be documented reasonably, being the v1.0, v2.0, etc. Further, if secondary sources do state a summary of new features in releases, that can be documented. But if all there is the changelog, we should avoid including that. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:VGBOX

I've come across an issue with this because it just seems unnecessary to completely throw out Japanese box art if it is visually identical to the NA or EU version except for the language. Surely, this means it's ability for identification remains the same regardless of the language in the logo. My discussion with Calamity-Ace (who has a lot of image upload notifiactions on his talk) is just pushing the arguments that WP:VGBOX says English version should be used and Template:Infobox video game says the same to some degree. What is going on here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Can we have a link to the discussion please. It makes it easier if we can see what you have already discussed. - X201 (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. Found it. - X201 (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding two things to guidelines...

May I request that two things be added to the guidelines? Nothing major, but...

1. For the lead, a small note that common abbreviations or common names shouldn't be mentioned. Often I encounter articles that start with Actual title (also known as Internet slang). For instance, Toontown Online (Toontown), Age of Mythology (AoM) and just now DayZ (DayZ Standalone).

   Or Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos (War3 or WC3 or RoC). --Soetermans. T / C 14:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

2. For the engine field, a small note that "modified" shouldn't be mentioned. Every use of a video game engine is somehow modified. For instance, BioShock Infinite (modified Unreal Engine 3), Borderlands 2 (Modified Unreal Engine 3) and again DayZ (Real Virtuality 3 (Modified)). --Soetermans. T / C 11:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

@Soetermans: Your first suggestion would seem to contradict the manual of style. --Izno (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Izno, thanks for your reply. Maybe 'common' here isn't the right word. If a RS would call a game something else, then that would be a common name to me. But the examples I brought up aren't 'common' enough. Also, ping didn't work. @Izno:, does it work for you? --Soetermans. T / C 11:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Soetermans: [Yes, it worked; I didn't use it in my original comment.] The MoS uses the word "common" without qualification or note on sourcing. Besides that, I would call all of AoM, WC3, and RoC common (in fact, AoM was originally redirected to Age of Mythology, in 2005!, and WC3 shows up with Warcraft 3 results...). War3 is a little less common, but I've seen it before... In all though, I stand by my original statement; the notion "that common abbreviations or names shouldn't be mentioned" plainly contradicts the MoS. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

On the first point, we definitely should include the slang if it is common enough that we'd likely have a redirect or a disamb page with the slang pointing to the main article. The restatement in the lead first sentence assdures the reader they know they hit the right page. For example to not mention "WoW" for World of Warcraft would not be helpful. But the slang should have very common use, and not just simpfication for that reason. P2 frequently implies Portal 2 when talking about Valve games but doesn't make much sense out of that context. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That the term 'common' is very subjective makes it hard to discuss this. Throughout my life I would always call the current Mario game is was playing "Mario" and I've seen RSes call Call of Duty: Black Ops Codblops, but I have never come across DayZ Standalone (then again, I'm a die-hard PlayStation gamer). Sure, to my friends and online I can say 'Ocarina' or 'FF7' and they'll know what I mean. Are those popular names common enough and notable to mention them specifically? Can't we just go by the subtle way of introducing it in prose? For instance, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is just called Skyrim throughout the article (which might even be confusing for those not familiar with the game, as it also set in Skyrim, a fictional location). --Soetermans. T / C 23:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Using something like WoW in the context of World of Warcraft might work, but something like WC3 in the context of Warcraft 3 isn't particularly elegant in prose. Abbreviations, and in particular acronyms, aren't always suitable for plain prose. But that aside, you still need to introduce the synonymy to the reader, and the lead is the best place (and the place provided for in the MoS) to do so. --Izno (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@User:Izno I noticed you re-added AoM to Age of Mythology. How do you decide it is common enough? The examples given at WP:BOLDSYN are actually common, everyday stuff. We're talking video games here, are they even considered "common"? If this would be a clear guideline I would have no problem with it, but it is very ambiguous. In the article on Age of Mythology, only the bit by PC Gamer specifically calls the game AoM. @User:Masem, isn't the redirect already intended for that? And I know that WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't fly, but a lot of common names and abbreviations do redirect to articles without mentioning that common name or abbreviation. ffx -> Final Fantasy X, loz oot -> The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and TLOU -> The Last of Us. Maybe having this discussion works better at WT:VG, so we can have more input. --Soetermans. T / C 13:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

We can use infinite redirects to apply even uncommon "common" names for games, but the idea for including a common alternate name in the lead is that if the reader is coming from one of these common redirects, they'll see the common alternate name in bold and realize that they did arrive at the right place. But I stress that this only should be for "common" names. "TF2" for Team Fortress 2, "DOTA" for Defense of the Ancients. Internet forum slang/shortcuts that don't get adopted in mainstream press, like the Ocarina of Time one you give, should have redirects but should not be included in the lead. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Would a RS requirement be okay for inclusion? PC Gamer did use AoM for instance. If we (or you?) could add a small note here that a RS is a criteria to add a common name to articles, that'd be great, because then there is at least something I can refer to when I take out TPP in The Phantom Pain. --Soetermans. T / C 15:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say that if the inclusion of an alternate name in the lead is in question, the discussion should be on the talk page and yes, bringing in RSs to show how the term is used. Ideally we would be talking about the term appearing in articles that are not directly about the game, to show how it is a common word used in the larger discussions of video games and not in the narrow sliver of that game itself. But yes, RSes using the term would help to justify it if it is questioned. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agree on not adding "modified" notes to engines, as it doesn't really tell anything -- they are always at least a little modified. We already list only notable engines, and if they have been modified significantly, then this should be discussed in prose, otherwise it is trivia.
• Don't agree on not listing common acronyms (WoW, DOTA) and some abbreviations, some are in wide use and by sources. Of course, not redundant or uncommon ones if there are better ones (War3). However, agree on not listing just a generic obvious shorter title of the same title (Toontown, Black Ops, Skyrim) or technical names (.. Standalone). Obviously, more than a couple is almost always unnecessary. A good measure would be -- will the non-obvious alternate title be used in prose later? If not, then it might not need inclusion. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to add to the guidelines a further section specific to PC games, explaining why "Microsoft Windows" is preferred over "PC" to distinguish it from Mac or Linux Marce 13:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fandelasketchup (talk • contribs)

Sourcing Gameplay sections

Gameplay sections should be sourced. This can be sourced using the user's manual for the game, in addition to reviews for the game and other reliable sources.

I've seen editors source to the game itself—is that fine or original research? If the former, we should add it to the guideline. My understanding is that at least the manual is a primary source (used as a last resort and only for description) while it's harder to use the game as a primary source for itself (like citing a painting when writing a description of a painting). Thoughts? czar ♔ 09:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Date format

So I'm fairly new at this, so apologies if this is out of place. Is there a specific format we have for dates in this WikiProject? E.g. September 27, 2014 vs 27 September 2014. I only ask because different articles use different formats. I know MOS:DATEFORMAT approves both, but if there's a particular format we can have consistency across all video game articles. If there is no format, do we want one? Muscat Hoe (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We generally go by the nationality of the studio; a game by a US studio should use mdy dates, while those by UK, european, australian, or japanese studioes should use dmy. However, be aware that if there's a clearly established date format and not following this rule of thumb, seek consensus on the talk pages before making the changes; there might be a reason it was kept that way. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Same for any article, the date format is whatever the original editors found most comfortable, as long as it's consistent. This holds until there is talk page consensus to change the format, ideally backed with a policy-based rationale. I think that arguing WP:STRONGNAT based on the developer's location is a real stretch. czar ♔ 04:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Screenshot size limitations

It is in my opinion that the resolution limitation of our non-free screenshots be raised to at least HD quality. In the modern age of gaming, being able to show a game's HD graphical fidelity and smaller minute HUD elements can be very important to the reader. At present, a 400 x 300 screenshot of a modern game has questionable encyclopedic value due to its small size. Since gaming is such a visual medium, shouldn't this guideline receive an exception by the VG project? Even when requesting the higher resolution exemption due to whatever reasons, the reviewing admin usually just applies the blanket low-res policy to the image regardless. DrNegative (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'd support this and I'd also support raising the issue at NFC. The restriction on non-free image quality is is motivated by two things. 1. the general fair use plank of not impinging on the market for the original image and 2. the wikipedia specific preference for free images over non-free images. For videogame screenshots where NFCC 1 and 8 are met those two shouldn't stop us from using a higher resolution image. The copyrighted work in question is the video game (not the image itself), so a higher quality image can't really compete with the game's commercial success and where we are unlikely to ever have a free alternative (or unlikely to have one in our lifetime) it isn't possible to have a higher quality free replacement. I don't know that it needs to be HD, but at least 1024x768 (however that's just as arbitrary a limit, so feel free to argue for full HD screenshots). Protonk (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Citations in plot sections

I have some questions regarding the following policy: "Plot sections should also be sourced; again, the user's manual and reviews may help here, but one may also find sufficient information contained within strategy guides or FAQs." Is it possible to write a complete plot summary (for a game with a "complex" plot, as defined in this guideline) based on the information found in the user's manual and reviews, which have the purpose of enticing the readers to experience the game for themselves and which should therefore, by design, avoid spoiling any major plot points? Specifically, how should one find citations for the ending(s) of the game in such sources? User manuals and strategy guides are usually published by the developers of the game. Wouldn't that make them primary sources and thus something to avoid? And if a different kind of strategy guide is meant, what is it? On a related note, what kind of FAQs are meant here? Because the first (and only) source for that that comes to mind is GameFAQs, which WP:VG/RS lists as unreliable.

I also have questions about following: "Often, using quotes from within the game or transcript can help support statements via {{cite video game}}; however, take care to keep such quotes short and to the key points." A good plot summary (limited to 700 words, per this page) of a 50 hour-long RPG is pretty much guaranteed to consist only of key points, which implies that there should be at least as many game/transcript citations as sentences in the summary. So why is it that many video game articles, even Featured ones (like Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, for instance), seem to cherry-pick which points they back up with a quote and which they don't? If the editors can decide which "key points" to source and which not to, what is the guideline for that distinction? Yet other articles, like Journey (2012 video game), seem fine with ignoring the "plot sections should be sourced" policy completely and still pass the peer review and get the Featured status. How does that accord with the policy?

I guess my ultimate question is this: What is the point of a blanket requirement to "source plot sections", given that plot summaries are always ultimately based on the primary source (the game)? Or is it just something thrown into the guideline to conform with WP:CITE and can be waived at times, as the Journey example shows? Speaking of WP:CITE, it says that citations are a requirement for claims that are or are likely to be challenged, but a good plot summary merely retells the critical path through the game without any additional interpretation. What exactly can be challenged in such a synopsis? --Koveras ^☭ 17:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• You'll likely get more traction for this by posting at WT:VG czar ♔ 04:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! --Koveras ^☭ 10:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's talk more about multiple cover art.

Games such as Super Smash Bros. for 3DS and Wii U and many Pokemon games have been having editors trying to add a secondary or two cover art(s) along with the first one in each's articles. Choosing only one at a time isn't good. It's also a bias to choose one over others and we have no rule to end that. Can we do something with WP:VGBOX?

The user has given a good reason to have two boxarts in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U. They're actually developed with different installments in mind, and somehow they're in the same article on the Wikipedia. There's an edit warring going on in there and I'm sure WP:VGBOX isn't ready enforce a such thing like that yet. I think we should polish WP:VGBOX more and enforce whether to accept or deny having a secondary boxart for the rare cases like Super Smash Bros. Should we accept having secondary boxart or not at all?

Also I'm not sure why, so far Pokemon game articles on the Wikipedia, must only have one boxart at a time. What did I miss? Is there an old consensus regarding it? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 07:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• This is already up for discussion at WT:VG#Should Super Smash Bros. 3DS/Wii U somehow be exempt from article guidelines? so I recommend adding your piece there instead. czar ⨹ 15:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Now I can see there IS a reason against having multiple game covers. I have nothing to discuss anymore. :) thanks for giving me a link. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 17:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Addition re: italicizing news site titles

WT:VG#RFC:_Italics_for_websites – czar 05:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Player character pronouns

What is the official guideline for referring to customizable player characters who can be male or female, like in many RPGs? Assume one by default, use "they"/"them" instead, or something else entirely? I've looked at several FAs and found little consistency in this point, so there doesn't seem to be any definite rule... --Koveras ^☭ 06:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

WWE covers

can some1 look at the wwe '12 and its sequels articles to see which covers they should be using? there was a different one there last month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.125.133.89 (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been taken care of. The best place for queries like this is WT:VG - X201 (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Factions in RTS games

A month ago User:Soetermans, amongst other edits, deleted the complete list of factions featured in Napoleon: Total War, calling it "WP:GAMEGUIDE material". That rule in itself is not very specific, and this page (that it refers to) does not mention 'factions' anywhere. I noticed that factions featured in similar RTS games like Total War: Rome II, Age of Empires III and Civilization are all described to varying degrees of detail, so I wonder why they would be unacceptable in NTW, especially because the storylines of the other playable factions besides the French Empire give an entirely different view of the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars. In my opinion, information on playable factions in RTS games is essential, because you can experience them as a player; this would comply to "avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right". Non-playable factions could be excluded from Wikipedia coverage, and that's what the articles of the other pages also seem to adhere to. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Other stuff exists which May Also Suck, so try to avoid looking at other pages as being exemplary (unless they are A, WP:GA or WP:FA e.g. Command & Conquer (1995 video game), since those are, well, exemplary ;) ).

For RTSs, factions exist, but knowing what the factions are and each of their specific attributes is not so useful to the general reader as understanding why the difference matter. Listing unit X as a NOD unit and unit Y as a GDI unit doesn't tell me much (as a generalist reader); saying NOD and GDI have certain themes which impact what their units look like or do does.

You're misreading "avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right"; when we say notable in that context we mean notable as in the WP:N sense, meaning that specific concept has its own page on Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the Other Stuff Exists rule, that's why I'm asking for a general guideline that seems not to exist on this matter at the moment. If the other games I cited are stating trivial information too, it may be removed as well; I'm simply making a comparison to show the apparent discrepancy between NTW and other RTSs. C & C was also one of the games I considered; the current article addresses the Nod and GDI factions at length, there is even a List of Command & Conquer factions article for a more elaborate description (apparently warranted due to C & C's notability). It's a bit difficult to draw the comparison with NTW and other Total War factions, because C & C is based on fiction rather than history. The four main playable factions in NTW, the "French Empire" (First French Republic/First French Empire), the British Empire (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland), the Austrian Empire and the Russian Empire, do have their own Wikipedia page, but (obviously) not because they feature in NTW. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That the historical empires and battles and military units of the day can be experienced might certainly be true, but that it doesn't give any substantial information gameplay-wise. The link you provided also listed non-playable factions, providing links to Venice. I think that the playable factions can certainly be described in an informative way, and hopefully in prose, not in a list. I don't see any problem with that, because that would give information about how the game is played in the end. Trouwens, leuk om 's een keer een andere Nederlandse video game editor hier tegen te komen! --Soetermans. T / C 10:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be okay with excluding the non-playable factions, and mentioning the playable factions in prose (even though I'd like putting up the flags there). Haha ja, normaal gesproken schrijf ik eigenlijk niet over games, maar ik was vorige week bij de reenactment van de Slag bij Waterloo en toen ben ik maar weer ns NTW gaan spelen. Heb onlangs ook Tiberium Wars gekregen van 'n vriend, nu pas snap ik het hele plot en de connectie met Red Alert (dat spelletje werd vroeger verboden door m'n ouders want 'te gewelddadig', maar Age of Empires mocht wél; gek). Ben niet van plan veel over games te schrijven, mijn interesse ligt meer bij geschiedenis en wetenschap. Mvg, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Nederlandse Leeuw:, sorry for my late reply. The most important thing in describing the factions is how they differ from each other; like what gameplay options are there. StarCraft is a good example, it mentions the basic outline and points out how the factions are different. Flags should be fine, right?

Haha grappig! Ik ben zelf gamer, vandaar de interesse op Wikipedia. Een buurjongetje vroeger mocht van zijn ouders wel Doom spelen, maar niet Wolfenstein spelen vanwege hakenkruizen (ondanks dat je als joodse Amerikaan juist nazi's afknalt!). Misschien was het idee van min of meer historisch accurate gameplay (hoplieten, boogschutters, e.d.) minder erg dan een futuristische wereldoorlog voor je ouders? Succes met het artikel, ik ga van de zon genieten! :) --Soetermans. T / C 15:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "flags" but you probably shouldn't have any flags since they are not actually representing the country in question (per WP:MOSFLAG). --Izno (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Scope and individual fictional character articles

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Merge_discussion (I'll spare you the pun)– czar 21:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Plot guidelines

Proposal for workshopping: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Ratchet_.26_Clank – czar 20:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

VGSCOPE#5

List of trains featured in Railroad Tycoon II is currently being discussed in the article's talk page. Feel free to join. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Rename the guideline?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is against renaming the guideline. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Currently, it is a subpage guideline by WikiProject Video games. Shall it be a subpage for another page, like "Manual of Style" or something else? --George Ho (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Nearly all large Wikiprojects have guidelines for their topic area and only their topic area, as opposed to main WP-space guidelines that apply universally regardless of topic. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a particularly true statement IMO. WP:MED moved their stuff to the main WP-space and the MILHIST project has 1 (of its 3) guidelines in the main WP-space. --Izno (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

One argument in their favor is that (not to treat our VG work as less than it is), medicine and military history are core topics of an encyclopedia with a much wider target base, while VGs are generally more narrow focus and not as much a core topic. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to a renaming, but I'm questionable about a few things:

1. It currently covers style, notability, and format of video game articles, so there's no single name I can see it fitting under gracefully.
2. The page should probably have a wider RFC to discuss points in the guidelines which may be questionable (though I know of none off the top of my head). Maybe this is that RFC?

--Izno (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think it's fine where it is. It's certainly more of something that the Project maintains than a hard-won site-wide consensus. Feel free to suggest something specific with a specific rationale if you have something else in mind. – czar 14:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - MOS pages apply to all articles. The VG guidelines are only specifcly for video game articles (or any other article that would fit in the VG project scope). Moving it to WP space would mean it would be too globally applied. --TL22 (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose a complete move as likely to be tedious. As soon as it goes site-wide, it becomes much more difficult to edit with changing times. It's easier to gain local consensus that site-wide consensus. Splitting off a notability guideline might be worthwhile, though. ~ Rob^Talk 00:22, 2 October 2015 (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.

List of River King video games Comment

Currently the article List of River King video games is the oldest article on Wikipedia marked for cleanup. It was tagged in 2007 and as not meeting this project's own article guidelines. Could someone more familiar with these guidelines than I review the article and assess? And if so could that individual then either remove the tag (if it meets guidelines), improve the article (if it doesn't), or indicate on its talk page what needs to be done so that someone else can take some action? Thank you! Barkeep^Chat/_$ 15:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, it was added here. The article has essentially been rewritten since then, but no one removed the tag. It was originally for a specific game title, and was later (3 years after tagging) moved to be a list article. -- ferret (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Challenge about inappropriate items

This discussion has flared up within the articles of Starcraft II's three games. and I've now come here to challenge against the "Cast list is inappropriate" rule... or at least have it changed to a degree. Maybe not everyone is interested in knowing who voiced who in a video game, and especially for specific game types this is unrequired. but as soon as I read the examplatory article from Bioshock I was shocked too. Yes it may be in prose, and yes it is backed by sources. But why this should be covered in a small sized book is completely beyond me. I've seen short lists of voice actors being removed in numerous articles lately with as reason it to be inappropriate content with reference to this page. But the guidelines as they stand today seem... odd at best. I'd like to propose to have the rules changed to include allowance of the short lists, as song as sources can back this up that listed poeple have indeed been responsible for voicing said characters from games. In accordance with a portion of the rules this should only be about the major characters that have a meaningful part in the short. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not against the idea of having cast list, as long as it is supported by reliable sources. Though I don't think it is really necessary, given that we can simply link the voice actor/actress' name when the character they voiced is mentioned in the plot section. Something like "Artanis (Patrick Seitz) leads the Protoss armada in an invasion of their Zerg-infested homeworld of Aiur" AdrianGamer (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Question about External Links

Do we need to remove official website links in other languages if there's a English official website link? This is something that I need to know after Dissident93 (talk) removed Japanese links from Yakuza 5 and Yakuza 0 - PhilS1990 (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the guideline? A video game's official home page (provided by the developer or publisher) per WP:ELYES #1. Only the English version of the page should be included if there are multiple languages, per WP:NONENGEL, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. If no English version exists, then the official page in the language of the country of first publication should be provided, but indicate that the site is in a foreign language. --Izno (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

If an official English language website exist for the game, then the Japanese/foreign language ones should be removed, per what Izno listed above. Apologies if I forgot to link to the guideline in the edit summary. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Year in video gaming guidelines

I'd like to propose we formulate and add to the guidelines a section for Year in video gaming articles, akin to WP:FILMYEAR. This stems from an edit war at 2016 in video gaming and the hidden note at the top of that article. If we can add a WP:VGYEAR section here, that would help standardize those articles and clear some waters maybe. Pinging some of the involved parties from there: @Rhain, Lordtobi, and AdrianGamer -- ferret (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

These are the hidden notes in 2016 in video gaming:

* Approximate date should be listed as Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4 or Early/Late/Mid 2015 instead of seasons like summer, winter, spring and autumn (fall).
* Only games with official announcement should be listed. Don't add unconfirmed releases here. It has to be official, announced and unveiled by the publisher/developer.
* If the game you added doesn't has its own page (yet). You can choose to add a link to its developer, publisher or series. E.g. Citizens of Earth, Assassin's Creed Syndicate.
* If both the game's and its developer don't have it page, you can listed them like game's name. However, you should considered their notability of the game first. It must be covered by multiple reliable sources.
* DLCs should not be placed in this list, unless they have their own articles or are standalone DLCs.
* Source directly from the developer, Kickstarter, Steam community and forum source should be avoided. A secondary source from gaming journalists will be more appropriate.
* If the entry you added gets removed. That's probably because you didn't add any reliable sources.
* Don't use bare urls when citing sources.

-- ferret (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The first bullet is WP:MOSDATE. Bullet 6 is WP:RS. Bullet 7 is WP:V. Bullet 8 is WP:CITESTYLE. Maybe the other ones could be added, since I can't think of a useful link for them. --Izno (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

They key idea of these guidelines is to make the list easier to manage and more verifiable. It prevents the list from getting way too huge, way too long, or listing excessive entries that are not notable, or complete hoaxes. Bullet 2 and 6 can be merged together to form a new bullet. (If RS isn't going to report a game's release date, we aren't going to list it) We don't use bullet 4 anymore. There are other points that should be added.

• Always go by the films' earliest western release date. For a former regional-exclusive game, list both its original release and its localization release.
• Events section is limited to trade shows and significant changes in the video game industry.
• Games released for virtual console should not be listed.

I had thought of making a FAQ page in the talk page to list these hidden guideline, but listing them here is definitely a good idea. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Savior (video game)

Savior (video game) was changed from a redirect to an article today. If someone who better understands if this now meets notability requirements can review it, that would be appreciated. NYCRuss ☎ 18:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@NYCRuss: I have re-redirected. The VG/RS search returns nothing. --Izno (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! NYCRuss ☎ 19:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Images of original and subsequent releases

After the image discussions of Star Ocean (video game) and of Dragon Quest V and VI, perhaps we shall re-evaluate the rules about cover arts, including those of original Japan-only releases and subsequent releases. Star Ocean was not released outside Japan until the PSP release in 2008, twelve years after original release. Dragon Quest V, not until DS release in 2009, seventeen years after; DQVI, 2011, more than ten years after. --George Ho (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing plot summaries

This page says: "Plot sections should also be sourced; again, the user's manual and reviews may help here, but one may also find sufficient information contained within strategy guides or FAQs." This is completely at odds with plot summaries for movies, books, and TV shows, which consider the work the source and don't require citations. Why? It makes plot summaries much harder to write, and unreadably strange if this rule is followed strictly, as in some cases you have to summarise a plot based on, say, a review. Popcornduff (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

For one, you still have the original work as an implicit source, so if you have sources that cover bits and pieces of the plot but not the whole thing, you are not limited to only what is sourced in those sources. In other words, you still write the plot summary ignoring what outside sources say, and then use those sources to support the parts you wrote that they do support; they firm up the summary, but don't constrain it. Second, you are right they are not required, but they're also not expressly forbidden, and while most film and TV articles do not use them, there is pressure from editors that do not frequently work in fiction areas to have these sourced if possible. Not all such works can, hence why its optional.

That said, for video games where the experience may not proceed in the same linear narrative as a TV show or film, I think it is a bit more essential to help verify the plot, since verification can be a bit more difficult since it may require multiple replays or the like, or explaining things that, if the game used the Half-Life no-cut-scene approach, they may have not been looking at the right place when the event happened. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I have long felt that the video games that have long plots, littered with self referencing containing in-game quotes, to essentially be useless. It's a huge increase to the article's size and reference list for no real gain, as none of it is verifiable without playing the game. -- ferret (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of using in-game quotes excessively to support a plot summary, though if they do establish a point of narrative that is not necessarily 100% clear to the average player working through the game, and it is not documented elsewhere, including that can help (eg like the audio recordings from BioShock which requires you to find them, which not all players might). But I think this is more about using available third-party sourcing (specifically stemming from The Last Guardian), which I think we should strive to include if possible. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Update

The guidelines are really outdated with regards to section-specific advice. I'll slowly work some of this in, but feel free to revert (ideally in part rather than whole) if objectionable and bring to this talk page for discussion. czar 16:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A thought - I originally created the WP:VG/POV as a shortcut to the stuff about avoiding using that silly "Mixed to positive" type wording. I'd prefer a direct pointing to this, as its something I remove from reception sections rather frequently, and its cumbersome to explain why its poor wording in every edit summary. However, somewhere along the line, it was made to not be next to that content anymore. I don't care if we move it back, or create a new shortcut to the mixed to positive stuff, but I think we need a direct link to it in some capacity. Figured I'd check here for input first. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It honestly needs a better redirect, maybe something like WP:VG/MIXED, if we want to point to that specific guidance. --Izno (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. When I created it, I think the "mixed to positive" stuff was part of the NPOV sub-heading, so it made more sense. Sergecross73 msg me 21:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Anchors are more suitable than redirect shortcuts here, e.g., I had already set up WP:VGG#mixed and WP:VGG#MTP. They require much less work to maintain czar 17:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Anchors are not immediately obvious as anchors to the common user wishing to reference, and especially link to, the specific section in question. I don't see how a redirect and shortcut template is more work to maintain. --Izno (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't either - I don't expect any future maintenance being needed unless the content is moved without including the shortcut again, though the same would go for using an anchor too, I would think. Either way, the shortcuts are shorter, and look a little more "official" to a newbie, so I'd prefer to use them. Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Almost all of the clauses on this page will be linked, if tagged properly. (In the new sections, they're all points that editors repeat every day in reviews and at WTVG.) You can create separate redirect pages for each of them, with each of the variations, but I would think that it'd be much simpler to add and learn memorable anchor tags if you'll be sending editors here in the future (especially for the points referenced more frequently than the "mixed-to-positive" case). It also reduces the clutter from {{shortcut}} templates. czar 06:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

ESRB/PEGI

We don't usually add this info, unless it's particularly getting special commentary, correct? May be worth a mention somewhere on here, since a newbie is confused about it at the moment. I couldn't remember the exact rationale or past discussions on it because...I haven't needed to explain it in a while, it's just something I've "known" since forever. So I figured I'd mention it here first. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Correct. I also thought that a guideline for it was somewhere here. Perhaps it was accidentally removed? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I thought it was mentioned somewhere too, but I don't recall where. I don't know, maybe its even in there now, but I did a control+f search for "ESRB" and "PEGI" on the guidelines, and had zero hits... Sergecross73 msg me 20:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• You might review the deletion discussions for Template:Video game ratings. --Izno (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Breadcrumbs from there: [1] -- ferret (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
    • This was before my time here, but I still remember someplace saying this semi-recently. Perhaps it was just a talk page discussion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft guideline material on how to write (and not write) "Production" sections

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#List of points to cover, a draft list of advice on the writing of "Production" sections. This is part of an RfC on MOS:FILM, but the material is written broadly enough (on purpose) it might actually live at MOS:FICT and apply to other media (TV, video games, comics, novel series, etc.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• For our purposes, I don't think we have the same issues with dev section junk that the film articles get. WP:VGG#Development covers the "proseline" advice and we might want to add something re: not using speculative sources, but I'm not sure we need to repeat the other general advice. czar 05:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Do plot sections require sources?

Hi,

There's a dispute at SegaSonic the Hedgehog over whether its plot section requires sources. I checked here and there's a contradiction: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Gameplay says Straightforward plot summary is assumed to be sourced to the game itself and thus does not require sources., but Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Sources says plot sections should also be sourced. I get the impression that simple plot summaries in the gameplay section do not require sources, but separate plot sections do. Am I right?

Pinging TheJoebro64 and Sergecross73. Adam9007 (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

If it's necessarily straightforward and self-explanatory, I usually don't source them (I also try to keep them as short as possible, since they're prone to bloat). However, if a plot is going to make original claims (like "the Japanese plot is very different from the American one"), that's when sourcing is needed. JOEBRO64 22:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Those two parts aren't contradictory: we don't require sources as the work itself serves as the source, but if you can, you should (and avoid overloading on in-game quotes to source, unless we're talking an obscure fact not clear from a normal playthrough, ala background details from BioShock's recordings which have to be found). --MASEM (t) 22:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and this ties in to my concern - SegaSonic is an extremely rare game. It's an extremely limited release arcade game from the mid-90s. A "normal playthrough" is near impossible. Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually that's also a good point. If the game is/was sufficiently rare, where the chance for any existing copies of the game to be found to meet WP:V is low, we should be sourcing that. Most video games, even the earliest ones, still exist either through well-preserved carts or emulated roms today (even if that's of dubious copyright nature), so meeting the V threshold is fine. SegaSonic sounds like a very exception case that it was rare enough that finding a means to validate the plot via WP:V is very difficult, so we should be providing sources. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Reception section

Hello. I have a short question regarding some reception sections: should the names of the reviewers be used it if it's necessary? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Sjones23: Ideally, the reception section should be generalized and condensed without note of any specific people (or who they work for). That being said, nobody is going to revert on sight if you did do this, as long as it's well written, non-biased, and sourced. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Understood. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Release Date in Lead Section - Clarification

I have found that WP:VG/DATE can be interpreted two ways when it comes to the mention of a game with a single worldwide release date. Specifically concerning the article's lead section, it states that "release dates should be summarized to be as general as possible...summarized to the year of release, or month and year if further applicable." For example, Arms was released worldwide on June 16, 2017. According to the article guideline, does this mean that we should restrict the mention of the exact date to only "June 2017" instead of "June 16, 2017", or does what WP:VG/DATE say only apply to games with different release dates for different regions and/or consoles, therefore allowing us to say "June 16, 2017" in the lead section? I have seen this being interpreted both ways, such as on Super Mario Odyssey, where the exact date is given with the reason being that it is a worldwide release. This trivial guideline has gone so far as to require an invisible note in the lead section of to prevent mention of the exact date. I am thinking that we should allow mention of the exact release date only when it is the same worldwide (and the same across all platforms), since adding "16" to "June 2017" does not add any clutter, and provides useful information. I also suggest that once a decision has been made, that the wording of the article guideline paragraph (WP:VG/DATE) be improved for clarification. TL;DR: Does WP:VG/DATE mean no exact dates at all in the lead, or no exact dates only when there are multiple dates for different regions/consoles? Thanks. —TheAnonymousNerd ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

VG/DATE was created to cut down on the excessive release date listing in the lead/intro. Newbie/casual editors on Wikipedia frequently get carried away with "example bloat". They see one or two examples, and automatically want to add every single one they can think of, without giving any thought to how terribly it actually reads. Sentences like "The game was released on April 25th in North America" quickly bloat out to "Game X was released on April 25th in North America, Hong Kong, and Central America, and April 26th in Europe and April 27th in some regions of Australia and South Korea and is planned for release in July 22nd in Japan" etc etc.

Anyways, point being, I see no issue with listing the exact release date when there's one universal worldwide date, because there wouldn't be any tendency to bloat it out like above. So, in cases like Arms, where there is just one date, I see no issue with saying "Arms was released on June 16, 2017" because its not any more bloated than "Arms was released in June 2017". Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, if there is only one exact worldwide release date, the full date is fine - there's nothing that newer editors can toy with to bloat the date info more. It's when there's a splattering of releases across a week or so due to different physical release dates in various regions that the month/year approach should be preferred. (Even when there is only one worldwide release, I still prefer to go month/year since it is rarely the exact date that is critical, but knowing the month/year timeframe, particularly for holiday sales, is a rather important metric to have in the mind when reading about a game). --MASEM (t) 13:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Didn't see this discussion until now, somehow. I also think it should be fine to use the exact release date when there's just one date - writing NA July 1/EU July 2/JP July 3 as "in July" is generalizing, but writing WW July 1 as "in July" only saves one or two characters while losing information.--IDV^talk 16:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I think that we should list the exact day only if the game has a single, unified worldwide launch date (like Breath of the Wild did on March 3, 2017). Otherwise, we should generalize it in all other cases, even if it's just a day apart. Everybody here so far as been for the same thing, so we should make this a proper guideline now. I'll go and change the articles I've been maintaining to this format in the meantime. EDIT: Adding to this, but I still think that every non-release date in the lead should be generalized, such the day of its announcement. Simply keeping that month/year is fine. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• The advice above is good—remember that you're writing for a general audience—but additionally note that the specific day (or even month...) of a release almost always does not matter for games and other media released two decades ago. Often the year alone becomes sufficient unless you're making a point about the game's development timeline. The purpose of the article and how it's used as reference will change with historical context, hence why it's best to write in perspective of history than of recent events. czar 16:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of literal English translation of Japanese game titles

So recently, a debate regarding the unofficial English translation of the Super Smash Bros. series took place. There, I stated that we shouldn't be using any sort of unofficial translation unless backed by reliable sources. You would think this is already a guideline we follow, but checking a number of Japanese games shows that it isn't. So to add on that, I propose that we never use the "literal" translation in the Nihongo template unless it's backed by reliable sources and the game title in English markets remains in Japanese. A perfect example would be the Katamari Damacy series, which would fit both. I don't see why we need unofficial, literal translations for games like Kirby Air Ride, when the title was already translated officially and has no reliable sources to back it up anyway. Thoughts? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Support. The biggest issue is there is never just one literal transaction. In the case of Super Smash Bros, I found sites and Google translating it at LEAST 4 different ways. All very similar with basically the same meaning, but different such as "Great Brawl", "Superfray", "Superfight", "Big Brawl", and my favorite, "Grand Slaughter" -- ferret (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• The bigger point is that Kirby Air Ride/Kirby Mass Attack don't need Japanese translations at all. They're games with no notable link to Japan apart from being the country of their creation, and just as we don't need a Norwegian or Dutch translation of product titles from those regions, we don't need one for Japanese products unless there is edification for the reader in providing one (as there is for transliterations like Katamari Damacy). Our guidelines already said that games with Latin alphabet common name titles do not need titles in non-English languages, full stop. So it goes without saying that the "literal" translation is excessive when no secondary source will confirm it, but I think we're better off clarifying that in the {{nihongo}} template documentation and Japan MoS page than on our vg-specific page. czar 19:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Support when its unsourced, personal translations from editors. I'm still okay with it if reliable sources are using it tentatively for JRPGs prior to English localisations. Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think there are two main things to consider here:

• Is the original title of a work important information? I would personally expect to find it in an encyclopedic article on a work, and would rather not have to go to the Japanese Wikipedia to find out what a Japanese game is called in Japanese.
• Does the Japanese title have any meaning to a reader who does not speak Japanese? I think we are not being helpful if we only give readers a Japanese title with no indication of what it means. Of course, if the English title is an actual translation or close in meaning, any additional "literal translation" would not be necessary.

As for us even being allowed/able to do translations ourselves in the first place, I don't see how it differs from how we are able to cite non-English RSs when writing articles. It's still a user interpreting a foreign-language text and reproducing the information in English.

Regarding Ferret's point, I don't think it's a problem that you can translate a thing in many different ways. It's the same as how you can word any other concept in multiple ways when writing article prose - the person editing an article uses the wording they find the most suitable, and if others disagree they can tweak it and/or discuss it on the talk page. Of course, if we have RSs providing translations, we should use those. --IDV^talk 19:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

To clarify my point, I'm talking about situations like Zero No Kiseki and Ao No Kiseki - because those names mean virtually nothing to most English readers on their own, and have ties to a long running series (The Legend of Heroes/Trails in the Sky series) that are made more clear with a "lit." translations, which are used by reliable sources, I feel its okay to include the lit. Trails to Zero and Trails to Azure names. Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

In this particular case at Super Smash Bros, people were essentially edit warring over it, and claiming one was "official" without any sourcing (Or rather, sourcing it to various Wikias). The issue here is the idea that they are providing some sort of official English name for the title in Japan. This is distinctively different from simply providing a possible translation. -- ferret (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Is the original title of a work important information? I would personally expect to find it in an encyclopedic article on a work, and would rather not have to go to the Japanese Wikipedia to find out what a Japanese game is called in Japanese.

When a book/film is translated from another language but known in English by its English-language title, it makes sense to note the original release and its title in the article's prose, but not necessarily in the lede unless it's vital to understanding the topic (such as the title having an effect on some later event in the work's history). Video games work similarly. For most of our cases, though, a game will have a Japanese title roughly equivalent to, or perhaps even released alongside, its English-language title. In those cases, when the game is not widely known for its history by a Japanese-language-only title, there is no need to mention it in the lede, and likely no need to even mention it in the prose. czar 16:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense. This isn't about what language the original title was in, nor is it about just video games, but the fact that there is an original title separate from what would be the article title at all. These are the original and intended titles that were first seen or heard of by the public when these works were published. If nothing else, they should be mentioned in the lede as an important part of the work's context. To "bury" the title like this is no different from removing it, because very few people will read much of an article, let alone read the footnotes hidden away at the bottom; you give readers the impression that the article title is the original title, as well as the only title there is. It's not terribly different from doing something like shortening "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" to "Alice in Wonderland" and stuffing the former into a footnote, simply because just about everyone ever uses the latter.

If an article for a foreign book or film is doing this as well, a grave mistake is being made. This misconception of "busy" ledes probably came about as a result of some very specific examples of overly long titles or numerous titles. I blame the Japanese light novels with the overly long names for that. The last thing we need is to let those, of all things, hold even more sway over more topics than they already do. Despatche (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

As for the topic itself, I appreciate that people are being reasonable about this. Unofficial translations are completely unmanageable, not just because everyone wants to do their own thing, but also because there is the very real possibility that people will just accept whatever Wikipedia decides on. This is how we get things like the poorly translated old video game songnames that have to be retranslated years later, only for a bunch of people to get upset because it's breaking their tradition of having it reinforced by wikis and fan collections of information for years and years; you see it in big series like Final Fantasy and Touhou basically all the time.

This is one of the numerous reasons why I try to stay away from translations if at all possible. "Trails of Zero" or whatever permutation you want means exactly as much to people as "Zero no Kiseki" does; it has no meaning by itself, and it is simply the title of a video game (never mind that "Zero no Kiseki" is merely a romanization of a completely non-Latin title, used for convenience's sake). This whole thing about English titles having more meaning to English speakers because they have English in it only matters to marketers looking to make extra money, not to people attempting to write a database of information. It also completely flies in the face of things like Katamari Damacy and basically any work that has ever been released in any language with a title or terms that are not in that language. Despatche (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to adopt WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines into MoS as "WP:Manual of Style/Video games"

Resolved

 – RfC concluded in favor of the proposal.

Please see: WT:Manual of Style#Proposal: Adopt WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines into MoS.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• For posterity, the move to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games was done against the consensus of those who actually maintain this page czar 10:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  WP:Consensus about guidelines is a site-wide not wikiproject matter; see also WP:CONLEVEL and WP:OWN. Having worked on the page more than someone else doesn't give you special WP:Supervote rights. People who don't agree with a broad consensus don't constitute a counter-consensus, they're just people who didn't agree with the broad consensus. And hardly all participants in this project or editors of VG-related articles disagreed with the proposal (which was made by one of them).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  For posterity, don't speak for everyone who you think maintains this page. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  Except for you, obviously czar 11:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  And Dissident. And ZXCVBNM. And Hellknowz. --Izno (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  No comment on if there was enough consensus or not, but as long as the talk page discussions we have are still the way to change the guidelines here, then I don't see how this is a negative. It had to happen eventually. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Followup notes

Some post-RfC updates:

• Didn't notice it until just now, but this was an even better idea than originally thought, as its subpage WP:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines/Naming had already been moved to WP:Naming conventions (video games) quite some time ago; this MoS move is therefore consistent with the general pattern of migrating well-accepted wikiproject NC pages to NC names and style pages to MoS names, and outside the WP:WikiProject sub-namespace where they're less apt to wander into insular conflicts with the rest of the site.
• Move now completed, including talk page and its archives. Redirects updated.
• Text normalized to MoS style; recategorized and tagged as an MoS page; resolved a handful of conflicts with the main MoS pages; plus did various copyediting, formatting cleanup, separation of footnotes and reference citations, etc.; and added a few notes not likely to be controversial [2].

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Changes looked fine. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

There are entries in WP:GAMECRUFT hidden for some reason. It's included in the edit source, but not shown. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Repaired. A syntax change wasn't completed. -- ferret (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I cleaned up the Japanese section, and it mostly had just redundant, outdated, and/or conflicting information. It should be better now, but feel free to fix anything that wasn't supposed to be removed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The macOS/OS X issue

Based on this discussion, I think we want to add advice about when to use OS X vs macOS as the platform name. I think it can be summarized as follows:

• For most games, which are released as a one-time product with small patches/updates and DLC content:
  • "OS X" should be used if the game was released when the operating system was named OS X (pre-2016), which should reflect how the release platforms were called by reliable sources.
  • "macOS" should be used otherwise (post-2016), or if there were any debates/confusion on which name to be used, to avoid ongoing conflict.
• For any games that have continuous updates (such as most MMORPGs), games-as-a-service updates, or continuously-improved game service software like Steam, which has had a release on the operating system after the macOS renaming in 2016, the platform should be "macOS" (reflecting the current product name), even if its original release was for "OS X".
  • Otherwise use "OS X"; this is likely the case for any ongoing game that was shuttered before 2016.

I think that should cover all basis. --Masem (t) 18:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

On a side note, what about "Mac OS X" (2001-2012)? Lordtobi (✉) 18:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"Mac OS X" vs "OS X" is far less confusion than compared to "MacOS" (pre-10) and "macOS" where there were a LOT of software changes. I see no reason to just use "OS X" for any "Mac OS X" cases, similar to how we use Microsoft Windows to broadly cover everything from Win3 up. --Masem (t) 19:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• For your games as a service example, would the change only be reflected in the lead and infobox? We should still mention the original platform in the dev/release section, correct? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • If we can say that the game was announced for release on those platforms, I think that should stay as is, with any source disputes favoring the newer. --Masem (t) 14:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop abusing JFN

In recent years, I've seen people start to become really obsessed with the footnotes thing. I don't know why it's so recent, but it's getting old.

1. The "Japanese" (read: original) title is always important to understanding a work that was originally released or developed in another country.

2. The actual guideline is meant for situations where you'd spend half the lede talking about the various titles. This is obvious a very rare case.

3. Sticking this information in a footnote is effectively erasure. No longer is there a reason to actually read the original title and become familiar with it, which is completely at odds with point 1 and completely at odds with what Wikipedia is about, because it puts so much bias on localizations.

Worshipping fabricated titles by unrelated reviewers is one thing, but this is crossing a much further line. Almost every single time someone makes this edit, they directly hurt the quality of the article. Despatche (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The key word you state is "original" title. Arguably, I would limit this to cases where the game only had a Japanese release (like Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan) or where the game was initially only in Japan but ports for the West were later made (Recettear: An Item Shop's Tale). Taking the game article you last had, Nights into Dreams, while it was first released for Japan, it was clearly also going to be coming to the West just a few months later, as such the Japanese name doesn't help much. --Masem (t) 16:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the current guideline doesn't go far enough. What is the point of including Japanese titles in articles (even in footnotes) in cases where they're simply katakana transliterations of English words?

Take the Super Mario Bros. article, which has a footnote explaining that the Japanese title is スーパーマリオブラザーズ Hepburn: Sūpā Mario Burazāzu. The part in Japanese characters is simply a phonetic spelling of the English: ie スー is "Sū", パー is "pā", forming "Super", etc. Is this useful?

I understand the use of including alternative names when they're actually different - for example Sakura Wars is サクラ大戦, Sakura Taisen, in Japan - but I don't get the use of including the kana names when they're transliterated forms of English words at all, even in a footnote. They're not meaningfully different. Popcornduff (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This pretty much sums up my stance on it as well. If anything it should be used more, as the average reader isn't helped in situations like the Super Mario Bros example listed above. Sergecross73 msg me 17:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, thinking about this more, it definitely should be when the title (or any other name like a character name) is wholly different from the Western release. (eg Shadow of the Colossus), or where there isn't a Western release at all. We are en.wiki, after all. --Masem (t) 17:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

If we're talking about games that were localized, the way I see it there are generally three types of Japanese titles.

• Katakana version of the same title in English like スーパーマリオブラザーズ Hepburn: Sūpā Mario Burazāzu. Nothing is gained from having this in the lead. It is the same title and the average reader can't read it. Just takes up space.
• Titles with native Japanese words like Pocky and Rocky which is known in Japan as KiKi KaiKai: Nazo no Kuro Manto (奇々怪界 謎の黒マント, "Mysterious Ghost World: The Riddle of the Black Mantle"). I don't like these in the lead because the Japanese words cannot be understood by the average English reader, and the translation is usually from the editors (i.e. not official) and often a point of argument.
• Katakana title that is different from the localized title like Biohazard for Resident Evil or Rockman for Megaman. I think these are the only exception that including the Japanese Roman wording in the lead is OK, since many of the sources and potentially parts of the article may use this wording. The japanese wording and pronounciation should still be footnoted.

TarkusAB^talk 18:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Sticking this information in a footnote is effectively erasure." what the f*** are you smoking? Detailed information being in footnotes instead of cluttering the lede or prose is an enhancement to the informational mission of articles and their readability, not a detriment. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty obvious this place is more of a waste than ever. Now you're actually questioning katakana titles! Never thought I'd see the day, not ever.

You disservice and demean the English language as well as other languages, you insult the intelligence of every English speaker, you intentionally obscure important information, you do all of these things on the back of disgusting excuses like "the localization came out only [sic] a few months later!", and above all else you question the integrity of anyone willing to stand up against you. Congratulations, you've brought the entire project down a peg. Despatche (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Look, this is the same way things went down a few years ago, when you had like 10 rejected requested moves in a row and rage quit the website - its clear you have no understanding of how Wikipedia names articles or displays names. I don't know what to tell you. If you still don't understand in the slightest, maybe its time to move on to a different area of editing, or a different website to edit. Because there's a clear disconnect that's been constant for years now. And you're still the only one with the problem. Sergecross73 msg me 20:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you sir, may I have another? (Japanese: ありがとう先輩、もう一回ください。, Hepburn: Arigatou senpai, mou ikkai kudasai, lit. "Thank you sir, once more please.") TarkusAB^talk 20:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

If you ask me, I agree that the Japanese name should only be included if it's different in a certain region and sources make note of it, or there was some big debate/controversy about it. JOEBRO64 22:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts as well. If we want to go even further, then I think we should just get rid of all the footnotes and mentions of Japanese names, as in the vast majority of cases (90% or more), they serve no real purpose to English readers other than trivia. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I would support changing the guideline to say this. Popcornduff (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

From eliminating it entirely or just when it's the same as the English title, but in kanji/katakana form? I'd support either, as they are both an improvement from the current guideline. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we should at least change the guideline to recommend including the Japanese title as a footnote only when it's meaningfully different from the English title. Katakana transliterations can be ignored. Popcornduff (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. It seems like most here are in favor of this too, could the guideline be changed or should we wait a few more days for a larger consensus? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. If the Japanese wording is not there, the reader has no idea if it's the same or completely different. It's also convenient when doing research to copy/paste into search engines versus opening up the Japanese wiki page (if one even exists). TarkusAB^talk 10:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that including the JP spelling is useful for the purpose of further research outside of WP.--Alexandra IDV^talk 13:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. Yeah, I'm all for aggressively using the JFN footnotes, but I don't think it should be trimmed out of the article altogether. My general argument is that your average general English reader has no interest or understanding of all the Japanese text shown in the names. But that the same time, there is some interest and value in it. I think JFN is a good balance of this - it doesn't hurt the readability of the opening sentence, but it also is there, off to the side, for the few who do want it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Fully agree, we should not outright be removing the names; just use the JFN footnotes more effectively when the added title information does not immediately help the average english reader (who presumably has no understanding of Japanese) --Masem (t) 14:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but I still think it's almost pointless to include them even in footnotes. Readers may wonder if the name is different in Japanese? Not if we never mention in it in the first place. Useful for doing further research? It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to tell people how to write the same thing in different languages. (Note that by "the same thing" here I'm not talking about two different words that have the same meaning, like cheese and fromage; ソニック is Sonikku, an approximation of Sonic in phonetic Japanese. If the words are actually meaningfully different then I'm favour of including them in the article.) Popcornduff (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the main problem I have with it. If a game released in Japan under the same English title and text, then there is no reason why we have to mention the Japanese, which often isn't even official. For something like Final Fantasy XV, I don't see why how this would be helpful for the vast majority of English readers, even in a footnote, as the series article handles it anyway for the 1% who would care. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I just don't see the issue anymore when it relegated down at the bottom of an article next to the large list of all the article's references. As a single line at the bottom of the article, it no longer hinders the reading/understanding of the opening sentences of the article, which has always been my main concern. I think its a good compromise, as the Anime Wikiproject already gives us enough flack for relegating it to the bottom. (They still do it full-jargon mode in the opening sentence.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

We could put all kinds of useless things in footnotes. We don't, because they're useless. Popcornduff (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should feel irritated that you'd waste people's time with such a pointless, condescending statement, or incredulous that you actually believe its that simple. Do you not spend much time in guideline discussions or something? You're a long term editor, (who edits Sonic articles no less) - you've seen how ridiculous editor's judgement can be. You must know that some sort of vague "delete it if you subjectively feel its useless" guideline would erupt into all sorts of disputes and edit wars. It would be a nightmare to try to enforce. Obviously, its of interest to some subset of readers, or it wouldn't be added and tweaked ad nauseam like it is. It's far better to just leave it as a footnote than try to determine when its "useless enough to warrant removal". Sergecross73 msg me 14:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. I didn't mean to condescend with that statement - it's just the simplest way I can put it. My entire point is that if the katakana names are useless we shouldn't put them the article anywhere; saying that they do no harm isn't much of a consolation because, by that logic, we could include all kinds of useless-but-harmless things. I don't think this is a pointless observation. I really mean that.

I'm not proposing a "vague 'delete it if you subjectively feel its useless'" guideline. I'm proposing a guideline saying "Japanese titles should not be included if they're transliterations of the English titles." I think that would be pretty clear, or, at least, no more subject to interpretation than other Wikipedia guidelines.

I also reject the argument that, if something is often edited or added by readers, this makes it worthy of inclusion. If that were true, why do we have guidelines against fancruft, for example? Seems to me we have guidelines to deal with issues like these that are often argued over: find a consensus and apply it. Popcornduff (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I still think there is something to be said for any title that was originally published as a Japanese release, with no immediate Western plans, then later getting the Western release, that even if the title then is 100% the same, it should still be at minimally footnoted to respect/highlight that this fully was a Japan-only release at one point. This is in contrast to where the Western release is planned but just some months after the Japanese release (eg most recent Final Fantasy's). --Masem (t) 15:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hate to be difficult, but... I'm not seeing the value in this either. We explain that a game is only/principally released in Japan using prose, infoboxes etc. Writing the same name twice doesn't do anything towards explaining that. Popcornduff (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If I'm researching a video game beyond what WP has, and knew the game was out in JP well before it reached the West, I'd want to know what name they used to help search, even if it is the same as the title ultimately used in the West. There's more than enough examples where the title was changed that its likely the "same name" case is the exception, not the rule, so calling it out, even if it doesn't help the average reader, is harmless, as long as it is in a footnote. --Masem (t) 15:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. And its good to have a go-to area to know where exactly to find out such a thing (a footnote that doesn't clog up the opening sentence) rather than having to wade through a bunch of development/release section prose that may or may not contain it somewhere within. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, but if all that's true... why does it only apply to games released well in advance in Japan? You could make the same argument for researching Super Mario Bros.

I'm wary of sounding like I'm taking some sort of extreme stance here, but it feels like people are inventing niche scenarios to justify including this. Like I said before, there's all kinds of stuff we could be putting into the footnotes to satisfy obscure needs, and we don't. If other editors feel it's useful then I can live with it - yep, it's just a footnote - but them's my two cents. Popcornduff (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It really is rather extreme though. Just a couple years ago it was just like the Anime content area, where the Japanese naming stuff was widely all over the opening sentences of articles. We got a ton of push back even getting to a JFN type solution - it took a ton a discussion to get to the point where we had a consensus on that, let alone for removing it outright. Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Look, consensus is consensus. I'm saying "I think we should modify this guideline", and if I can't persuade anyone, then I shrug and go back to bed. I realise what we have is already a compromise. Popcornduff (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

And just to clarify... "let alone for removing it outright." You know I'm not proposing removing JFN, right? Nor am I proposing we remove all Japanese names. Apologies if I misread your meaning there, but I don't want to be misrepresented if I can help it. Popcornduff (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies - the "it" in that sentence was meant to mean "the Japanese name text in a given article", not "JFN itself" or "wiping all JP text off the face of Wikipedia". I know you're not proposing that. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Some good points above to resuscitate. Let's talk examples.
  • Transliterations warrant the original language, e.g., Moscow, Lake Biwa, or

    Katamari Damacy (塊魂) is a third-person puzzle-action video game ...

  • Games covered in sources primarily/entirely by a recognized English-language title do not warrant non-English characters in the lede

    Final Fantasy XV is a massively multiplayer ...

    Super Mario Odyssey is a 3D platform game ...

  Footnotes in these cases are really only compromises to prevent edit warring. It's equivalent to putting "stylized as" in the lede—an aspect of the game's presentation that is almost never noted as important in sources and therefore is of questionable importance to put in the article's most visible sentence. I think the reasoning above to remove these footnotes is sound.

  • Footnotes do, however, make sense when parts of the title should be explained but not necessarily occupy the first lines of the article

    Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days[ref:subtitle read as "Three Five Eight Days Over Two"] is an action role-playing ...

    In Nintendo Entertainment System, note the abbreviation and the English-language version of the Japanese name, but move the non-English characters and Hepburn to footnotes for readability

My first bullet point follows from MOS:FORLANG:

If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. For example, an article about a location in a non-English-speaking country will typically include the local language equivalent

but more important is the guideline's following sentence:

Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology.

In perspective, it can be interesting/useful to know the Japanese spelling of "Super Mario Odyssey" but it isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. If local consensus dictates the importance of the foreign language text, it's reasonable to include it in the prose, perhaps even in the first paragraph after the lede, but if there is no strong association with a non-English language, the only cause for relegating the text to a footnote should be length and preserving readability. czar 21:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

On the subject of some of the points made above, when it comes to footnotes with Japanese titles for video games where the original title was English/unchanged, surely if those footnotes are meant to show when a title was changed outside of Japan then they're also just as effective at showing when a title was unchanged? I know that sounds like a dumb train of thought, but think about it, if a user is used to looking at the Japanese titles of games to confirm whether or not the title was changed in their country, and it shows that the title was the same in Japanese then is that not useful for them? If it doesn't show anything then it turns into a Schrodinger's cat sort of thing where it's unknown if the name was changed or not, forcing them to have to go over to the Japanese wikipedia page to confirm it themselves. I'm aware at how unnecessary it looks to essentially list the same title twice, but it helps confirm things for those who are looking for that information, and it would look way more unnatural if every page had to go out of its way to say that the title was the same in Japanese, including the Japanese characters with transliteration helps get that point across as simply as possible, plus they're already in the footnotes section as to not harm the brevity of the opening paragraph. I know it sounds like some of us weebs just want as much nihongo on our pages as we can get, but those footnotes serve a purpose, despite seeming pointless. (I hope I put this in the right place for those involved in the previous conversation to see) DekuHero (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Issue regarding "universal acclaim according to Metacritic"

There has been a recent issue with the reception section at God of War (2018 video game) and addressing the claim that the game has "universal acclaim according to Metacritic". Now, MOS: Reception says "Metacritic's qualitative summary often provides a satisfactory summary of a game's overall reception." But what about "universal acclaim"? By the MOS, we're basically saying that putting Metacritic's claim of "universal acclaim" is okay, even though it's false. Ferret and Wikibenboy94 believe that the statement is okay to use because it's sourced to Metacritic.

Several of you know that I have brought all of the previous God of War games to Featured Article status, and I also intend for the new one to become a Featured Article. I bring this up because in some of those FACs, I ran into this very issue. I too had went by the notion that "universal acclaim according to Metacritic" (with source) was fine, but non-gamers, however, did not understand this because the games did not actually have universal acclaim. I described to them and directed them to Metacritic, showing how Metacritic describes their scores, but they still did not buy it because, like said before, they did not truly have universal acclaim. At that time, I brought this to the attention of WP:VG and they directed to remove the statement of "universal acclaim" and use a more general statement ("critical acclaim"). This resulted in me using the opening sentence that you can see here at God of War III#Reception, which was acceptable. I tried to use a similar sentence for the 2018 game, but have been reverted and directed here to the MOS.

Now, us as gamers know what the phrase "universal acclaim according to Metacritic" means, but what about non-gamers? These articles are supposed to be accessible to all readers of Wikipedia. So, how should we address the notion of a game having universal acclaim from Metacritic? I really don't want to have to go through this issue again when it comes time to take this new God of War to FAC. --JDC808 ♫ 19:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure really what the concern is. It has "universal acclaim" according to Metacritic, is a sourcable and directly attributed quote. It is 100% true in what it states. It is no different from "The game was the best this year ascording to IGN" or similar sourced and attributed statements from reviewers. Note that JDC808's talk section for God of War III is from 2015. Since that time, several discussions and efforts to address the lead sentences of Reception sections occurred (Linked JDC to several on his talk page), resulting in changes to the article guidelines in 2016 and 2017. Using generalized summation of the reception such as "critical acclaim" (What is critical acclaim?) is essentially unsourced and OR. The advice to use the Metacritic label (attributed) was essentially part of a effort to also combat edit warring and POV pushing that would occur for unsourced lead summation sentences of this nature. -- ferret (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Note this discussion is about (currently) bullet 8 of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#Reception. -- ferret (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

No issue with using this as long as its clear its how MC labels it. MC is not saying 100% of all reviewers praised it, just that in a broad swath of reviews, nearly all praised it by the high scores given, despite maybe one or two outliers. As long as with identify who said it and out of wiki voice, we're not saying anything factually wrong. --Masem (t) 20:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Once again though, a non-gamer isn't going to understand that without it being explained to them, or them opening the Metacritic source and looking through that source to see their description. That's the issue that you all are seemingly overlooking. Also, ferret, there actually is a difference between Metacritic and your example of IGN. And how is it OR when critical acclaim means well received, and it is sourced to Metacritic, which it and the review table indeed shows that it was well received? --JDC808 ♫ 20:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that in any entertainment field, not just VGs, "universal acclaim" is not the same as "100% acclaim". There may be a few naysayers but they're in the far minority. It's a term of art appropriate for the field. --Masem (t) 20:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Metacritic doesn't say "it has critical acclaim". It says "it has "universal acclaim"". It's a direct quote, which is why we (Or at least I) put it in quotes. When you say "How is it OR if you can look at the review table and see its well received?" (paraphase), that kinda is the point. Deciding an opening statement of the reception (as individual editors) based on looking at the scores in a table is original research and synthesis. We began direct quoting Metacritic because it cannot be disputed on OR grounds, as it is directly sourced from and attributed to Metacritic, not some other variation decided by an editor, which was frequently being edit warred and POV pushed. -- ferret (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see where there is potential for ambiguity in the sentence currently in use, especially where the phrase is quoted:

  God of War received "universal acclaim" according to review aggregator Metacritic.

  But as for we're basically saying that putting Metacritic's claim of "universal acclaim" is okay, even though it's false, as long as we're creeping into original research, I don't see how it's questionable that this game has received critical/universal acclaim, even if (for whatever reason) you take issue with MC's assessment (95% of 83 reviews). No one reasonably reads the phrase literally as every single critic ever with no exceptions... If you want to do one better, a secondary source will inevitably (eventually) summarize this game's overall reception and you can use that instead of MC. czar 20:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• As long as it's directly attributed to MC, there is no problem. I prefer sticking to quoting it directly, or there's all sorts of OR-based issues that arise when editors come up with their own wording. Sergecross73 msg me 21:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

List of songs

Why song list articles like List of songs in Rock Band are not considered as WP:GAMECRUFT#7? Wouldn't they fall under the category "lists of gameplay items"? What makes song lists different from things like "list of cars from Forza" or "list of guns from Battlefield? Was there a consensus made long ago that excludes song lists from the list of things we should remove for being inappropriate? AdrianGamer (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between a list/table included as a component of an article, and an independently notable list. Not saying this case is, but something we might consider GAMECRUFT in a video game article might on its own be a notable list via WP:LISTN. -- ferret (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the general distinction is that we sometimes make exceptions for situations when its listing off the very foundation of what the game is all about. For example, while we don't usually do character lists, we may allow it for something like a crossover game, where the whole premise of the game is centered around how the two (or more) franchises are interwoven. Even how we handle songs kind of fits into this - we allow for a list of songs for Rock Band/Guitar hero because playing real-life songs is the whole basis of the entire game, but we don't allow for, example, the track list of songs in a JRPG like Xenoblade, because the songs are not the primary focus, and a list of songs doesn't aide the reader in any way when the song titles are rarely or never shown in-game. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much this. I think it this guideline should obviously be an exception for music games, and any other game where music (with track names) is the primary focus. Perhaps we document this in the guideline? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

If this is the case I think better documentation will bring no harm. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Then it's just a case of writing one that everybody can agree with. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"Platform video game"

I've been changing this on a few pages and met support and opposition. I think including "video game" in terms such as "platform video game", "action video game", "first-person shooter video game" etc is usually weird. To take "platform game" as an example, here's the rationale:

• All platform games are video games, so it's tautological - like writing "cat animal" or "hamburger food".

• "Platform game" is the WP:COMMON term. It is widely understood, accurate, concise, and natural. Meanwhile, no one in the universe says "platform video game".

• "Platform game" describes both the genre and the medium, so there's no need to state/wikilink both separately. This is similar to how a film article might begin "Movie X is a comedy film" with comedy film as a single hyperlinked term; linking comedy and film separately is unnecessary.

• OK, so maybe some people don't know that a platform game is a kind of video game, but so what? They can click the platform game link to figure that out. For example, the Titanic aticle writes that RMS Titanic was a British passenger liner, not "passenger liner ship". Same goes for the Roland TR-808 article, which describes the TR-808 as a drum machine and not a "drum machine musical instrument", even though some people might not know what a drum machine is; the beagle, which is a breed of small hound and not a "breed of small hound dog"; or the electron, which is a subatomic particle and not a "subatomic particle physical body".

As an aside, I see a lot of bloat in first sentences for game articles, particularly when it comes to lists of adjectives and genres. I'd like to see some more concrete guidelines in the MOS to protect against this rather than just the open-ended "avoid lead sentence bloat", similarly to how WP:MOSFILM does it. But I guess that's a different conversation. Popcornduff (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• 100% agree with all of your points. I feel like the "$GENRE video game" format comes from a time on Wikipedia when most of the genres didn't have dedicated articles, and we just kept the standard out of tradition. My only question is would we still add video game when "game" is not apart of the genre's article? For example, would we say "is a first-person shooter game developed by", "is a first-person shooter developed by", or "is a first-person shooter video game developed by"? I'd personally prefer the first option, the second option feels a bit weird and I don't think I'd support that, while the third option is the current standard and works fine, just maybe not ideally. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• I guess I support it on the grounds of cutting down on edit warring, but This strikes me as one of those things where I'd pick one arbitrarily when writing and then see people argue over which version is better. Either seem perfectly acceptable. Even "platformer" with a wikilink works. Any work on a technical level. So I guess pick one so people stop wasting time on this? Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Devil's advocate -- laser tag or paintball are also "first-person shooter games". Arbraska(watch the video) is a "platforming game". Blokus is a "puzzle game". D&D and LARPing are "role-playing games". There's an entire world of games outside of the narrow scope of "video games". Just my 2¢ Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Role-playing video game is its own article. Most subgenres, such as tactical role-playing game and action role-playing game, are both video game only and shouldn't be confused with non video gaming RPGs (tabletops mostly). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• I support this, been using "shoot 'em up developed by..." instead of "shoot 'em up video game developed by..." for a little while now. It's much more natural and almost all readers will understand. Those that don't can click the link. TarkusAB^talk 00:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• I've used both formats in FAs (and fwiw, I've written a lot of articles about platform games). It really depends on context from the rest of the opening sentence. If the rest of the sentence mentions a video game console/computer or something else video game-related, there is likely enough context to drop "video" from that first part. But if you're writing "X is a platform game developed by Y and published by Z", adding the word "video" simplifies a whole lot of potential ambiguity for a general audience. All in all, if we are to give advice to this effect, I'd sooner see something that advocates for contextualizing the subject as a video game (by any means) than the strict regimentation of what terms can be used in the lede. czar 06:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• As long as it's clear for someone who isn't knowledgeable already that it's about a video game, I don't think a specific wording should be required. By the way, I wouldn't know that "tactical role-playing game" is not a term used in tabletop as I don't play non-video games much, and wouldn't necessarily know that that was about video games without additional context.--Alexandra IDV^talk 07:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think you are missing the point here... See point 4 in the OP. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I dont think she is. That's more or less my stance too. I'm only supporting picking one to avoid the wasted time in bickering or whatnot. Conceptually, either seem fine with proper wiki-links. Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this. Terms like "platform game", "first-person shooter" and the like are not well known outside the technology sector. We cannot presume that people know these are video games or necessary infer that from the normal text we us. We need to identify that these are video games in the first sentence. --Masem (t) 00:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • See the fourth bullet point in the OP. Popcornduff (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Articles are meant to be standalone and should not rely on links to establish context (eg offline reading). --Masem (t) 15:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
      • So you would write "drum machine musical instrument", "hound dog", "subatomic particle physical body" etc? If not, what's the difference? Popcornduff (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
        • It all depends on context. --Masem (t) 16:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
          • What's the difference in context? Popcornduff (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
          • I would assume that "developed and published by", along with the infobox and just general context, would make the vast majority of video games immediately recognizable as such, and help differentiate "first-person shooter" from being a live-action game like laser tag or whatever. I too wish to know why those examples have context but video games apparently lack it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
            • Tabletop games can be developed and published (and by separate entities too). And while the argument about the platforms it was released for makes some sense, I still would think that for more obscure or older systems that those names would make no sense. Yes, overall, a well developed article about a video game with a detailed development section will be obvious that it is a video game even if this is not spelled out in the lede, but we have to be sure that the lede alone conveys that, without links or other presumptions. --Masem (t) 22:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support — “Video game” in “first-person shooter video game,” “platform video game,” “action video game,” etc. is redundant. It’s fine in something like role-playing video game since there are also non-video game forms of role-playing games. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 13:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

“Windows” or “Microsoft Windows”

Should video game articles refer to Windows, the operating system, as “Windows” or “Microsoft Windows”? (The title of the article is Microsoft Windows. Perhaps, if “Windows” is the common name, that should be the title of the article as well.)

Every video game-related article I’ve come across has used “Microsoft Windows” in the infobox and in the first mention in the body of the article. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 19:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Some context at the1337gamer's talk page. I think this discussion is similar to the one about about video game in lead sentences. Are users going to understand Windows to be Microsoft Windows in the context of video game articles? -- ferret (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I prefer "Microsoft Windows". "Windows" means a variety of things; "Microsoft Windows" represents one concrete thing that will never be confused with anything else. That's my two cents. JOEBRO64 19:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"Microsoft Windows" on first instance and infobox/tables; it avoids the issue we have with OS X/macOS presently. --Masem (t) 19:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: I concur. That seems reasonable. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 19:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I feel strongly that "Windows" is better. "Windows" is overwhelmingly the common name, it's natural, and in context is more than clear enough. Someone who confuses the term "Windows" with physical objects is going to have bigger problems than that when reading a sentence like "Sonic Mania is a 2D platform game published by Sega worldwide in August 2017 for Nintendo Switch, Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and Windows".

I don't claim to be a mind reader, but my suspicion is that the urge to write "Microsoft Windows", like "platform video game" (see above), comes from a misguided urge to be "proper" and "comprehensive" rather than a real consideration for how readers use Wikipedia. It amounts only to clutter. Popcornduff (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Microsoft" is only needed if the term "Windows" needs a natural disambiguator. Depends on whether it's listed alongside other operating systems, or near video game consoles, or near the term "PC". As for the article itself, it would reside at Windows if there weren't naming conflicts. "Microsoft" is added as a natural disambiguator. czar 03:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• "Windows" or "Windows PC" are far better than "Microsoft Windows". "Microsoft Windows" is unnecessarily long and reads less naturally in a sentence. There is no ambiguity or confusion of what Windows means when it is listed as a platform on video game articles. Video game sources use Windows or PC mostly. They rarely ever say "Microsoft Windows". The only reason editors on Wikipedia are using "Microsoft Windows" over "Windows" on video game articles is because the article is located at that title. The exact same thing happened with "Nintendo GameCube" before it was moved to "GameCube"; then everybody started removing "Nintendo" from the links just because they don't like redirects. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Not long ago I campaigned to rename Microsoft Windows to Windows because it's overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME, but got annihilated. Popcornduff (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    • They claimed it was due to natural disambiguation, but Windows redirects towards Microsoft Windows anyway. Even if we can't change the article title, it seems like most people here are in favor of going with just Windows for gaming articles, at least outside of first mention. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Shortcut names

Why do the shortcuts to this guideline begin with “WP” instead of “MOS”? This is a Manual of Style guideline. Shouldn’t the shortcuts be “MOS:name” instead of “WP:name”? Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 04:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Because this wasn't apart of the MOS up until a few months ago, and nobody bothered to change the shortcuts because doing so serves no purpose at best, and would break redirects at worst. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It would serve a purpose. I often use the “MOS” prefix when linking to this article and find that it doesn’t work. Perhaps, “MOS” redirects could be created with the obsolete “WP” ones still existing. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 05:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Almost all MOS guidelines have a variety of WP: based redirect anchors, as well as MOS:. There's nothing particular about it, and does not mean it carries any less weight as a content guideline. In reality, MOS guidelines are in the namespace Wikipedia (That is, WP:). There is no actual "Manual of Style" namespace. "MOS:" redirects are actually in mainspace. -- ferret (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@ferret: Aren’t “MOS” redirects in the article namespace? Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 12:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Mainspace = article space. -- ferret (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@ferret: Sorry, I misread. I thought you said that “MOS” shortcuts were in the Wikipedia namespace, but you actually said that Manual of Style articles were. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 12:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that its unnecessary. And I don't know about others, but personally, whenever both options exist, I almost always chose the WP version, out of habit, since there's so many more of those. (For example, I always link people to WP:ALLCAPS instead of MOS:ALLCAPS.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed with Serge and Dissident above, however I don't think anybody objects to the creation of equivalent MOS: redirects as viable alternatives to the WP: ones already in use relating to MOS:VG. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• We have to keep the old redirects, because there are just way too many uses in old archives and such. We can, however, add any MOS ones we feel are necessary. As mentioned above, WP: and MOS: are used interchangeably and are a matter of preference most of the time. I don't think we necessarily need' them, but they wouldn't hurt anything. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn’t say that we should delete the “WP” shortcuts. We could create “MOS” shortcuts and replace the “WP” ones on this page, however. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 14:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can propose "replacement" without "deletion" though. If the old WP ones are still around, its not really "replacement". Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I mean replacing them in the shortcut boxes on the page itself. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 15:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikis as external links

Why shouldn't Wikis be added to the section on inappropriate external links? We already had a discussion over this with consensus going with no, yet @Izno: is saying that WP:ELNO #12 allows for a number of cases and therefore it shouldn't be mentioned in this MOS. However, for the vast majority of gaming topics, we would not accept them as either EL or citations, so I don't see why the edit was reverted. Accepting them is the exception like the rest of the section it's under, so we should probably have clear rules about which ones are acceptable, rather than not mention anything at all. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• I honestly don't see the problem in including wikis as external links. WP:ELNO states that stable wikis with a substantial number of editors can be used. Furthermore, unreliable sources are supposed to be used as external links, if anything—they typically provide information that will interest readers but is out of our scope, which is why IMDb and MobyGames are typically linked in EL sections. Just my two cents. JOEBRO64 22:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The problem is how do you prove it's stable? Open wikis are 100%-user generated, and while IMDb and MobyGames are also the same, they both serve a specific, encyclopedic-assisting purpose (for casting/credits) as compared to the usually crufty, badly written trivia and gameguide/walkthough stuff that permeates video game-related Wikis. And how are unreliable sources supposed to be used as ELs? Where did you get that idea from? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    • It's pretty simple to see how it's stable. You click on the page history on the site and look and see: when were the pages last edited? Any edit wars? Dedicated wikis like Mario Wiki and Sonic Retro both are stable and have a substantial number of editors (not to mention that Sonic Retro has been acknowledged by Sega and some of their editors worked on Sonic Mania, btw). The Wikias are usually iffy because anyone can make their own random wiki (like "Super Mario Mod wiki" or "Sonic Dreams Collection" wiki) but are fine if they fulfill the boxes (examples of stable Wikias are Wookieepedia and DC Database). And where did I get the idea that unreliable sources are typically fine as ELs? Look at WP:ELYES. JOEBRO64 23:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Except both Sonic Retro and the Mario wiki have original research (for audio credits, but maybe more). And looking at edit history proves nothing, as that shows no evidence of editorial oversight, just levels of activity. And where in WP:ELYES does it say unreliable sources are allowed? Are you confusing point 3 for that? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. is what I was talking about. And IMDb and MobyGames also have original research and barely have editorial oversight. Your argument against using wikis makes absolutely no sense because you're saying they're not OK but IMDb and MobyGames are. JOEBRO64 10:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Personally, I would argue against the usage of MobyGames and IMDb for the same exact reasons. However, I recognize that they can serve an encyclopedic-purpose, which is unlike the vast majority of fan-driven game Wikis that focus on badly-written and uncited trivia and gameguides. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
            • Articles on reliable sources are also often poorly written. So that argument's not helping you. JOEBRO64 21:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• WP:External links is a content guideline, not a policy. There's no reason this MOS cannot provide more stringent guidelines, especially in light of how many fly by night random community wikis there are for video games. Official wikis, such as we see for Minecraft on Gamepedia, are often linked from official sites so ELMINOFFICIAL does apply. We should, in general, discourage wikis and the random flood of wikias and "my guilds new wiki" additions. -- ferret (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Right, the example of Minecraft could be used as an exception as to when it's acceptable, as it's both endorsed and linked to from the official website. Unofficial, fan-driven ones are no different than fansites, if not worse because at least they would usually have some sort of editorial oversight. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • We should not override a more-general guideline, mostly-ever. ELNO #12 allows for stable wikis. If someone is adding a wiki that is not stable, we do not and should not reference MOS/VG to remove it. --Izno (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    • But there is still no clear definition as to what is "stable" (is it high levels of activity, low levels of reverting, quality of writing?). I suppose that's my real issue with it, it's just too ambiguous. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
      • So you propose to ban them here instead of seeking clarification at WT:EL? :) That said, I think we all know 'stable' when we see it. Have you had particular issues? --Izno (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I only propose that for purposes of video games (this MOS), that the vast majority of Wikis as external links should not be allowed without being discussed on a case-by-case basis. It's the same as the rest of the section it was added to, which is why I don't agree with it being reverted. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
          • WP:ELNO#12: Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Your comment: the vast majority of Wikis as external links should not be allowed without being discussed on a case-by-case basis Can you show conflict indicating that this forked rule is needed? All content on Wikipedia is subject to the consensus process, even if it meets our other guidelines for inclusion. Can you show where there have been issues with the use of WP:EL directly to remove a link? Were those problems specific to video gaming? I doubt that you can, or show such. We don't need to guideline fork (and a fork it indeed is, as it differs significantly in intent from what ELNO12 actually says). For many or most of listed items in this guideline I added the link to WP:ELNO retroactively because our guideline asserted authority that which was another guideline's. (As it happens, some items are yet unlinked to WP:ELNO, and I have plans at some point to start a discussion on those.) --Izno (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Useful external links to wikis are far more the exception than the rule. I've seen maybe a handful of useful links in my time. Most vg wikis are unedited collections of cruft. The Mario wiki is among the better ones—and only for the exhaustive detail of plot/gameplay coverage—and I still hesitate to link it. The EL section is designed for encyclopedic resources: copyrighted media, repos of collected works, historical archives. These fan wikis are hardly close to that standard. czar 03:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The reason external wiki links persist as they do is because we a) have an interest in sending cruft away and b) the external wiki has an interest in receiving said cruft and c) they are mostly, or entirely, written (I use the word written here specifically, not generally) with the intent of being free content. They match and even enable our mission in all three of these points. That said, your point is a general point for WT:EL, not a domain-specific MOS. --Izno (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

    I don't think it's unreasonable to say that of all specific domains, video games articles are among the most likely to have EL wiki cruft. I see no issue in setting guidance specific to this domain. I'm also not particularly confident that adding ext wiki links beneath an article actually drives traffic or overflow content there in any consistent fashion. If someone wants to pull rank on guidelines to include a wiki link, that's their prerogative, but the general uselessness of linking many video game wikis is well within our purview to issue advice (which is the purpose of this page). czar 00:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

    I don't think it's unreasonable for you to provide some proof that the use of these links has caused some extended conflict specific to video gaming. No, you haven't provided that with your comment. I see issue with setting guidance specific to this domain because it isn't necessary and you have not shown it to be such. If your issues are only so general as "oh, I think it's a problem", then either a) this is not the page to be advocating for restricting these links further (nor, in fact, should you do so on any page) or b) it's not really a problem and should not have guidelines to that effect. We do not write new guidelines, much less fork old ones, without good cause, which has not been provided. ELNO #12 is already quite restrictive, for all that Dissident thinks it is ambiguous: The wiki must be stable and it must have a sizable number of contributors. --Izno (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

    What? I'm saying that in my experience editing widely across the encyclopedia, video game articles are more apt to add external wikis in the EL section than articles in other topical areas. It's an anecdote, but I won't be crawling the encyclopedia to provide empirical proof. Another anecdote is that I don't have examples of good video game wiki ELs because there is rarely a redemptive reason (WP:ELYES, if you want) to keep them.

    What wikis do video game articles normally cite? Wikias, Gamepedia, mariowiki.com/info.sonicretro.org, and then what? The dregs are MobyGames variants that might have screenshot galleries, but more likely contain nothing. And if other topic areas do have low-quality external wikis, they just aren't linked with the regularity of our vg ext wikis. The Wikias/Gamepedias are wildly inconsistent. I'd be curious to see examples of where you think they are usefully linked at the bottom of an article. I don't have a problem with linking mariowiki/sonicretro on case-by-case basis: their best pages are general archives and so provide lots of technical info we wouldn't, but only when their pages in question are not copyvio farms or simply reams of changelogs. I really don't see how providing guidance along these lines is either unreasonable or in defiance of the EL guideline, whose guidance clearly errs on the side of not linking low-quality open wikis and evaluating each on its own merits. Would you be opposed to using this page to show contrast between when ext wikis are useful and not useful to link? czar 10:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

    That all sounds very consistent with my experience over the years too, for what its worth. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Sequels

How much content should be dedicated in a game's article to its sequel? (Article in question is New Super Mario Bros. Wii, a current GA nom) Do we really need to mention and explain all the new features? TeraTIX 10:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless the new features or whatever have some particular relevance to the original game, no description is necessary. It's enough to say that a sequel came out. The stuff in that article is overkill of the type found in so many video game articles. Popcornduff (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Coverage should be proportional to coverage in reliable sources. And WP:WAF asks to include stuff like development and reception. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Popcornduff, any info about a sequel should be relevant to the original game. Release and a small summary of reception is usually all that is needed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Change redirects

I changed the listed shortcuts from WP:VG/DATE, WP:VG/RELEASE, and WP:VG/RELDATE to WP:VG/RD, WP:VG/DATE, and WP:VG/RELDATE. WP:VG/RD was recently created by me. I created this shortcut because it’s the shortest and simplest one of them all. Not all of them can stay, and ideally, there should only be two listed per WP:2SHORTCUTS.

Dissident93 thinks that I should reach a consensus, so I’m creating this discussion. Which shortcuts do you think should be listed in the “Release dates” section?

If only two, I would choose WP:VG/RD and WP:VG/DATE, as those are the easiest to remember. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 23:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have no opinion about which is better, but you should always get consensus (or check to see if there is on the archives) before making potentially large changes like this on a MOS page. These shortcuts have been around for years, with nobody ever having issues with them, so to just change them out of the blue usually causes more harm than good. And if we want to follow WP:2SHORTCUTS, then I just suggest getting rid of WP:VG/RELDATE, as it's the least common shortcut I've seen in use, and the same thing as WP:VG/DATE without the REL. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. I’ll be sure to start discussions in the future. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 01:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This seems like more meddling in things that aren't broken... Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:2SHORTCUTS, I removed WP:GAMETRIVIA and WP:CHEATS from the "Inappropriate content" as it has greatly expanded since it was primarily focusing on them two. Is there any issue with this? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"the publisher's and publication's names significantly differ"

Re: advice on |work= and |publisher= params, what's the virtue of keeping this phrase? It reads like we're suggesting to keep both fields unless the fields read |work=GameWebsite |publisher=GameWebsite Inc. when in reality there is rarely a need for the publisher field at all, especially when the work is distinct and wikilinked. The publisher field was meant primarily for citing books to be used alongside |location=. WPVG's history of using both parameters together owes more to superstition than to reason. czar 18:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Is it really causing any harm to fully flesh out references by including publishers for magazines? Maybe for websites it's less important and that's what we should mention in the guideline. Looking at a recent rescue (HeroQuest II: Legacy of Sorasil) I think it's actually a significant bit of context for readers that three of the sources were published by Future and two by EMAP. Plus in the case of Amiga CD32 Gamer we have an article on the publisher but not the magazine itself. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly how it should read, for multiple reasons. A) FAC and its citation consistency. B) Websites change hands and sometimes their reliability goes with the new owner. C) Not all sources are online and the majority of offline sources don't have the duplicated publisher-work combination. D) Not all sources we use have wikilinks, so their ownership history is not trivial to understand. And there's probably an E) You don't know if/when a source will need disambiguation until after there's a second source lying around with a different publisher. I rarely use the publisher myself because many of our sources do have GameWebsite and GameWebsite Inc., but enough don't. --Izno (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

"Websites change hands and sometimes their reliability goes with the new owner": The publisher field is most likely to cite the wrong publisher for the post's era. re: salv, sure, publisher fields make somewhat more sense for magazines, especially those without their own bluelinked articles, but I'm talking about 30+ ref articles that all say "Engadget. AOL." like the publisher is providing anything more than clutter. In the Amiga example, the title should redirect to the publisher's blurb on the magazine, if the publication has any import. But in any event, keeping the publisher has more to do with addressing ambiguity in the citation than with whether |work= and |publisher= significantly differ in name. The former is already covered in the guideline, so why is the latter needed? Re: izno, if the issue is source identification, we're much better off encouraging |issn= and |oclc= identification than adding the publisher information, both of which are more often used as identifiers in periodical citations than whoever happens to be their publisher at time of publication. Not sure what you mean about citation consistency as defense for keeping the phrase—I've been more often encouraged to remove the |publisher= field at FAC when unnecessary than to keep it. czar 16:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Actors in plot summaries

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed MoS change: actors' names (not) in plot sections

Gist: MOS:FILM and MOS:TV are in conflict about whether to give actors' names in plot summaries.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Future releases of released games

What exactly is the proper way to go about future (announced) release information for an already-released game, especially when it's mixed with the existing info? For example, Civ 6 is getting a Switch port. Do we add the date, do we add the platform, do we add the category? Is there supposed to be some sort of note? I can't find anything in the MoS for mixed cases like this. Or is there any sort of Wikipedia-wide guideline on future products? I quickly looked through talk archives, but don't see anything obvious. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd just mention the platform and release in a development/release type section. Add to the infobox too. You can allude to the release vaguely in the lead, but specific release dates are generally not put in the lead as to keep it from bogging it down with endless release dates. Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Just make sure these announcements/release dates are sourced in the body. Too many people forget to do that. (like with Civ VI here...though I'm about to add the source). --Masem (t) 13:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

To add to this, usually for game articles that include the platforms in the opening sentence that gets ported to other platforms after release, I usually will change that and omit platforms there, instead placing them where it can be better explained that they were not released at the same time. So for example, a game for the PS4 that gets ported to Windows later would go from "Generic RPG is an RPG developed and published by Game Company for the PlayStation 4" to "Generic RPG is an RPG developed and published by Game Company. It was first released for the PlayStation 4 in October 2016, and later ported for Microsoft Windows in September 2018". Perhaps I overexplained it, but you get the idea. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed MoS change: BLP policies

Some discussion on a few discrepancies I've seen in the BLP articles in this space:

• Infoboxes: Dyrus uses {{Infobox Pro Gaming player}}, but Ninja (streamer) {{Infobox Twitch streamer}}, despite both being former-pros now-streamers. Which to use?
  • Whatever they are better known for. If it's about 50:50, then I guess go with the first to give them notoriety? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree. Derek M (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes. The name of the infobox doesn't matter. Just pick whichever box supports the fields which are notable to show for that particular person. There is inconsistency on infobox use across wikipedia. TarkusAB^talk 19:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• Professional gamer's positions: In articles for traditional sports it is not uncommon for an athlete to be introduced in the lead for playing a specific position, such as "Tom Brady is an American football quarterback." This makes less sense for eSports, example: "Doublelift is an American professional League of Legends AD Carry player." Even if you're an avid video game fan you might still not even know what an AD Carry even is.
  • Get rid of these in-game roles/positions until we have a section on some article we can redirect to that explains this. This is already how quarterback and any other sporting position is done. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
    • There's probably some scope on e.g. First-person shooter and MOBA for a brief description of in-game roles. --Izno (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Right, I was planning to do a position/role section on the MOBA article a while ago, but never got around to it. And while carry and support are basically the same in any LoL/Dota-style MOBA, I'm not sure how detailed we should be with specific game roles, such as offlane in Dota (which isn't used/doesn't exist in other MOBAs). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
        • A specific point on Dota: the solo offlane, which is what I assume you mean by "offlane" is a creation of two factors: the unequal lane "lengths", wherein the creeps meet closer to one side's tower than the other and past the river which is another ganking path, creating greater safety (possibly unique to Dota); and a certain meta where it was better for the offlane position to be a solo (namely, the 3-1-1 meta). That meta has recently fallen off (I don't think there was a single game at TI8 with a 3-1-1; there might have been some 2-1-2s with an early roamer from the offlane, but that's something highly-specific). There was an interesting reddit post in the past day or two on the meta of farming priorities which reflected on the laning meta, and I think there was another reddit post a week or two ago about the laning meta itself. Do no other MOBAs have unequal lengths or other factors creating an imbalance? --Izno (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
          • As far as I know, no. Most other 3-lane MOBA maps try to be more symmetrical, so Dota is unique in that aspect. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
        • But, yes, I would be careful with getting too much into the weeds here (WP:VGSCOPE). --Izno (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• Some agreement on how a "tournament results" section should be done would be good. Take a look at three players who used to be on the same team -- Doublelift, Bjergsen, and Dyrus -- tournament results section looks different on all three. Whatever we choose, we need to keep in mind that, even for a single article, we may want to switch between highlighting specific games (like "Team Liquid won 1st in the 2018 NA LCS Spring Playoffs, defeating 100 Thieves 3-0 in the finals") or if the results weren't too good simply summarize a group of matches in a single entry (like "CLG placed 12th in the spring season").
  • There is already some level of consensus over at WT:VG to remove these result sections for individual players anyway. Team-based results are not an individual accolade or honor, and should be written as prose in their career section instead. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with this. How much consensus is required for MoS proposal? Derek M (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
      • WP:PGBOLD and see if it sticks is usually how I deal with PAGs. :) --Izno (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments and additions welcome. Derek M (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)