Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Clarification of "notable" awards bodies

I'm happy to see the updated guidelines for awards at WP:VG/AWARDS, but I'm seeking some clarification as to when an awards body is considered notable. I assume they are almost always considered notable if they have their own article (i.e. The Game Awards, British Academy Games Awards), but is that the only pillar for notability? I assumed notability could also be determined individually by reliable sources (e.g. Variety reporting on the Game Audio Network Guild Awards, The Hollywood Reporter on the Guild of Music Supervisors Awards), not strictly by red links (as in this edit), but perhaps I am mistaken. In any case, I think the guideline could be altered slightly for clarification. – Rhain ☔ 05:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If we have non-press release, independent coverage like those, but not enough for notability, that's still fine. For example, we recently got rid of all the NAVGTR award articles, but the awards were still covered so they can be included. We just want to avoid "IGN Game of the Year" type ones. --Masem (t) 05:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
That's what I assumed (and agree with, FWIW), but I've noticed that Axem Titanium has removed all non-article award bodies from several lists, which is not quite what the guideline says. Some of the removals appear justified, but certainly not all, such as those linked above. – Rhain ☔ 05:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the NAVGTR awards qualify as notable. The articles were deleted because reporting on press releases of award winners is churnalism. I don't see how you can then turn around and say that press coverage of NAVGTR winners is noteworthy or reliable. As far as I can tell, having an article is an uncomplicated bright line litmus test for achieving the goals that this guideline set out to do, namely stop awards sections/lists from ballooning to inordinate lengths. Perhaps Dissident93 has thoughts, as a co-author of the guideline? Axem Titanium (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the NAVGTR Awards, I'm referring more to those linked above (Game Audio Network Guild Awards, Guild of Music Supervisors Awards) and others (Brazil Game Awards, Italian Video Game Awards, New York Video Game Awards). I personally think that an awards body (not an individual publication's awards) merits inclusion if it is discussed by a reliable source, like those linked above. – Rhain ☔ 07:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Are they discussed by reliable sources? Or are they just reposting press releases? If an award is notable, it warrants an article. I think that's a clear and unambiguous criterion that everyone can point to and say that it makes sense. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Masem, just becuase an awards body does not enough coverage to have an article that does not mean they are inherently non-notable. Game Audio Network Guild Awards, NAVGTR and the like should still be included within the award tables. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you point to significant, reliable, and independent coverage for all of these awards? NAVGTR was just deleted because although it had reliable and independent coverage, it was determined not to be significant because it was all churnalism. I'm not saying that lacking an article indicates that they're "inherently non-notable" (although it's a strong indicator). I'm saying that these three awards are in fact not notable. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Taking the NAVGTR awards, while there's no in-depth coverage to give them articles, the fact that sites at least point out they are happening and not just reiterating the press release (eg: [1]) at least shows there's some merit to this specific one. It might mean that the tables may be sourced to press releases which is fine as long as that's not the only type of sourcing in the entire article (for overall notability purposes). If we really need to, we can always make up a list of awards that should be include or those to be excluded from a table, coming to consensus on edge cases like these. --Masem (t) 17:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Merely pointing out they exist does not constitute significant coverage to me, even coming from an otherwise reliable source. A 200 word article like that is the definition of churnalism---barely edited rewrites of press releases. Wikipedia already has a standard for determining notability. For what purpose are we redrawing the line here? Axem Titanium (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Right, I'm not saying the NAVGTR are "notable" but they have enough attention in the vg press that while the bulk of their coverage is just reporting the press releases, that still means the vg press still see some value in those, and thus I feel they qualify broadly under a "notable" award. But if that's causing a potential issue, then the better solution is just to make a short list of what awards are generally value to include in such tables, just like we have with VG Reviews, (including the possibility to add more over time), and eliminate the question of "what is notable". --Masem (t) 18:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
If we only include jury-voted awards and require them to have reliable third-party citations (which eliminates their own press releases and self-published articles), then it should make this pretty simple. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
This was my thinking. – Rhain ☔ 23:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
(ec) That feels to me like a solution in search of a problem, and it also entails signing up to maintaining another hardcoded source list that has distinct criteria from WP:VG/S, which is already a tremendous administrative lift. The heart of the issue here is that some editors want to include certain awards in awards tables in contraindication to the guidelines from the VGMOS. In an effort to justify this, should we really be inventing some new category of notability wherein the awards are not notable themselves but they meet some nebulously defined preponderance of throwaway/trivial coverage? It seems like a weird and niche exception to be slicing out for not a lot of gain. Per WP:PWIH, the clearer and more unambiguous the rules are, the better. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The MOSVG part about awards was added to get editors to stop adding awards from IGN and Gamestop which aren't "jury-awarded" which was bulking up some of these award tables. I mean, we do want to avoid the awards that a random industry trade group award that no one has ever heard about before, but just because a trade group or its awards arent notable for WP doesn't mean the awards don't have importance within the industry. That's what we should be trying to judge before deciding whether to include or not. --Masem (t) 20:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
It's hard for us to measure "importance within the industry" from the outside looking in, especially without sources that establish that importance. If our guidelines have the side-effect of excluding industry awards that no one has ever heard of, that's a (mild) shame but I can't say that it's worth bending over backwards like this to ameliorate. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The whole point of WP:VG/AWARDS was to prevent website awards (Like IGN, Eurogamer, etc) and only allow "jury-awarded" awards. As long as these awards the winners/nominations are usually published in RSs and are jury-awarded they should be included. It should not have to meet GNG levels of notability to be included. Having a maintained list of accepted awards seems excessive. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling this going this hard is going to shread some of these awards tables to bit. Let's take The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild as an example. Going through the list:

    • Game Critics Awards - Based on the NAVGTR AFD, this probably should be deleted too. So this is gone
    • Japan Game Awards - Same
    • BBC Radio 1 Teen Awards - Already questionable
    • fr:Ping Awards (based on the fr.wiki) also looks like it would be deleted if we had an en.wiki article following NAVGTR.
    • Titanium Awards - Same
    • New Your Game Awards - Same
    • NAVGTR- Already mentioned
    • Italian Video Game Awards - No article and based on the source, its a press summary, so would be gone
    • Famitsu Awards - shouldn't be on here already as just a magazine award
    • CEDEC Awards - again, mostly from press releases.
  • I'm not saying we can't use a strong metric here, but we have to be award this is going to basically limit most of our awards to Golden Joysticks, GDCA/IGFA, DICE, BAFTA, and the Game Awards. I think that is unrelistically thin. The industry/journalism sees others, but just hasn't given us enough to write about them in great depth for a standalone article, and just because year after year we're only seeing the reporting that looks like press release repeating doesn't mean its not an important award. We do want to avoid the ones that no other source beyond the organization itself is reporting on. But when Gamasutra (for example) publishes the NAVGTRs over something like the Game Critics Awards, that's saying something of relative value. Hence why I think we are better off setting a list of what can be and can't be includes, using "notable award" as guidance but not being that closed off. --Masem (t) 20:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    Like I suggested above, we could simply include ones that are jury-weighted (all of these seem to count already) and have third-party coverage, which eliminates self-published articles and press releases. If they pass these two qualifications, then anything more is overcomplicating the situation and has a net-negative result, IMO. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    But I am reading between-the-lines that the coverage of NAVGTR (for example) is basically considered regurgitation of press releases, which would make them ineligible. This is where there's a point of confusion may be at. I agree about self-publshed press releases, but third-party ones published by our RSes are fine. --Masem (t) 00:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    My sticking point is exactly that. From one direction, we have an absent press who can barely be bothered to write 400 words on an award. It's just clicks for them. From the other direction, we have self-congratulatory publishers. "Over 100 awards and nominations!" they proclaim, no award too small to pat yourself on the back for. It is challenging for us to say what is considered actually prestigious within the industry. I think having an article is a good litmus test. Golden Joysticks, GDCA/IGFA, DICE, BAFTA, and the Game Awards are all fine. Of the three en.wiki articles you linked above in the list, I think Game Critics and Japan Game Awards are fine and would survive AFD based on their relationships with E3 and CESA. Not sure about Titanium Awards, hard for me to say. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Relevant concurrent thread: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia:Awards_and_accolades czar 03:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to get a clearer consensus for this. I don't think anybody disagrees that awards should be jury-voted, but, beyond that, it appears that we have three suggested options for determining if an awards body is notable enough for inclusion in a list:

  1. The awards body has its own article, therefore presumably passing WP:N (The Game Awards, British Academy Games Awards).
  2. The awards body is covered by third-party reliable sources but does not necessarily have its own article. Just because it's notable one year does not mean it's notable the next; it all depends on reliable coverage (GANG Awards, GoMS Awards).
  3. The awards body is mostly covered by self-published press releases (NAVGTR, Italian Video Game Awards).

My personal preference is 2. The first option seems more in line with WP:CSC, but I think the second (which seems closer to the proposed guideline) is fairer for our growing industry (compared to the massive film or music industries). I'm definitely against the third option; that's just inviting trouble. – Rhain ☔ 01:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, I'd like to come to a consensus as well and will go with whatever is decided. With respect, it's not "our industry" and editors don't owe coverage to 'up-and-coming' awards in order to be fair. My main frustration is churnalism masquerading as reporting and getting cited on Wikipedia as if it were a reliable source when it isn't. If we can agree that merely reporting on award nominees and winners is basically the same as a regurgitated press release and meets the definition of churnalism, then #1 and #2 are functionally equivalent to me because the churnalism sources wouldn't qualify as RS.
The issue with allowing awards to proliferate on Wikipedia unchecked is that they easily feel more prestigious than they actually are, merely based on the fact that it's an award oooooooo shiny. Anyone can make up an award and get some trophies engraved. This is in fact how the Golden Raspberry Awards got started. But being a shiny award does not confer inherent notability; the Golden Raspberries probably did not achieve notability until the 4th ceremony by Wikipedia standards. People in fact make up awards all the time in order to profit off of the name recognition of the nominees (e.g. Gamers' Choice Awards [2]) without actually conferring prestige. That's why I think jury-voting maybe isn't the most precise criterion either. Technically, website awards are jury-voted, but the jury consists only of website staff. You don't actually weed out website awards with that requirement.
At the end of the day, I think the only sensible criterion is if reliable sources demonstrate that the award itself is notable and confers prestige. If the sources show that it's notable, I don't particularly care if the award has an article or not. Hell, I'll make the article myself! I just don't want churnalism to pass itself off as reliable and undermine the principles of RS and GNG. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
If it wasn't clear, I support 1, which is essentially the MOSFILM standard, as described below by Czar. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I’m aware that we don’t “owe” coverage—I was hesitant to even write that sentence because I knew that exact point would be raised—I just wanted an example of why we could consider the video game industry to be on a different level to film and music (and therefore why the guidelines may not overlap so neatly). – Rhain ☔ 07:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
No problem. I think the games industry is mature enough to not need special treatment compared to other mediums. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 1. Follow the film standard: "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability." Nothing preventing anyone from paraphrasing secondary sources in prose, but for purpose of sections/full articles for award lists, we don't need to have rows for awards that aren't established within the industry enough to have their own articles. czar 06:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • "Because of the proliferation of film festivals and "award mills", festival awards should be added with discretion, with inclusion subject to consensus." There it is. If I had known that the MOSFILM was so clean cut on this issue, I would have cited it as an example sooner! Axem Titanium (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Just noting that I don't have any issue trimming down to only notable awards if that's consensus, but I would still recommend we document that list here (adding if any new or existing award gets to be shown notable) so that there's no questions that this is the extent of what we include and why. That also will help editors for older games to look for past awards as necessary. --Masem (t) 06:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Would the Video game awards category technically work as a list? Any video game award that has its own article should exist within that category, and it wouldn’t require the work that a manual list would. – Rhain ☔ 07:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 1, but only if awards that fall under 2 can be added to prose. Any examples under 3 should be omitted for both. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2. The original prosposal was simply to remove website awards from the list and option 1 would strip far too many noteworthy awards from tables which is not helpful for the reader. It is understandable why MOS:FILM has that standard of only including awards if they an article. However the film industry has been mainstream far longer than the VG resulting in a plethora of awards. The same cannot be said range cannot be said of the VG industry. Perhaps sometime in the future it could be changed to option 1. Side Note, it seems NAVGTR ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) and the Italian Video Game Awards ([8], [9], [10]) would fall into option 2 as opposed to 3. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 09:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    I think it is incorrect to read the originating discussion in its whole as to mean only the first paragraph of that discussion. --Izno (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the best option is 1 + individual discussions of awards. As pointed out, a lot of coverage of awards is basically just regurgitated press releases and don't really suggest notability, certainly not via a threshold we'd ever consider for GNG. I don't think awards need to have their own article, especially if that's just encouraging stubby articles about awards most no one cares about, but there should be a higher threshold than what we have, which has at this point encouraged massive listcruft for every AAA game coming down the pipe these days. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I am happy to see item 1 or 2 (though I'm not generally a fan of awards at all since they are some sort of cruft). Item 3 is a no-go. I think I'm uncomfortable rejecting awards in item 2 as they also should have some WP:WEIGHT assigned (if they are reliably sourced third-party/independent reporting). Maybe that lines me up with David Fuchs? --Izno (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • A point to ask to make sure: would the logic here also apply to prose? Eg while there's a bunch of other things in this diff [11] one change is deleting a whole paragraph of non-notable non-website award drops. Just making sure that this is also the intent. --Masem (t) 00:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
    • A criterion for GA/FA is brilliant prose. I trust that any editor who is serious about improving an article would not allow a massive laundry list of awards to stay in the reception section. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Oh, I agree that from the GA/FA site, that paragraph wasn't going to work. My question is more, we don't want to flood these tables with non-notable awards, and we don't want to have massive paragraphs like that either, but are we also say that even if one could write these non-notable awards in prose without having any prose quality problems, should they no be included per the above? Which also leads to the case that if a smaller may have gotten some of these awards - reported in RS by repeating press releases like with the NAVGTRs - and stripped those out leaves the notability of the game in question, do we delete the game's article? (I doubt we'd ever have that case, but I'm just tossing that possible scenario out). --Masem (t) 20:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Speaking not as a matter of policy but in terms of what is most conducive to improving an article in the long run, I think letting the awards section balloon out in prose is tolerable in the near term. It's not always clear what awards to mention would make the most sense to highlight or make the prose flow best while an article is still in an unfinished state. It isn't until someone is motivated to bring the quality up that it becomes more clear. So in the interim, I think it's fine if gnomish editors (e.g. Angeldeb) fill the section with sources over time to give other editors extra material to work with later. The reason I draw a distinction between prose and a table is because the latter is more ostentatious, prominent, and difficult for new editors to parse and improve if they want to (wikitable markup is baffling nonsense!). When something goes into a table, it looks Important, even if it's not and that's why I think there should be more restrictions on it. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Which is reasonable, I'd just make it clear that in prose, if included we should be avoiding awards only brought to the forefront by third-party sources, to show that at least there's some "importance" to the award for the RS to repeat the award announcement. --Masem (t) 21:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"Write about story elements from a 'real-world perspective'"

The video game MOS includes this instruction:

Write about story elements from a "real-world perspective". Do not use a perspective from within the game world ("in-universe") or describe fiction as fact. E.g., not "Link awakens after hearing a telepathic message from Zelda", but "The start of the game shows Link waking after hearing a telepathic message from Zelda".

It seems to me that the "incorrect" text is how we should be writing our plot summaries, for a few reasons:

  • It's simpler, shorter, and more direct.
  • In the context of a Plot section, "The start of the game" is useless. If it's the first thing in the Plot section, readers will understand that this event happens at the start of the story.
  • There's no danger of real-world confusion here. Again, contained in a Plot section, readers aren't likely to think we're describing anything other than the events of the plot.
  • Descriptions such as "The start of the game" take the focus away from plot and onto things like structure and scene transitions.
  • It's inconsistent with how Wikipedia generally writes plot summaries (such as those of film articles).

I don't think this is a good example of using a real-world perspective and only promotes adding unnecessary text to plot descriptions. Popcornfud (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is an issue. The context for the story elements doesn't necessarily have to be in the plot section. Really the only major considerations would be for articles that would start with plot details, which seems very uncommon (versus a gameplay section and then general synopsis.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, the advice that Link awakens after hearing a telepathic message from Zelda is how not to write story elements is, imo, very bad advice when writing plot summaries, which is where this guideline will be often used. Popcornfud (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
It's a bad example but not necessarily for that reason. The bulk of games - as with most work, follow a linear story, and its not necessary to tie events to "start of the game" or the like, but when elements like in medias res or flashbacks are used to kick off the story, it is necessary to state these literary conventions from an out-of-universe perspective. I cannot think of an immediate example in games though I am sure there is such where this is needed. (For example, it's not needed on Shadow Complex but the game opens on a tutorial section that is a very brief intro to the story where you play briefly as a powered up character before you are captured/killed but in terms of keeping the synopsis short, it is not necessary to even touch in our coverage). --Masem (t) 20:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
But that's no more true of game plots than it is of any other media. I must have written hundreds of movie plot summaries at this point and there is very, very rarely any need to write "The film begins with" etc. In fact I can't think of a single example ever where this has been necessary. Popcornfud (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
When I read these lines this morning, I agreed that neither is beautiful writing or preferable. I'm not sure what they should be though; Popcornfud perhaps you can provide an alternative? --Izno (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The fundamental problem is that the two examples have nothing to do with the ostensible point of that section, which is that articles must be written from a real-world perspective. Link awakens after hearing a telepathic message from Zelda is no less written from a real-world perspective than The start of the game shows Link waking after hearing a telepathic message from Zelda.
Crowbarring in references to "the game" is not how to enforce a real-world perspective. Because the "bad" example is written in the historical present tense, it's clear that this is an account of a fictional story. Only in rare situations would this be confusing, and it's basically never confusing in the context of a plot section. See WP:FICTENSE.
The do's and don'ts of writing about fiction from a real-world perspective are comprehensively listed at MOS:INUNIVERSE, and none of them correspond to the examples given here. We should remove these examples and link to MOS:INUNIVERSE instead. Popcornfud (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Guideline proposal: video game development

Video game development is a topic that is growing in scope here. I propose that we should have guidelines for how to structure these respective articles. I (and Rhain) broached the subject at a recent discussion over article structure for Development of Grand Theft Auto V. I have written a draft guideline at User:CR4ZE/MOSVG-development, which you of course can contribute to or discuss below. I'm also raising the question of whether we should come together for some guidelines on video game series articles, as I believe the structure of these pages would be unique from individual game articles. — CR4ZE (T • C) 12:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm broadly in support of providing MOS guidance for these articles provided that it also makes very explicit guidelines for when it is appropriate to split vs. when it's better to condense and remain in the main article. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The only real reason we split some of these development articles off is due to page size, so I don't see why they require new/different guidelines. However, series articles could probably use some unique ones. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Then a strong reiteration/prose explanation of existing guidelines as part of the preamble. I think only in the most extreme cases is a split necessary for a development section. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
To my mind, it's important to frame these discussions around independent notability as well as page length—a combination of both. We have clear examples like Duke Nukem Forever, L.A. Noire and No Man's Sky, where not only had the topic grown to be disproportionately long (necessitating summary style), but the development process therein was clearly notable. This is a hard reading of SPLIT. As above, I feel the topic of game development will continue to grow in scope and MOS additions are necessary. It's reasonable to have clear guidelines on when, if necessary, to split and when to condense instead. Perhaps we could say somewhere beyond ~60% readable prose of the parent article would be a fair case for splitting (I think that's a safe estimate and don't see the need for an exact figure). On the question of independent notability, if it approaches such a length, then naturally the topic of development itself has been covered by RS enough to meet GNG. Dissident93, just because guidelines already exist, doesn't mean they can't be improved. Curious to hear more input about series articles as well; we could use some high-quality examples to model guidelines. Fabula Nova Crystallis, God of War and Persona seem to be the best as they've had the most recent FACs. — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I think both notability of the development itself plus size concerns would be necessary and sufficient criteria for a split. I don't have a particular problem with any of the examples you gave. I also agree with D Fuchs and Joebro below that we should generally discourage splits to the broadest extent possible. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
We really shouldn't be recommending page splits of development sections. Lots of games have long developments, but so do tons of films (which can spend decades in preproduction) and we try not to split those off. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't have many problems with it, but it should be made clear that this should not be normally done and should only be done if (A) the development cycle is a notable topic on its own and (B) it would create a WP:SIZE issue to try to include it all in the main article. I'd include existing articles, like development of Mother 3, as examples of this. (This is also something that's done at the film project, like with Production of Justice League (film).) JOEBRO64 16:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I've made some guideline additions here for both development and series. Seems to be a general agreement so far that development splits must meet both notability and size considerations. Can't help but wonder where this would leave an article like Fez. Might be worth auditing all 17 pages insofar to establish consensus on the reach of this topic. @David Fuchs above: "We really shouldn't be ..." according to who? I understand avoiding splits as a general rule, but WHENSPLIT (not policy, mind you) outlines that there are examples that should be at least considered/proposed. I'm sure we could find many games/films currently that could be at least considered for a split (it would be a by-case basis). To all, do we need to pursue an RfC at some stage? — CR4ZE (T • C) 01:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm personally not too huge a fan of the series section. Some series have long, sprawling histories with all sorts of developers, gameplay styles, characters, and varying reception and incorporate tons of non-video game media so the approach you suggest just doesn't sit well with me. For instance, when I wrote Sonic the Hedgehog (a current GAN), I elected to start with history, then story, then characters, then gameplay, then music, then other media, and then reception/legacy. I think your proposal needs to reflect that game series that are also massive franchises, like Sonic and Pokémon, often should be treated differently. JOEBRO64 02:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The proposed addition strikes me as overkill. Guidance like "History: Provide an overview of the game's development, with relevant dates outlining key milestones during development." is self-explanatory and will lead to readers skimming the guidelines. I'd recommend collapsing most of the MoS's current "Layout" section to instead list suggested headings: "Sections in standalone development articles can include: Game engine, Art/graphics design, Gameplay design..." The only elaboration should be for advice that isn't straightforward, such as not needing specific sections if they have no content to justify them. Will also say across all "Layout" examples that it's much more effective to link model articles than it is to describe extract some kind of universal typology from their sections. A short paragraph on advice specific to writing Development articles sounds fine though. czar 02:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This discussion seems dormant, but I should add here that the initial discussion arose when I noticed that we have a section at WP:VGLAYOUT for settings—for which we have 11 articles—but not one for development articles, of which we have 18. Whether or not that's a strong enough argument for inclusion is up for debate, but I can't help but feel that the settings section has become a little obsolete as the project has become more vigilant against cruft. Regardless, I think a section on series articles is justified. – Rhain ☔ 23:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

OpenCritic - What's up?

Hello,

I'm new here and seem to be continually getting dinged for using OpenCritic as a source. I believe that OpenCritic is a reliable source and has been strongly verified by the industry at this point. Some of their integrations:

Epic Games Store

Humble Bundle

Newzoo, a leading market research firm that I've seen frequently cited here

Bethesda used them in their Doom Eternal accolades trailer earlier this year.

Fanatical and GamesPlanet, two smaller retailers.

I'm just confused why I can't add them as a source. I like their perspective of having reviews for all platforms in one place and offering a better perspective on games with their "percent recommended" metric. MomentHeart (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There's yet to be a concrete consensus as to whether OpenCritic is reliable or not. I personally think it is, fwiw. JOEBRO64 11:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
There’s long-ranging disagreement on whether or not we need another (often redundant) aggregator present. Sergecross73 msg me 11:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
This again? Its reliability was never really in question, instead its usefulness (either in addition or in place of) Metacritic is. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
They're not redundant. On Ghosts of Tsushima, there's a 2-point difference in score, which is substantial considering the narrow range of AAA video game "average scores." OpenCritic also gives useful information such as the percent recommended.
And even if they were slightly redundant, is it fair to exclude one for the other? OpenCritic is clearly an industry player now, as evident by their support from Epic Games, Bethesda, Newzoo, Humble Bundle, games journalists, and online retailers.
I think a WP:NPV would list both. We give WP:UNDUE to Metacritic when there's another established player that does offer subtle but important differences. MomentHeart (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
It’s been argued at length. You’re going to have to come up with something more persuasive than... “a 2pt difference is significant”...or the conversations just going to stall out again. That’s not even a good argument if this was the first time it’s been brought up. Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
That's completely straw manning my argument.
The edits I wanted to make that brought me here did not even include the average score:
Ghosts of Tsushima is ranked in the 92nd percentile of games on OpenCritic, with 87% of critics recommending the game.
Doom Eternal is recommended by 97% of critics on OpenCritic.
The percentile metric and percent recommended metric are not available on Metacritic. The percent recommended metric is the headline metric on Bethesda's accolades trailer, and it's prominently displayed on the Epic Games Store.
Furthermore, I still assert that it's giving Metacritic undue weight by not allowing another established industry player. WP:UNDUE MomentHeart (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to agree with MomentHeart here. The approval rating OC offers is totally different from the average score MC has. I've said this before, but I'm going to say it again: the film project doesn't consider RT redundant to MC, does it? No, both sites offer different information. The same thing applies to OC's approval rating. JOEBRO64 15:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Strawman? Guys, I’m not even arguing a point with you. Someone asked “what’s up” and I informed how prior discussions played out. My point is that the argument here isn’t much different than the ones that didn’t get OC into use the last few times. It’s much like the recurring “how to we reorganize the generations” discussion. They’re lengthy and stall out. And if you reopen them without a new argument, they just stall out again. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Where would I raise this? When someone reverted my edits, this was the page they referred to. MomentHeart (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
They pointed you to the right venue. It’s just that...you just framed it as a question. You titled the section “What’s up?” If you want want to propose change, you want to, you know, write it as a proposal. And see if you get a WP:CONSENSUS. (or not.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'll write a better proposal. How do I mark this thread as resolved (if appropriate)? MomentHeart (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Allow OpenCritic's percent recommended score to be used when describing the reception of video games.

Argument 1: OpenCritic has become an established source in the industry.

With this in mind, it is hard to argue that OpenCritic is not a trustworthy source. It's clear that numerous parts of the entire industry respect and trust OpenCritic.

Argument 2: OpenCritic's percent recommended is meaningfully different from the Metascore.

  • a) This metric is meaningfully different. This metric is a percentage of critics that recommend the game, not the average review score. For example, Rock of Ages 3 has an average score of 72 but a recommendation percentage of 45. Doom Eternal has an average score of 89 but a recommendation percentage of 97.
  • b) This metric includes reviews that aren't numeric. Publications such as Eurogamer, ACG, and GameXplain have clear, non-numeric verdicts included in this metric according to OpenCritic's FAQ.
  • c) This metric includes many more publications. Looking at The Last of Us Part 2, OpenCritic has 164 reviews, while Metacritic has 117 reviews. OpenCritic has a difference between "Top Critics" that are included in its average score and other critics that the administrators have deemed to be reputable publication teams.

Argument 3: Excluding OpenCritic gives undue weight to Metacritic.

At some point, we risk giving undue weight to Metacritic by excluding OpenCritic. We cite and quote a variety of sources when describing the reception of the game in order to give readers a sense of critic consensus. We should also do this for aggregators. Imagine if we only quoted IGN's reviews for the reception blurb when available; doing so would lead readers to believe that IGN was the only critic of note. We quote other publications even when the reviews make similar or identical comments.

For that same reason, we should include OpenCritic. We should not lead readers to believe that Metacritic is the only aggregator of note. We should quote the only other meaningful aggregators to give readers more confidence in a diverse perspective.

OpenCritic will never be as big as Metacritic given Metacritic's lack of focus; Metacritic also aggregates reviews for Movies, Music, and TV Shows. However, I assert that OpenCritic is big enough to warrant a callout to readers.

In Conclusion

OpenCritic is a trusted aggregator in the industry that provides a meaningfully different perspective on video games. Excluding them denies readers the chance to understand and digest a wide array of different aggregation techniques, standards, and processes.

MomentHeart (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Nobody (that I've seen) has made a case that OpenCritic is unreliable, but rather redundant as it uses the same general list of publications as Metacritic and therefore ends up with the same overall score despite its "percent recommended" scale differing. Is there an actual point to having the same score be listed twice in 99% of cases? In cases where "We quote other publications even when the reviews make similar or identical comments", we're supposed to make a generalized statement attributed to no specific publication, so even in this example they aren't exactly the same. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
But it's not redundant. The "percent recommended" score uses a completely different criteria. Anno 1800 has a Metascore of 81, but is recommended by 96% of critics. Shadow of the Colossus has a Metascore of 91 but has the same 96% recommended. Red Dead Redemption 2 has a Metascore of 97, but is also 96% recommended.
Films show both the Rotten Tomatoes percentage and the Metascore. This feels very similar to me. MomentHeart (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
If we are to only list the recommendation percentage then perhaps this would work, otherwise the weighted average of all three of your examples is still within 1 point of the Metacritic number and falls right back into being redundant. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
This proposal is specifically for the recommendation percentage. MomentHeart (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • One difference OC has compared to MC is that it collates all reviews for a game and doesn't split them up by platform. This can be both a strength and a weakness - sometimes a game releases on multiple platforms, and reviews are scattered between them, leading to MC not assigning a score due to too few reviews on a single platform, while OC counts all the reviews on a single page; on the other hand, sometimes a game has major differences (design or performance) between the different platforms, and rightfully gets received differently on them, which MC accounts for but OC does not. I do think using both of them together may have value because of this, with OC giving a general view of all versions, and MC giving overviews for specific versions.--AlexandraIDV 04:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Opposed - Per prior stances on redundancy. The scores a vast majority of the time are extremely similar scores. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I address that in an entire section. Can you please add more substance to your opposition?
These are not redundant scores.
I'm not suggesting we do the average score, which is usually between 70 and 95. I am suggesting we do the Percent Recommended score, which is from 0 - 100%. MomentHeart (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Android games - why not specify platform?

I don't quite understand the reasoning behind generalizing the platform for games released on Android-based platforms to simply "Android" in the infobox. It isn't much help to the user knowing only that a game was released on Android since, for many instances (Ouya, Shield, etc.) games have separate non-identical Android releases, and in other instances games are not available for other Android devices at all (Super Mario Galaxy on Nvidia Shield TV). Xbox consoles run Windows, however we don't generalize the platform to simply "Windows". (JOEBRO64, apologies for reverting your revert. I didn't initially see your link to this MOS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by StieRite (talk • contribs)

What terminology should be used in reception sections?

Hello. On articles regarding games that were known for its negative reception (i.e. the first Final Fantasy XIV, Sonic 2006), the "panned" wording might be a potential WP:POV/WP:SYNTH problem. Similarly, articles on games that use "critically acclaimed" like Final Fantasy VI might also be a problem.

In this case, the aggregate sources (i.e. Metacritic) and reviews should speak for themselves (i.e. "overwhelming dislike", "mixed or average"). That said, I have a question: to maintain a neutral point of view, should we use cited terminology from Metacritic in the reception sections and the lead? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Should gameplay screenshots be aligned to the left or right?

I decided to bring this to the project's attention after a discussion with Popcornfud on my talk page, which you can read here. It's an interesting question so I thought it should get some discussion here. JOEBRO64 21:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Some comments:
  1. Whether images look better right or left is not particularly relevant (except, apparently, for properties of the thing being pictured itself, such as a person looking one direction or another). "Knocking the text out of alignment" being bad is an opinion. We have many things that change such alignment, and anyway it can't be guaranteed where the image will end up (see bullet #2). I do agree that images should support prose, but most often that is at the beginning of the section; rarely is it the case that an image will not support the prose immediately coming thereafter in the page source (wiki or HTML).
  2. You (general) cannot assume the size of the reader's display these days. I might be viewing something on a 2k-wide screen right now and a 400px-wide device later; the characteristics of the Things In The Viewport can and will change as a result. (Resolution is not the only characteristic that will change; we have a half-dozen supported skins and I can guarantee at least 4 of them are in wide use, 2 by default and 2 for various power users.)
  3. This pattern most likely emerged because infoboxes are right and would otherwise push the image down below the text where it does make sense. (See also MOS:SANDWICH for some paragraphs of reading.) Things do not need to occur because of some considered consensus; consensus is also generated by the hundreds of editors doing whatever they think looks best, and is just as valid until some consensus-measuring activity (such as an RFC) indicates that practice is invalid. See WP:Consensus.
--Izno (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Clarification on Release Date

So, I was doing some research into the release date of Ms. Pac-Man, and came across a strange scenario I wanted some feedback on before proceeding.

While we have reliable sources confirming that Ms. Pac-Man "debuted publicly" on February 3, 1982, this source indicates that this was "in typical showbusiness style at a press conference at the Castle Park Entertainment Center in Sherman Oaks," and clarifies that "[t]he game is expected to appear in many video arcades during the next few weeks." This release date, which is currently used for the article, is neither the date of general availability (GA) nor the release to manufacturing (RTM) date. Instead, it appears to be a post-RTM, pre-GA "pre-release" event for press, which I would argue does not constitute a "release date" per Wikipedia standards. (My understanding is that Wikipedia's preferred "release date" is the RTM date, as searching "release date" redirects to the RTM section of the above article.)

The author of the article I cited above, Benj Edwards, confirms in a blog post that his source for this date was the latter of the two sources I cited, the 1982 article from the Los Angeles Times. He also notes that, as of February 3rd, 2017, Wikipedia listed the release date of Ms. Pac-Man as January 13, 1982. He disputes this, and mentions that he interviewed Ms. Pac-Man's creators, GCC, and they didn't know what that date referred to.

The date of January 13, 1982 was sourced from the US Copyright Office's Public Catalog, which lists the "Date of Publication" as "1982-01-13" and the "Date of Creation" as simply "1981." (Registration number is listed as PA0000140275, for reference.)

Further complicating matters, Bandai Namco officially considers Ms. Pac-Man's release year to be 1981, as evidenced by the official Pac-Man website's History section and the existence of the Ms. Pac-Man/Galaga Class of 1981 arcade cabinet, which released in 2001 to celebrate the game's 20th anniversary, then re-released in 2006 for the 25th anniversary.

Given all of this background, which of these dates, if any, is the "release date" that should be used? 1981 (Date of Creation), January 13, 1982 (Date of Publication), or February 3, 1982 (Public Debut)? I'm not confident that any of them is equivalent to an exact RTM date. It's possible that late 1981 may have been when manufacturing started, but that the Copyright Office's Publication Date lagged behind a little (>2 weeks.)

I also asked on the Ms. Pac-Man talkpage, but this seems like the type of niche issue that might be worth bringing up here. Pacack (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This might be better aimed at WT:VG, no? This is quite a niche place to post this. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the suggestion. I wasn't sure where to ask, but thought maybe this was a matter of simply clarifying what "release date" we formally use. I'll ask over there also. Pacack (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Number 16 Age and content ratings

Why aren't age and content ratings listed in the infobox or elsewhere in the article? Where was this discussion had? Dream Focus 03:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:VGSCOPE #16. Found two discussions [12] [13]. Usually only included if the rating has recieved coverage reliable secondary sources e.g. ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 03:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
This is also consistent with the Film project, which does not include movie ratings for films unless the rating is a subject of commentary. --Masem (t) 03:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion back in 2012 said the rating in the infobox had no meaning since it was different in different nations. Three people voted to remove it so it was done. Dream Focus 03:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I mean you're welcome to start a proposal here or on the template page about it. After all consenus can change.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 03:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The age restriction bit is different in different nations, among other things. The advertisement for FINAL FANTASY XIV I keep seeing on Facebook, shows the following rating when I hover over it: ESRB Rating: TEEN with Blood, Language, Sexual Themes, Use of Alcohol, Violence. Visit www.esrb.org for rating information. EU Rating: PEGI 16. The website for PEGI [14] mentions encouraging the use of tobacco as a reason, while the ESRB does not. And of course them mentioning "sexual themes" apparently is just from a camera angle showing a girl's short skirt. So that is misleading since most see that would assume something sexual in it other than some brief upskirts. So no, not suggesting either of these flawed systems be used in the infobox. If they had a single universal standard which actually made sense, be a different story. Dream Focus 06:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone this is about video game releases.

On the release dates it states games released in PAL, but as countries are no longer using PAL, should this be changed? most countries are converting or already converted? thankyou! EzeeWiki (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Use of journalist names

Understood. Snowball withdrawn. TarkusABtalk/contrib 00:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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

I propose the following addition under the reception section of the MOS:

Unless a critic is notable, omit mentioning critic names in prose. i.e. Official Dreamcast Magazine wrote that... instead of John Smith at Official Dreamcast Magazine wrote that...

To be clear, I used to be an advocate for names, but my opinion has changed. My reasoning is:

  1. It is more difficult to read a reception section using critic names than publication names. Many readers will have familiarity with websites and magazines, but not individual critics. Whether their name is John Smith or Jane Doe gives no helpful information. I know I find myself hopping around trying to keep track of which journalist is writing for which website or magazine.
  2. Journalists professionally represent the publication they are writing for. I feel the use of names stems from a creeping concept in gaming circles to profile critics, or validate/invalidate reviews as preferences of certain critics. While I understand a critic can have an opinion, it must not be forgotten that the critic is hired/paid by the publication, is edited by the publication, must abide by terms of the publication. Unequivocally, their work represents the publication in a professional capacity.

Please share thoughts below. TarkusABtalk/contrib 04:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. In my experience, it's easy to include both critic and publication name in every instance; for example, Jane Doe of IGN in the first instance, and IGN's Doe thereafter. IGN is an organisation of dozens of writers, not one individual, so I'm not comfortable attributing one opinion to the entire company or publication. (Reviews can be written by freelance writers too, which gets even messier.) It's like the classic Twitter bio says: "Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer". It's also important to note that some reviews (especially for older games) are written by several different writers, often with differing opinions. And Reception sections don't only use reviews, either—The Last of Us Part II, for example, quotes a review from Vice's Rob Zacny and an opinion piece from Vice's Emanuel Maiberg; assigning both of those opinions simply to "Vice" would feel like false and unprofessional misattribution to me. Same goes for Red Dead Redemption 2, which cites the Polygon review from Chris Plante and a Polygon-published retrospective essay from freelance writer Film Crit Hulk. If some articles choose to omit names, that's fine, but personally, I don't want this in the MoS. – Rhain ☔ 05:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If clumsily written, I agree it can be awkward to read through, but well-written reception sections with good breakdowns or concice prose don't have to be difficult to read. And I don't agree about the profiling bit, we're giving credit to them as the writers/researchers of these pieces just as much as we do the writers of previews and other articles in Refs. For some magazines like Famitsu and Edge, I agree it's easier to omit simply because of how their editorial style works, but those shouldn't be the rule unless an author can't be found. Also Rhian's point about different critics writing for the same website/magazine stands. In addition, I'd like to point out that critic reviews are an opinion, and some magazines and websites like Game Informer, IGN and GameSpot either had or have multiple journalists writing separate reviews for the same product, either through second opinion articles that might merit inclusion or multiple versions getting individual reviews ala Fire Emblem Fates; omitting names will make this more confusing for readers. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutral to Weak Oppose I agree with this personally, but I don't think it warrants a firm guideline. It can be addressed on a case by case basis, with whatever suits the prose. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose To me, its a style choice, as long as the WP editor is reasonably consistent when they are used and avoids cookie-cutter sentences in that way (eg avoiding "so-and-so of Y said..." each time. Restricting it would not be proper. --Masem (t) 15:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Generally speaking, I don't think your average reader cares who at IGN writes a review, they just care that it's from IGN. I know that the way some people write their reception sections that it's easier to use writer names, so I'm not necessarily advocating "banning" it altogether. But I dont particularly think it needs to be encouraged, and feel very strongly against requiring writer names. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't think anybody is suggesting that they be required (or even encouraged), just that they not be banned outright, as this proposal suggests. – Rhain ☔ 22:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Unless it's a publication's board of editors, a person writes an article, not the publication itself. Said person can move between publications, which is fairly common in the video game realm. Omitting their name would needlessly obfuscate such information.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose basically for the reasons Rhain outlines. Sometimes Person X's review actually does represent the "official" view of the publication, but often it doesn't. There's not really any great consistency in other media about this stuff, but banning it outright is not going to lead to better reception sections. If a section is hard to follow, cutting things down from "X's Y" to "X" isn't going to make it much less hard to follow; that suggests that there's not enough smart organization and summarization going on. On a more personal basis, I don't think there's a good reason to strip names from people's creative contributions (and good reviews should be seen as creative work), and it can honestly be useful to see exactly who you are quoting (if everyone you're highlighting in prose is a man, for instance, I think that merits consideration on refactoring things if possible.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. My main issue with this is similar to what David writes directly above. I think it’s a bit rude to reduce a journalist to their publication. Journalists are not their publication—they are employed by the site or outlet to provide their qualified view with editorial oversight. IGN does not have any feelings; their writers do. This isn't a reader-positive change because a bad reception section doesn't improve when you strip away the names of the people who wrote the reviews. Editors are free to exercise their own judgement in this matter. If some editors want to use publication names, that's fine, but it seems to me a pointless obfuscation of labour. There are all sorts of technicalities that this will necessarily be tripped up one, too, prompting more questions and clarifications that just don't need to happen. On League of Legends, some publications re-reviewed, with completely different writers. One of the game's earliest reviewers (in a small outlet) later wrote a large profile of the game for The Washington Post. Will most readers notice these? No. But making it that much more difficult to spot, and dehumanising journalists in the process (already a visible issue in the industry), isn't appealing to me. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:55, 10 July 2021 (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.

Cover

Hi! I just wanted to ask, is there a consensus somewhere to use "pure" cover art (i.e. those without any logos for the developer/publishers/ESRB ratings) over those plastered with logos? The documentation currently did not clearly state this. For instance, do we prefer the cover that was obtained directly from the game's official website (one that has logos of the devs/ESRB ratings), or the one which was obtained from secondary sources like IGN or Giant Bomb but has no logos? OceanHok (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:VGBOX (If the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, art without any platform-related logotypes should be used where possible either from an official source or by editing the cover picture in order to create a platform-neutral picture.), we prefer logoless cover art. Hope that helps. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 12:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I am referring to the logos of the devs/publishers/ESRB ratings, not platform-related logotypes. Currently the guideline said that The only editing that should be done to the original art to achieve this should be the cropping of platform banners and not the removal of any platform specific logos, publisher logos, 3rd party icons, etc. on the art itself. This doesn't explictly say that whether we should be encouraged to replace cover art plastered with logoes with logoless version of the same cover whenever possible. OceanHok (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh right I see. I personally think we should aim use completely logoless art free of devs/publishers/ESRB ratings logos where avaliable. But we should see what other editors about it, before amending the MOS IMO. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I personally don't mind cover art without the ratings and company logos, but there is historic value of the original cover art. For example, Team Fortress Classic was one of the covers I didn't agree with 100% because its artwork implies it is a modern game, or at least that its still receiving significant updates. For modern games, I do think it's good to find alternatives, but I disagree with replacing the older ones if they look too different.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
There are some exceptions of course, but most of the time we should use the official cover arts directly. That's why they are called cover arts. We already use the covers of other media products without changing them in any way. Video games are no different. ภץאคгöร 12:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Merge of Fandom and Gamepedia

Hello! So recently, Gamepedia and Fandom have pretty much merged at this point. As far as I know they are no longer separate and are now just under the Fandom branch. I think it would be wise to remove the link to Gamepdia for the reason of them having merged. If I'm wrong about them merging let me know. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarification about double quotes for video game levels

The recent addition about double quotes [15] is good addition as many RSs often do the same but could we have some clarification about using it. Do we use double quotes on first occurence in the lead then continue without double quotes (like in The Silent Cartographer), or do we continue using it throughout the rest of the article just like we do with italics (like in No Russian)? Also does this also apply to multiplayer maps or fictional cities? Just looking at Category:Video game levels it seems somewhat split with some levels ignoring double quotes (like The Goat Puzzle, Green Hill Zone, World 1-1, Blood Gulch) and some just using italics like Le Serpent Rouge puzzle and Half-Life 2: Lost Coast. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: Ping Masem for input as Masem added the addition in the first place.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 10:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I think you need to use quotes throughout, particularly with the Silent Cartographer as a prime example as it is the name of both the level and a character/device within the level itself. Level names should be treated like book or song titles for all purposes, when it is specifically about the level, but if you get to a point where the level and location are used nearly interchangibly, like City 17 from Half-Life 2, then the quotes for the level may become more distracting as well as difficult for precision since I don't know if there's a really an exact level called "City 17". --Masem (t) 17:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Conflicts with the notability guideline

This isn't going anywhere and doesn't benefit anyone. Closing. JOEBRO64 14:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Since I'm here, I might as well point out that it has been brought to my attention that there are several parts of this guideline that talk about notability in a manner that is in direct conflict with what the formal guidance at WP:N tells us. WP:N clearly states in several places throughout the guideline that it is intended for use to be applied to the creation of articles, not content within them. It even has a section dedicated to this fact at WP:NNC. This project does talk about notability correctly in some places such as WP:GAMECRUFT part 1. where it says that non-notable game articles are not allowed. This is ok. However, part 8., 13., 15., and 17. have been written in a manner that suggest notability governs the content within the game articles. This is in direct conflict with the notability guideline, and causes confusion, as well as conflict among editors. This is just an example of the GAMECRUFT section. There are many other examples throughout this entire project, and it needs to be rewritten to be consistent with, and conform to the prevailing standard for notability. I suggest a high level RfC regarding the matter... Huggums537 (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you're a little mistaken in your interpretation here. There's nothing wrong with using notability of content to determine the inclusion or exclusion of content. In fact, it's one of the core tenants of WP:CSC. Sergecross73 msg me 23:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Yup, nothing at WP:N says it cannot be used at a project level (like we do) to further restrict content, as long as there's consensus for that, of which this MOS has come from years of development at WP for that purpose. Also keep in mind that while notability itself doesn't always restrict content, policies like WP:NOT do, and most of those parts of GAMECRUFT derive from one or more considerations from WP:NOT. --Masem (t) 23:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
We don't have to have anything at WP:N that tells us not to do this, but we do, (mentioned above), and we also have it at other places including Core content policies where it tells us right up front that: Wikipedia's content is governed by three principal core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. And, speaking of lists, even the governing content bodies there intentionally exclude notability for a reason: WP:SOURCELIST. If NOT is the the governing principal guiding those parts of the guideline, then they need to be rewritten to reflect it properly rather than improperly making incorrect reference to misapplied notability. Huggums537 (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with my "interpretation". The guidance at WP:N is very explicit and specific about not using notability for content: The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article., These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list..., Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists, The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists that restrict inclusion to notable items or people).. You are the one who has failed in your interpretation because WP:CSC refers to the notability of lists and it is still 100% crystal clear from WP:LISTN that notability applies to the group, not the individual items. In other words, the article, not the content. Even the "core tenant" you linked to refers to the notability of articles as they exist in a collective group within the context of the whole article or list (i.e. "every entry meets/fails notability". This does not support the idea of notability governing content within articles or lists by any stretch of the imagination as badly as you may wish it to. Huggums537 (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to be honest, I'm not following you at all, nor do I think that it's plausible that one of the most active Wikiprojects in existence would have an a widely cited MOS that happens to have all these violations for years that no one's ever pointed out before until today. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure, just like it's not plausible that an entire group of experts at NASA could not possibly happened to have made conflicts or violations which contributed to the Columbia space shuttle disaster. Could never happen. Not even plausible. Huggums537 (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's perfect or infallible, I just don't follow your argument. Nor do any if the first four people to respond to you. Best of luck getting through to someone. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The MOS exists as another guideline about the contents inside an article. There is no conflict: consult WP:GNG when deciding whether to create an article, and consult this manual of style when deciding how to present the topic appropriately. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
If one guideline says don't do this, and another guideline says let's do this, then that is the very definition of a conflict. Huggums537 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Certainly there are lots of guidelines and policies about content, including Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is really the foundation for how to cover any topic appropriately. I went ahead and replaced the confusing term "notable" with "coverage in independent reliable sources. In short, WP:NOT is the reason we avoid creating exhaustive tables of weapons, items, voice actors, patches, re-releases, or the like. However, an article might discuss a specific weapon/item/actor/patch/release/etc. in prose, if that feature has truly been the subject of reliable third-party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Your edits seem like a step in the right direction, except they still feel like notability requirements, just rewritten to avoid the word "notable". For example, notability requires significant coverage in secondary sources, but can you tell me which part of NOT where this is required? It's very hard for me to see how we are implementing a requirement here based on the NOT policy where there isn't actually any requirement for it while the requirement does exist in the notability guideline where we are told not to apply it to content... Huggums537 (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
It's a fairly obvious synthesis of our policies
  • If WP:NOT says that an encyclopedia article doesn't include a complete directory of these things
  • If WP:OR heavily discourages any synthesis of information from primary sources
  • If WP:VERIFIABILITY says we try to rely on independent sources with a reputation for editorial oversight and fact checking
  • If WP:NPOV says that we cover a subject in proportion to how much they are represented in reliable sources
  • ... then how could we legitimately write an article any other way? Again, we don't have complete lists of items/weapons/levels/patches/releases. But we do sometimes cover individual examples of these, where they have gained coverage in reliable independent sources. This is a summary of current best practices. This manual of style has been around longer than most of us have been editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
You still haven't shown me where NOT or any of the other policies you referenced say that significant coverage is required by sources. That was my actual question, and I feel like it has been unanswered. Huggums537 (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
It's a substantially bigger problem that you can neither convince anyone of a problem nor propose any sort of concrete solution. That's a terrible combination. If anyone needs to switch gears, it's you, or this discussion is just going to stall out. The onus is on you to get a consensus that there's a problem to begin with. You have not done this. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
That sounds like just more avoidance of the question. I suspect it is because the answer lies in the fact that the the only place where there is guidance to support significant coverage to be required by sources is WP:N - the same place that tells us not to apply it for governing content within articles. I'd like to reiterate that I think the changes you made make it seem like we are now just simply hiding the fact that the rules here are still about notability by just removing the words and language that made it obvious before. This does not actually fix the underlying problem. It only covers it up so it is less obvious.... Huggums537 (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "Reliable" and/or "independent" sources are the core of nearly every Wikipedia guideline and policy, and is fairly easy to find with a simple search. That includes this guideline, which has been stable for more than a decade. Most other editors seem to understand it, despite your initial concern of editor confusion. Content guidelines are meant to be descriptive of consensus best practices, and you'd be hard pressed to find an article that doesn't follow the guidance set out in this manual of style. I'm starting to agree with other editors that your conduct here is testing the limits of good faith, and I'm going to disengage at this point. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Not I fully understand the complaint. 8 (Cost) makes no mention of notability policy nor links/references it. The word noteworthy appears. 13 (system requirements) is using the word notable, but it's not a reference to WP:N, but the literal meaning of the word. Replace it with noteworthy if you like to avoid potential confusion? This could also reference UNDUE like some others do. 15 (non-notable soundtracks) does reference notability, but not in deciding what is notable, only describing how to handle content that is otherwise already deemed non-notable (Or rather, simply hasn't been deemed notable yet). 17 (release edition tables) is like 13, again using the word in it's common English manner rather than as a reference to policy. The wording can easily substitute synonyms if required. The words "notable" and "noteworthy" here are not references to policy, but the common English usage of those phrases, and essentially is a reference or nod to the concept of undue weight. (And as is abundantly denoted already, WP:NOT) -- ferret (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Even "noteworthy" is bad terminology. The applicable guidance for this uses the link WP:NOTEWORTHY for a reason. But, thank you for at least recognizing the confusion. Huggums537 (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Regardless, in the end, there is no policy/guideline conflict, just a dispute over the language in use. Let's stop arguing the semantics. It's clear to familiar users that this doesn't refer to WP:N policy, but I can acknowledge the potential confusion. If you want to achieve a meaningful change... What is your preferred terminology to describe this concept of whether particular content is suitable for inclusion, in relation to WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE, both content guiding policies? -- ferret (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I seriously doubt it's simply a matter of being a dispute over language. Otherwise, there would not be other editors already having argued that it is "ok" to use notability as a reference to governing content. That clearly demonstrates this absolutely is a debate about guideline conflict. However, I absolutely agree the language being used for the content inclusion should reference NOT and DUE as opposed to N. Huggums537 (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I'll try one more time, otherwise I don't think this discussion is going to result in any changes: What is your preferred terminology? In the case of 8 Cost, for example, how would you reword it to avoid the potential confusion over noteworthy/notability? What is another way we can impart the meaning "taken note of by reliable sources"? -- ferret (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
My intention here was not to propose any specific change, but to provoke thought, and perhaps be the provocateur of some type of action. This seems to have worked out well so far considering one editor has already made a change, and another (yourself) has recognized some of what I'm talking about. Truthfully, if it were up to me, I would avoid "taken note of by reliable sources" all together, and just stick to what NOT/DUE/NPOV actually say rather than trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by trying to pretend like we can somehow use the notability requirements under the other policies instead... Huggums537 (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok, then I don't intend to engage further. I'm not interested in thought exercises. Demonstrate a specific issue and offer possible solutions, and I'll return to provide comment. -- ferret (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comments from broader community

This is a request for more input from a broader subset of the community regarding the above referenced discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Video_games#Conflicts_with_the_notability_guideline Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Notability doesn’t concern itself with content, just whether or not the article should exist.
Notability is the extreme special case of core content policy WP:PSTS, the extreme end where there are simply insufficient sources for any content.
If you want to limit content, refer to the language at WP:PSTS. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The language at PSTS says that articles should be based on secondary sources and these sources are needed to establish notability for the topic. How would we use this to limit content? Huggums537 (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
If the material has no secondary sources, it should not be included. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Does that policy need to be rewritten to say Wikipedia content should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.? Because the word "article" here could have more than one meaning. And, what is the following part Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability about in relation to a topic? Is that supposed to mean an article topic or a content topic? If it is about an article topic (as it should be) then why would the policy suddenly shift gears from talking about content in the first sentence to talking about articles in the next? And, if it is about content topic, then why do we have a policy telling us secondary sources are needed to establish notability for content when the notability guideline says it doesn't apply to content. See the dilemmas? Your P&G are written in such a way so as to be able to be interpreted in multiple ways including ones where there is are inherent conflicts. Does that support the idea of requiring "significant coverage" of these sources the way it is being done in this guidance? There is a big difference between requiring content to be based on secondary sourcing, and requiring "significant coverage" of sources. Huggums537 (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
No, I don’t see the dilemmas. I see that you do. Can you point me to an example? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
You're now the fifth experienced editor to tell them there's no dilemma/conflict. This is bordering WP:IDHT. Sergecross73 msg me 11:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I am boldly removing the RFC tag. You say above that you fancy yourself a "provocateur" and "not to propose any specific change". That's cool, you can go do so on your blog. RFCs are not for "please come argue with me about Wikipedia philosophy." If you want to re-open this discussion here, please only do so if you have a concrete proposal. SnowFire (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2021 (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.

Borrowing advice from MOS:FILM

While this is not a real problem that I see on VG articles, I think it would be worthwhile to add a section similar to MOS:FILM's WP:FILMMARKETING in that sections in development, release or marketing should not simply say that "A trailer for a game was released on <date>." It is fair to say when a game was first formally announced as well as if there was teases or rumors that were well-documented ahead of time. If there are notable trailers or marketing aspects that can be discussed beyond mere existence, that can be documented as well. But otherwise, we should avoid simply dating trailer releases without any further interesting commentary.

This would have an impact that we should be try to avoid certain news (unrelated to first announcement) tied to other events, such as Nintendo Directs, E3, etc. If a game has a delay, and it was announced during an E3 stream with a new date given, its unlikely important to note that the delay was specifically mentioned during E3, but simply around June that year. This is something that I do often see is the unnecessary inclusion of these points in time, which is related to avoiding the excess marketing details. --Masem (t) 01:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this gets into a level of detail that's unnecessary, with few exceptions. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
100% support this. This is the problem with Wikipedia being written in realtime, as editors tend to lack historical perspective and thus stuff like this gets overlooked as the game releases and ends up being kept in articles for months/years despite barely being notable in the first place. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Except, notability isn't supposed to apply to stuff "...being kept in articles for months/years despite barely being notable in the first place." per WP:NNC. Huggums537 (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
It might be a separate guideline (WP:RECENTISM) but it still applies. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. RECENTISM is clearly talking about articles (where notability is concerned), not sections, subtopics or other content within articles, and neither should anything else that refers to notability. If it suggests anything else it needs to be rewritten to avoid confusion. Huggums537 (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not particularly helpful to harp on every time an editor uses the term "notable" to mean "worth mentioning". Make that substitution, and his comment makes complete sense. We are still allowed to use the term in the traditional English language sense as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
It's also not particularly helpful to pretend that an editor is just using the term "notable" to mean "worth mentioning". when it is abundantly clear they are not. The fact they responded with WP:RECENTISM to backup their comment is proof of this. So, nope making that substitution does not make his comment make any sense at all unless you take the single comment out of context - something the Wikipedified seem to be fond of doing around here... Huggums537 (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
That being said, I will add that your point has been duly made about not harping on every time other editors use the term "notability", and I shall drop the matter considering my RfC has been shut down so it's pointless to continue the debate further. Huggums537 (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Question: I rarely would add something as mundane as
"Game X's first trailer was released on September 30th. A second trailer was released October 2nd"
But I would mention it in conjunction with other developments, like:
"Game X's first trailer was debuted at the Tokyo Game Show on September 30th, where it was announced as joint project between (company) and (company). On October 2nd, they released a second trailer that revealed that the game was already 40% complete and the developers were eyeing a worldwide 2022 release date."
My understanding is, if we adapted something like this, that the former would be discouraged, but something like the latter would still be okay, right? Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I would even omit the trailer part of that, because trailers are expected parts of release news, but those dates are relatively key production/marketing data points to be kept (first announcement of a game, and its development progress). Obviously, when trailers have their own type of notability or attention (and to that end, like Goat Simulator's parody of the Dead Island trailer) that would be worth mention, or like that Keanu introduced CP2077 at E3 as well as his role in it, but the average run-of-the-mill trailer shown at E3/etc. is a mundane and expected thing nowadays. --Masem (t) 14:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Gotcha. Sometimes I add a bunch of that stuff to unlocalized JRPG articles, and if they never end up being localized, there's not a ton more to add when it comes to development info. But actually looking back at some of the articles I had in mind, I didn't tend to mention the trailer part after all, just the nuggets of interest publications took note of from them. So I'm fine with this. I've also questioned how important it is for editors to shoe-horn mentions of trailers and Nintendo Direct announcements into dev sections. As you say, there are special cases (when an indie game like No Man's Sky or Good Job! gets major attention that indies don't often get) but it's less important that, yes, the tenth Mario game fir the Switch was announced in a Direct, just like the first nine. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, just while the point of announcement of a game is very relevant, an editor needs to consider if where that announcement was made to be as critical. Nintendo Directs are not as "special" compared to an E3 showcase or as a reveal at the Game Awards, for example, but I don't see the harm in the three to four words to mention that as part of the announcement ("Suchandsuch Game was first announced in June 2021 during a Nintendo Direct"). But its like, when a game gets a delay or a port announcement for the Switch via a Direct, that's where a problem is. A lot of editors get hung on on dates of announcements about upcoming dates, and those dates and modes of announcements are rarely necessary, outside of delay aspects. And even for delays, we should come back after all the products are released to rework that and summarize better, a product delayed, say, 4 times over, we don't necessarily need to hit each of the four delay points unless each is a significant point of discussion. But this is a lot of stuff that does get covered in the day-to-day media reporting on games, hence why it ends up in our articles. --Masem (t) 14:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I think the goal is to avoid getting too pedantic within articles, and we shouldn't be too pedantic here either. The obvious is: we try to avoid cataloging every marketing announcement / material released as part of the game's promotion, but you'll never get into trouble for having a sentence summarizing the who/what/when/where of the marketing overall. Everything in between can be a matter of discussion, and the guideline is meant to support that. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I basically would want to take the language MOS:FILMMARKETING presently has, and simply readapt in terms of video games without adding anything more to it. Any specific cases beyond what is not covered is stuff for discussion on talk pages. Eg where that MOS for film talks about Cloverfield, we could talk about Bioshock Infinite's pre-teasing campaign (one I know off hand that was discussed). --Masem (t) 15:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Their language is pretty good. Examples are useful, but shouldn't belabor the point. From a recent good article, the mention of N7 Day in the rollout of Mass Effect Legendary Edition is a fine example of how to cover marketing, without crossing over into WP:NPOV/WP:ADVERT/WP:UNDUE gushing about every marketing activity. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Just chiming in to voice my support for the proposal. Some trailers do generate significant commentary (Watch Dogs and No Man's Sky came to mind), and some trailers may be notable when a game in development has resurfaced after several years of silence (e.g. Beyond Good & Evil 2 and Bayonetta 3). These should definitely be the exceptions. OceanHok (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Japanese titles

Hello. I have a concern about the Japanese titles. For example, on Sakura Wars (1996 video game), the official title is Sakura Wars as indicated on the cover art. The opening sentence was [recently changed to]:

Sakura Taisen, (Japanese: サクラ大戦, lit. "Sakura Wars") known as Sakura Wars outside Japan, is a cross-genre video game developed by Sega and Red Company and published by Sega in 1996.

Given that, should we use the most common name (i.e. "Sakura Wars") as per WP:COMMONNAME? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Given that Sakura Wars both is used in the original release and is the most commonly used name for the game in English, it makes sense to me to mention it first (and then also throughout the article). Had Sakura Wars only been an unofficial-but-commonly-used name for it, I would have preferred a Sakura Taisen, known as Sakura Wars outside Japan approach (like how it's handled in Ace Attorney Investigations 2).--AlexandraIDV 04:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Video game cover or video game logo?

Suppose a video game has both a game cover and a logo (like Genshin Impact and Minecraft to name a few). Which should have preference?

  • Video game logo
  • Video game cover
  • No preference
  • Case-by-case
  • Something else?

In other words, which does best at satisfying WP:NFCC?

Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 05:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

More context:

About a month ago I got into a dispute over the Genshin Impact and Honkai Impact media in the infobox because they were replaced by the non-free cover for them. For the Genshin Impact cover (since it replaces a logo that was PD-ineligible in the US only but not China), I nominated the file for deletion per WP:NFCC1, and for the Honkai Impact cover, I nominated the file for deletion per WP:NFCC3.

Video games have also changed greatly since online distribution became a big thing. Almost all games post-Internet are available as downloadable media from the Microsoft Store/App Store/Play Store/PSN/Nintendo eShop/etc. Many of these games (like Elden Ring and Minecraft) have logos, some of which are text only and are pd-ineligible, and others which IMHO do a better job at meeting the NFCC.

The reason for me starting this RfC is to seek wider community consensus on this matter with potential copyright implications. Given that WP:NFCC is a legal policy which governs which non-free files are allowed, I want to make sure that media that is supplied for identification 1. appropriately identifies the subject and 2. does so in a way that does not come into conflict with NFCC. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 05:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Why is this only a problem for video game articles? Aren't articles about films and music albums having the same issue? I personally do not find a picture of an logo an effective mean to identify a product, since cover artwork is the one that is featured prominently in both retail and digital storefronts. OceanHok (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with OceanHok. Featuring the logo somewhat defeats the purpose of displaying the cover art, which is showing something that cannot be conveyed merely by words and meant to depict the themes and/or characters of the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Sales/budget creep; Over-recording of game sales increments and totals.

This is something I brought up in discussion on the WikiProject Video Games talk page, and found I'd struck an issue where there isn't a guiding manual of style to fall back on. Put basically, the recording of sales data for video games-and tangentially the adjustment for inflation of video game budgets-is showing a tendency to creep and bloat with oversized bulletpoint-style info or potentially unreliable references due to users simply adding in updates. Example, saying it sold so many millions total then, an additional hundred thousands later, and so many millions total now. From my personal experience I've seen this happening with Final Fantasy VII (both budget and sales), Nier: Automata, Tomb Raider: Legend and Persona 5; while TheJoebro64 pointed out a similar issue with Sonic the Hedgehog 2. I felt, and several in that discussion agreed, that this was an issue and required discussion in this space. Pinging users @David Fuchs, Panini!, Dissident93, Sergecross73, Shooterwalker, and Ferret:, who all contributed to the original discussions and may have useful input/feedback. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

As said in the original discussion, initial sales figures noted by reliable sources are important, as they indicate the initial "splash" and impact of a game's release. After that, the most recent or latest sales are a fine data point. We generally do not need a running record of every sales announcement in between. I would typically say only mention sales in regards to the first 2 weeks to first month, and then the latest figures. -- ferret (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
That seems a reasonable approach. Also probably make sure to keep in mind that at least first week sales should be recorded for multiple regions if there's concrete sales data. The Japanese game articles I've worked on usually had sales data from at least two and usually three regions to summarise. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure for the purposes of a MOS we should be very specific on exactly what sales are covered, but if something needs to be said in addition to the usual common sense "it makes no sense and is terrible to read a blow-by-blow accounting of sales" something along the lines of "Keep sales data summarized to the most relevant figures; for example, initial month or year sales, or verified totals." Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Roughly same as my idea. "Initial sales, first year, and most recent verified totals" could be a tad cleaner? Anyways we're in the same ballpark. -- ferret (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
The only thing I'd add to this would be clarifying that "initial sales" would be within the first month or so, like you said above. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree this is a problem, and I'm open minded on the solution. One approach is to advise that we mention debut sales, total cumulative sales, and maybe any major important milestones. Another approach is to just say don't be stupid about it, and don't endlessly catalog every sales figure update. I'll go with the consensus on this. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I largely disagree. We do not need anything added to the MOS about this. This is already covered at WP:SUMMARY STYLE. Adding anything more to this MOS page would be WP:CREEP.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 09:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
A single sentence directly clarifying something would be considered creep? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Just seems unnecessary when we have a whole page dedicated to summarising infomation already.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 10:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd argue that half of this MOS is already based on the existing MOS, just reformatted to fit video games. In that case I don't see why a single sentence should be opposed just for creep reasons. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd say just summarize the initial sales splash and the cumulative sales because that's ultimately all that's notable in the long run. JOEBRO64 18:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64, according to Wikipedia:NNC we are supposed to avoid application of a notable standard to any ideas about content in articles. Notability is supposed to be reserved for determining if a subject should have a whole article of its own, not if something should be in an article or not. Huggums537 (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Can we not do this again? Joe clearly meant notable in the common sense of the word, "something to take note of", not the explicit WP:N guideline. -- ferret (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
We absolutely must do this again until editors get it. Anyone with half a brain can analyze your comment, and see there is no truth whatsoever to the claim that Joe "clearly meant" for notable to mean "something to take note of" in the common sense of the word by virtue of the fact that your offer of a choice between "the explicit WP:N guideline" meaning of notability, and "the common sense of the word" meaning of notability even exists in the first place. This choice of possible interpretations proves it isn't clear. If the former is what Joe meant, then that is what he should have said to avoid confusion knowing full well that "notability" has a very explicit, and specific meaning here on this forum with very particular ramifications. It is irresponsible for editors not to make every effort to choose words carefully and avoid other editors getting misconceptions about important guidance. Huggums537 (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Stop being purposefully difficult. It's obvious Joe isn't referring to that form of notability. Learn to read context if you're going to contribute. You're not helping here. Sergecross73 msg me 11:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
If I was talking about WP:N I would've said I was talking about WP:N JOEBRO64 13:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
It's not difficult. It's very simple really. Context is actually irrelevant because it doesn't matter if Joe was talking about WP:N or not. It's wrong to be determining article content based on notability no matter what the meaning is. If the meaning is WP:N it is for sure a no-no, but even if the meaning is "something to take note of", then we should still not be determining article content based on that just the same way we should not be determining article content based on "popularity". "Something to take note of", and "popularity" are not legitimate determining factors for content. Notability is wrong to use no matter how you slice it. Huggums537 (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Huggums, you have three (and counting me now, four) people telling you you're wrong and being a pedantic nit about this. Drop it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Fine, I'll drop it, but I think I'm only just outnumbered not wrong. There is a difference. Huggums537 (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Imagine there were a bunch of chefs debating the best way to cook some vegetables. And someone busts in and says "Aaaaaahctually, tomatoes are not a vegetable." True or not, that wouldn't be a very helpful contribution, because it provides zero help in cooking the food. That's what you're doing here in this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
You mean there's too many cooks? --Masem (t) 14:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I think a more accurate analogy would be that a bunch of chefs are debating the science of how chemicals, heat, pressure, and other elements react when preparing a certain dish, then someone bursts in saying, "Hey, this particular ingredient is extremely volatile in these kind of dishes! I would keep that ingredient out if I were you because it usually spoils these dishes." I imagine that as being very helpful... Huggums537 (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
But anyway, I'm dropping it like I said before so it doesn't matter much anyhow. Huggums537 (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Certainly not against this, but I would add that old confirmed sales data references should be kept as aids to the reader/researcher. --Masem (t) 14:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Consensus?

It looks like we pretty much has a consensus on this now, right? It's been a couple weeks too. Are we ready to move forward on this? Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a consensus to document this, without getting too wordy. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any opposition to it. Now we just have to decide on the wording to add the MOS. Anybody want to take a shot? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd propose something across the lines of: "When documenting sales, avoid creep; do not document every single sales milestone a game has surpassed. (By March 2017, the game had sold 3 million copies. By September 2017, the game had sold 5 million copies.) It is recommended to limit sales information to the opening sales figures (the first two weeks to a month after release), which indicate the game's initial impact, and the cumulative/most recent figures." JOEBRO64 13:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I like it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Looks pretty good to me too. However, I think "the first two weeks to a month after release" is too specific. That part should be removed because opening sales figures is self explanatory, and it goes on to explain even further that it should indicate the game's initial impact, so I see no reason for such specific restrictions. Also, there is no consensus for what the opening sales period should be anyway. One person says the first 2 weeks, another says the first week in multiple regions, and yet another says it is the first month. It is far better to simply confine it to the opening sales splash, and most recent figures just the way JoeBro suggested (nevermind that I made a stink about him using "notable", that was a completely different issue, and I totally agree with his idea just not the way he presented it). I also agree with David Fuchs that for the purposes of a MOS we shouldn't be very specific on exactly what sales are covered. Huggums537 (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I believe Joe was just saying that because different regions report on different initial sales. (US only does monthly, Japan only does weekly, etc.) That said, most regions don't do multiple types of reporting, so "debut" could probably be said without a qualifier and it'd work all the same. Sergecross73 msg me 21:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. My main concern is to make sure we say it without that specific qualifier, and it makes sense to leave the qualifier out for exactly the reason that you mentioned about how US games do monthly, and Japanese games do differently with weekly. How does this look?
"When documenting sales, avoid creep; do not document every single sales milestone a game has surpassed. (By March 2017, the game had sold 3 million copies. By September 2017, the game had sold 5 million copies. etc.) It is recommended to limit sales information to the debut sales figures, which indicate the game's initial impact, and the cumulative/most recent figures." Huggums537 (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Developed and published by

Is there really any good reason why we still write "developed and published by" for games that had the same company do both? For example "Breath of the Wild is an action-adventure game by Nintendo" follows the summarizing elements of MOS:LEAD better than "Breath of the Wild is an action-adventure game developed and published by Nintendo". The exact studio name can be listed later in the lead if needed and will always be reflected in the infobox regardless. Thoughts? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

You make an interesting point, but wouldn't saying "by [company]" usually just suggest the developer though? Like if I said "Uncharted 2 was by Naughty Dog" you'd probably assume I'm talking about just the developer? "Developed and published by" does remove that possible ambiguity.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 10:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
No because despite Naughty Dog being a part of Sony's studios, they have a distinct branding/name that wouldn't count for what I proposed. In Uncharted 2's case it would still say "developed by Naughty Dog and published by Sony". This would mostly apply to first-party games by companies such as Nintendo, Ubisoft, Capcom, and Square Enix. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I think the trouble is that for the general reader, it may not be obvious what is indicated by simply "by". For example, in film articles the lead sentence commonly mentions the director, producer, and stars, but not the distributor, which is the closest analogue to publisher in the video game world. Thus, someone more familiar with film articles could naturally assume that anyone mentioned in the lead sentence is a developer. Likewise, in book articles you would say "a novel by [author]", almost never "a novel written by [author] and published by [publisher]".--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
That's a great point. I assumed the infobox would be enough to clarify but then realized a little after that not every reader will read an infobox (and some ways of accessing Wiki don't bring up one). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
A thing to think about for video games (and true for film as well) but not true in the book world is the among of influence that larger publishers like EA, Ubisoft, etc. have on the development of a game, whereas smaller distributors ala Devolver, Annapurna Interactive, etc. are far more hands off. Thus it seems logical to say "Call of Duty: This Year's Title is a video game developed by (studio) and published by Activision", whereas "Stardew Valley is a video game developed by ConcernedApe. It was published by Chucklefish for the ..." or something like that. --Masem (t) 14:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
My suggestion would be that, if the publisher is the same as the developer, just go with "developed by [company]." I don't think it'd really leave much in the way of ambiguity. JOEBRO64 13:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd just list them as the publisher than the developer in that case. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Fan-Games that aren't remakes.

It says that fan-remakes and homebrews aren't allowed, but what about fan-games that aren't remakes? I want to settle a dispute regarding the documentation of a fan-game on Goodbye Volcano High. Rickraptor707 (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rickraptor707: If they receive sufficient coverage from reliable sources, then an argument can be made for their inclusion. In the case of Goodbye Volcano High, however, neither Know Your Meme nor Mod DB are reliable, so their removal is correct. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, generally speaking, it doesn't matter whether or not it's a fan-game at all. It matters on whether or not reliable sources report on it. The problem is more than many fan games don't garner that sort of coverage, and as a result, are deemed not worth mentioning. You want sources like IGN and Eurogamer, not Know Your Meme, fansites, or fan wikias. Sergecross73 msg me 15:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Newer example needed for "plot before gameplay"

At § For games, the Assassin's Creed example for having a plot section before gameplay is outdated. Does somebody know another article, or should we strike the exception entirely? ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 11:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Strike it. I don't think AC has "honored" that exception in years. -- ferret (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I know when I wrote it years ago, it was plot before gameplay but its definitely been flipped since. Masem (t) 03:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
BioShock Infinite and Uncharted: Drake's Fortune are two examples that I'm aware of. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Defining "acclaim"

In recent years, I have seen users shying away from phrasing a game's acclaimed reception as "universal acclaim" in favor of "critical acclaim". The only reasoning I have seen on one or two occasions is that the extent of acclaim is never "universal", so in this case their own personal judgement has been used. This is despite the fact that, according to this MOS, the direct phrasing from Metacritic is acceptable to use in summarizing reception. It's rare that "universal" in still used in gaming articles (the only recent exceptions to this I've seen are God of War and God of War Ragnarök, both added by the same user), but I think that if it is no longer considered advisable to use "universal" then this should be outlined in this MOS. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

That looks like an accurate summary of how we handle things, yes. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I believe Wikibenboy is seeking opinions on whether or not this should be outlined in the MoS. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, I meant it like I supported adding it because it's already informally how we handle things. Sergecross73 msg me 02:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @JDC808:. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@Rhain: @Sergecross73: Can we continue this discussion and hopefully move towards a consensus about whether we can outline it in the MoS? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I'll try to draft up some proposed wording in a couple days if there's no further participation. And then I'll ask WP:VG for more input. Sergecross73 msg me 23:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Hi, was just wondering how far you'd got with the above? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I'll write something up next week. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
This is a good point. Acclaim is never universal, but it's also a term that is used consistently on Metacritic. I'm good to move away from directly quoting metacritic, but we should be consistent. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Generally speaking, its better to quote Metacritic really. It's a lot more concrete. Otherwise, people tend to go into all sorts of WP:OR directions in trying to summarize it themselves. I don't think we should be saying acclaim was universal, but I think its okay to direct quote Metacritic in saying that's how they described it. I'll draft up my thoughts and we can work on it from there. Sergecross73 msg me 18:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm wondering how to strike that balance. Quotes avoid WP:OR, but we don't want to quote things that are misleading. I'm open to solutions. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed wording

Here's my thoughts on it at least, and how we tend to handle things on the articles I write/maintain:

In writing an opening/summarizing statement on a game's reception, when possible, directly attribute the sentiment to a reliable source's or review aggregator's summary rather than coming up with one's own summation, which risks violating Wikipedia's WP:OR policy. For example, opt to use Metacritic's wording of "Mixed or average" rather than trying to postulate that actually the game was particularly positively or negatively received.
In times where no direct RS summation is possible, try to paint broad strokes based on what can be determined by the reliable sourced commentary available. Generally stick to phrases like "generally well received", "received positively", "mixed reviews", "poorly received" etc. Terms like "universal acclaim", unless attributed directly to a reliable source, is generally overkill, as terms like "acclaim" already suggest a relative uniformity in the positive sentiments. It's like saying "really very good" - it may not be wrong, but its redundant.

I'm sure that's far from perfect wording, but maybe it'll be easier if we start there and discuss how to tweak it until its ready. Sergecross73 msg me 18:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I've little qualms with this (although on the other hand I've no experience with drafting guidelines so perhaps other more experienced users can provide their input). I do think first off that we could give it some minor trimming. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: I have left this a while, hoping there would be users who might give their input, but unfortunately this was not the case. As I don't want this topic to become neglected, let me know if you would also rather hear from others first before we make any changes. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
We can always post something about it on the main WT:VG too. I would think that would bring more input. I don't know how active I'll be over the next few days, so if it's up to me, I'd post it next week. But if you want to do it sooner/now, go for it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Video_games/Archive_6&oldid=1139439559"