![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
After working on filling in some of the missing covers over on the main project page, I noticed that it seemed like the MoS entry for Cover Art seems a little out of date (and a few other things but I'll work on them later if this goes through). With the increase in digital only games it seems like it would be a good time to move from "Cover art" to the broader "Identifying art" term. I've come up with the below draft and while I'm note sure it's a substantial edit to the MoS, I'd rather get consensus first.
Original Draft
|
---|
Identifying Art (Infobox) In most cases, cover art should be used as the identifying artwork in the game's infobox. However when this is not available, like with digitally distributed games or type-in games, then other forms of identifying art can be used. Other sources of identifying art include:
Only one piece of identifying art should be present in the infobox, regardless of platform or regional differences. English-language art is preferred for identification; if no English-language option is available, then use art from the game's native language. If the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, art without any platform-related logotypes should be used by editing the cover picture in order to create a platform-neutral picture. Game covers from PC games are generally considered platform-neutral if they do not feature OS branding (such as a Games for Windows banner). If a suitable English-language cover art already exists on the subject page, consider whether it needs replacing with a different version or if the current one is adequate Cover images can only be used in the body of the article if there is significant commentary on the specific cover itself. For example, the Wii cover of Ōkami was noted to contain a watermark as described by the text, so the cover is used to supplement this text. |
Feedback is welcome. CrimsonFox talk 21:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Based on everyone's comments, here's a second draft:
Draft 2
|
---|
Identifying Art (Infobox) In most cases, cover art should be used as the identifying artwork in the game's infobox. However when this is not available, like with digitally distributed games or type-in games, then other forms of identifying art can be used. Other sources of identifying art include:
Only one piece of identifying art should be present in the infobox, regardless of platform or regional differences. English-language art is preferred for identification; if no English-language option is available, then use art from the game's native language. If a suitable English-language cover art already exists on the subject page, consider whether it needs replacing with a different version or if the current one is adequate 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. 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. Covers from PC games are generally considered platform-neutral if they do not feature OS branding (such as a Games for Windows banner). The identifying art should be from the game's original release. If the game was released on other platforms at a later date, the original artwork with its respective platform-related logos should still be used. Exceptions can be made when a later release was significantly more notable than an earlier release. Cover images can only be used in the body of the article if there is significant commentary on the specific cover itself. For example, the Wii cover of Ōkami was noted to contain a watermark as described by the text, so the cover is used to supplement this text. |
CrimsonFox talk 16:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm facing this dilemma and would like you guys' opinion: a fighting game has a microtransaction that enables an existing fighter to become playable. I know Steam does call this DLC, but should we? The D stands for "downloadable" after all, and we're not downloading anything; just paying to remove a restriction. -- uKER ( talk) 12:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
To put this into other words and maybe give the discussion a fresh start, I know that the masses have come to call any paid content DLC; the question is whether we want to keep using the term to refer to content that is not downloaded as it is already in the base game, only locked behind a (paid) license check. I don't like calling stuff by a name that is not correct just because everyone else does, and I'd suggest calling it "paid content" instead, but if consensus is for continuing to use "DLC", guess I'll bite the bullet and live with it. -- uKER ( talk) 17:14, 25 April 2019 (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.
Should we adopt the video game character guidelines to Manual of Style? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I've been in an ongoing discussion in Quiet (Metal Gear) talkpage about using a more appropriate image to help readers get a clear idea of what the character looks like. I found an offial image showing an in-game render of Quiet that accurately conveys readers what the character is intended to look like. User:SNAAAAKE!! was against this idea of using it because all the other Metal Gear character articles chose to use promotional illustrations in their infoboxes. This is possibly what led to multiple free images added in to compensate to give a better idea of what she looks like all to keep the same artwork of the character. I don't think this is solving the problem and more input would be greatly appreciated in that talkpage.
For now, After reviewing the rest of the Metal Gear character articles, I noticed they all have multiple non-free images doing similar things. Venom Snake article already uses two concept art and one in-game render. I looked in WP:VG/MOS to see if it could help me in the discussion but I noticed there are no guidelines for the infobox lead image in regards to character articles. Here's a test guideline that may help avoid OTHERSTUFFEXIST in the future.
An official illustration can be used if it is more accurate in conveying to first time readers what the character was intended to look like as oppose to an in-game model of the character. Example of this is Yu Narukami from Persona 4 and Squall Leonhart from Final Fantasy VIII.
However if there is an in-game render or CGI/FMV render that conveys a more accurate portrayal than the official illustration, then the in-game or CGI/FMV render should be used for the infobox instead. Examples of this are Sora (Kingdom Hearts) and Jak (Jak and Daxter).This proposed guideline is intended for what should be in infobox images only. Its not suggesting how many non-free images should be in the article and which ones should be removed from the article. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 07:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Is it better if i remove the RfC and just see how the discussion works? Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 23:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I'd support this proposal for better identifying infobox images. Also discussion at Quiet (Metal Gear) has died down so feel free to replace the image if you wish. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 00:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
On Talk:Final Fantasy XIV#Removing plot tag, Axem Titanium ( talk · contribs) has raised some concerns about the current plot guidelines being too narrow of what forms a video game storyline can take. I'm thinking we might need to look into the plot guidelines. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 06:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Should video game plot guidelines allow for longer plot descriptions than current guidance allows? Should they account for episodic game content? -- Izno ( talk) 02:41, 17 May 2019 (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.
- Plot sections should be no more than approximately 900 words to retain focus.
Recognizing that a minority of video games can have dense plots that cannot be reasonably summarized with the same 700 word guideline borrowed from MOSFILM, several editors have suggested a small increase to the recommended limit. This should not be taken as a blanket license to expand existing plot sections, but to accommodate the small number of cases where 700 words is simply too spare. Axem Titanium ( talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (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.
- For episodic video games, plot summaries of no more than 300 words per episode should be presented either in the plot section as prose or in a table using {{ Episode table}} and {{ Episode list}}. If appropriate, these articles could instead include a prose plot summary of no more than 900 words per season instead of an episode table, but an article should not have full plot summaries in both an episode table and a plot section. A brief one sentence plot synopsis is permitted in the table for articles with both, such as Tales of Monkey Island.
This is modeled after MOS:TVPLOT with a small concession on length. I also included a bit to accommodate Tales of Monkey Island (a GA) which follows a format I see a lot in Telltale games articles, which employs a regular plot section and a table summary of all aspects of the episodic release. I couldn't find an example of GA quality or higher for an article that uses the Episode Table format to deliver plot summary. Axem Titanium ( talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (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.
- For narrative downloadable content (DLC), plot summaries of no more than 300 words per content should be presented in the main plot section or as an additional sub-section (such as Final Fantasy XV). If appropriate, larger narrative DLC may be split into its own article if it receives significant independent development and reception coverage, such as The Last of Us: Left Behind. Split articles should follow the main plot guideline of 900 words.
Also modeled after MOS:TVPLOT. Axem Titanium ( talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Add game plot in the Gameplay section in proportion to its coverage in reliable, secondary sources (i.e., do not create separate Plot sections unless secondary sources note the plot's importance to the game). When an elaborated Plot section is necessary for completeness, prioritize sources in this order: (1) reliable, secondary sources, (2) reliable video game strategy guides and overviews (e.g., Prima, Brady, not user-created guides), (3) the game manual or other primary source documentation, (4) as a last resort, the game itself. Plot sections should be concise, proportional in length to its amount of Reception section coverage, and limited to less than 700 words.
- Although not required, it is helpful to include the number of reviews GameRankings or Metacritic uses to calculate their scores, since it gives context and can help the reader understand how the score is averaged. The number can either be listed after Metacritic's qualitative summary in prose or footnoted in {{ Video game reviews}}. Examples: Team Sonic Racing's reception section
— [1]
Revisiting this discussion, I think this is bad advice as phrased. Very few articles stand to gain any benefit from including the review count for each aggregated review, especially if encouraged as a rule. We already have issues with extremely clunky/monotonous prose in Reception sections... If the review count is low, e.g., five or fewer reviews (including unreliable sources), my suggestion would be to omit the aggregated opinion altogether. For any larger counts, e.g., between five and forty, the general reader gains little from being thrown this figure—10 reviews? 40 reviews? What is the reader practically expected to do with this information? (Likely the same that they'll do with lists of every reviewer name and quotefarms: let their eyes glaze over.) I think the point stands even when footnoted—there is rarely use for including these figures, and we don't need to codify a rule for the off-case that knowing the total reviews would make a significant impact on the prose. If any advice is needed, we should be encouraging otherwise and offering edge cases for the few times when it is useful. (I can't think of any offhand.) czar 22:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Why must PC games be stated as "Microsoft Windows" as opposed to just "PC" if the box art for a certain game shows "PC CD-ROM" or "'PC' DVD-ROM" instead of "Microsoft Windows CD-ROM" or "Microsoft Windows DVD-ROM"? I mean, I would like Wikipedia to differentiate between the actual platform ("PC") and the operating system ("Microsoft Windows") as the latter is used to refer to the OS's install media, as in when Windows 95 prompted users with "Please insert the disc labeled 'Windows 95 CD-ROM' and click OK". -- Fandelasketchup ( talk) 13:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
i used CTRL+F to search Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Video_games for the word "free", then again to search for the word "online". i also searched for each word individually in the Talk page archive.
The Inappropriate content section includes Cost... unless the item's individual cost is particularly noteworthy. Does "free" count as noteworthy? Maybe as part of the release history? (Manual of Style lists Release dates as Essential content.)
What about if it used to be legally available for free online?
i'm specifically remembering that popcap.com used to have Bejeweled and some of their other games free to play online (no need to download/install the game software) and wondering if those games' articles should mention that.
71.121.143.99 ( talk) 00:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Cool Game 2 was released free on 22 February 2019 for...etc. Popcornduff ( talk) 00:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm 99% sure we discussed this a year or two ago and came to the consensus to not include them in articles any more, but it seems like a number of them have continued to do just that (including GAs such as Watch Dogs 2). I found a small discussion from 2012 and a more recent one that references the original dicussion I'm talking about. So unless consensus has changed since then, does anybody oppose this being directly added into our GAMECRUFT policy? The wording could be: Release edition tables: Do not add tables featuring a game's many release editions, such as special, limited, collectors, into articles. If they are notable, write them and their contents into prose instead. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 00:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Based on a winding-down discussion from WT:VG I added a section about how to indicate platforms for a game in the lede and infobox, as to establish that Google Stadia (currently) should be the only streaming platform that is explicitly included. But I also added other practices that I know are true (eg avoid storefronts, etc.) to this. -- Masem ( t) 18:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The listed platforms should not include platforms where the game is playable due to emulation, as these are not considered official releases. Many old MS-DOS adventure games can be played on modern systems thanks to ScummVM, but that does not make these systems platforms the game was officially released on.
I boldly added some advice on spelling out genres in lede/infobox/gameplay sections based on generally what we advice, see [2] though Izno ( talk · contribs) reverted on a few concerns [3] which is fine, that's why we now go to talk pages :)
I have seen "genre kudzo" of trying to stuff tons of genres in the lede, particularly with sticking "open world" or "first person" or "third person" in there. So that would be part of the reason for these. But I understand there are other factors here. I do feel we need a section here but need more input. -- Masem ( t) 01:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Do we have something close to consensus to add this to the MoS? Popcornduff ( talk) 16:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
We don't need to write Microsoft Windows in articles and infoboxes.
Can we change "Microsoft Windows" to "Windows" in the MoS please? Popcornduff ( talk) 11:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
[[Windows]]
is going to continue to redirect there as the
primary topic.)
czar
13:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
a change like this shouldn't be exclusive to video game articles eitherYes, but WP:VG specifically says "Microsoft Windows" (under Platforms). Popcornduff ( talk) 17:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
MOS states to use "Microsoft Windows" not Windows"It doesn't though. It just gives "Microsoft Windows" as an example platform. Contrary to what Sergecross says here, I believe that when this has been discussed on video game articles before, the consensus has been to change it, so I'm proposing changing it in the MOS too. Popcornduff ( talk) 23:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Hope no one ever tells them to jump off a bridge because they'll be in the water before the sentence is finished"TurboSonic ( talk) 00:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
When should "stylized as" actually be added? Is it how the game title is displayed on Steam etc (e.g. Watch Dogs 2 → WATCH_DOGS 2)? What about in promotional material (e.g. Half-Life 2 → HλLF-LIFE²)? Capitalisation (e.g. Boneworks → BONEWORKS)? Nixinova T C 03:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
The MOS says the following: Release dates should be discussed in the body of the article (typically, as a section within "Development" or "Release"), and should include citations published after the game or content has been released to verify that the product came out as expected. Game reviews may be suitable for this, but not pre-release reviews.
Am I supposed to interpret this as:
It is unclear to me, and it is not very common to see articles or reviews mentioning the specific date after that date has already passed unless they have some "quick facts box" attached to them - normally you see wordings like "which is available now" or "which came out in 2004".-- Alexandra IDV 21:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
prefer post-release citations that confirm release dates (e.g., reviews) over citations that merely announce a date". czar 01:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I just added some notes on the MOS about awards documenting in the reception section. I was going to add that when one uses such tables, they should not include gaming website awards like GOTW from IGN/etc. However, in poking for examples to include, I find that pages like List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-Man and List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V include those website awards. I feel they should be handled differently, ideally in prose. My concern is 1) the normal awards like the Game Awards, etc. are either selected by a broad body within the VG space, or they are selected by people not normally with video games and as such those aren't playing to anyone's favorites, whereas website awards, done primarily by the site's staff, are much more prone to that. and 2) that whereas the number of game awards from associations/etc. is more limited, we have an endless supply of gaming websites, not all that notable, that can lead to excessively long accolade lists that may make the game seem more important than it is, especially with the wide variety of categories these can have.
Documenting the website awards via prose is fine, it's just the mingling with the more "practical" awards seems wrong. But before firming that in the MOS, I want to check on opinions on that. -- Masem ( t) 16:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
With regards to the section on release dates, it states that "If the release period spreads across a year boundary, this can be summarized as "released in 2008 and 2009"". However, it does not mention the possibility of an (albeit rare) occurrence where a video game is initially released as a bundle with another game, and is then sold standalone the following year. I refer to the notable example where Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered was bundled with Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare in 2016, and was then released as a standalone product six months later in 2017 on the same gaming platforms. Should both years be included in Remastered's lede (the 2017 release was even advertised with an official trailer as if it were treated like a new game), or is this unnecessary as the platforms were the same used during both years? -- Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 13:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Infobox character#Removing parameters regarding WP:WAF. This involves both the question of whether in-universe parameters should be used in such infoboxes, and if so which ones (with perhaps some conflicting expectations between TV, movies, video games, comics, anime/manga, novels, etc.). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much consistency with Japanese titles across articles when it comes to the Manual of Style guidelines. In the main body, it describes methods of keeping the Japanese name in a footnote, but there's an exception "for stand-alone titles, names of franchises, and first titles in franchises". There's also an exception for exact transliterations, like Katamari, which ironically doesn't necessarily follow the guideline because it includes the Hepburn translation, which is nearly identical to the English spelling and pronunciation to the point of superfluousness (the guideline's example only has the Kanji with the title). On the stand-alone titles exception, several series, standalones, and first titles don't follow this like Revelations: Persona (or Digital Devil Story: Megami Tensei, which would be the first Megami Tensei game overall), Demon's Souls, and Dragon Quest as examples.
The question is whether it makes more sense to just footnote all Japanese titles, or in the case of the Katamari example (which in my opinion is the only valid use of Japanese titles in the lede) we retain that exception while placing any additional context in a footnote (so the Katamari one would read Katamari Damacy (Japanese: 塊魂)[a] with the footnote containing a longer version i.e. (Japanese: 塊魂, Hepburn: Katamari Damashī, lit. "clump of souls"). I definitely think for consistency, the "stand-alone" and "first title in a series" exceptions should be changed to footnotes while I'm on the fence about series and franchise names. — seadoubleyoujay [talk] [海倍君ジェイ] 16:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
This page labels any articles assessing a game as a "review", however other articles exist that are not written as a review of the game overall, but instead highlight and critique certain aspects, such as a summary of what they dislike in particular. As an example, several of these exist in the Red Dead Redemption 2 page which criticize its controls and realism. Are any such articles (provided they are from reliable, third party-sources) eligible to be sourced as they are still technically contributing towards the overall reception of a game? Would they all come under what is determined as a "review" anyway? -- Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 13:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
See Teamfight Tactics. TFT is a game mode for League of Legends (available on Win/Mac) and also set to be released as a standalone game for Android and iOS. However, the article for TFT lists all four platforms side by side, with no clear distinction. This edge case does not seem to be covered by our guides on platform listings, so how should it be handled? IceWelder [ ✉] 15:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
So with news this week of a few 2K series coming to the Switch, we end up with some interesting situations, but let's take an easy example where we have BioShock 2, which was originally released on PC/Mac, Xbox 360, and PS3. Then the BioShock Collection came out where a remastered version for the PS4 and Xbox One was released, but only as part of BioShock: The Collection Then with this news this week, the Switch is getting both the standalone BioShock 2 as well as BioShock: The Collection.
At minimum, the list of platforms for the infobox on BioShock 2 should clearly be PC/Mac, PS3, Xbox 360, and Switch, but now would we consider this game released for the PS4 and Xbox One to be listed there? I had added language to the MOS but have since taken it out that suggests "no we shouldn't" on the same basis we shouldn't do that if this was a released based on emulation and that it gives the false impression that the game is available as a standalone title for the PS4/Xbox One from the Infobox alone. (The lede and body can mention the collection of course). But on challenge of this, technically the game is available in a non-emulated mode for the PS4/Xbox One.
This is not the only case, but as we move forward with the next-gen consoles coming, we may see more of these case, so it might be good to get a consensus what we should do here. -- Masem ( t) 00:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
BioShock 2 | |
---|---|
Platform(s) |
Under Inappropriate content#Exceptions, what about adding something along the lines of "It's usually inappropriate to list specific multiplayer servers / worlds for a game, unless they have individual notability and coverage in secondary sources, such as Hypixel" Leijurv ( talk) 20:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
SimRefinery was a "game" that we knew of from an offshoot of Maxis. It was never released in the public and no known copies of it were known to exist, so, (until now) it was referred to as past tense. "SimRefinery was a game..." However, a single copy of the game was found in the last month and now uploaded and "playable" in an emulated form on the Internet Archive.
Does this make this game now a present tense game? My gut says no - we can talk about the find and upload to IA, but the game still was never publicly released and a single floppy is not the equivalent of a wide-scale release. -- Masem ( t) 15:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
After working on filling in some of the missing covers over on the main project page, I noticed that it seemed like the MoS entry for Cover Art seems a little out of date (and a few other things but I'll work on them later if this goes through). With the increase in digital only games it seems like it would be a good time to move from "Cover art" to the broader "Identifying art" term. I've come up with the below draft and while I'm note sure it's a substantial edit to the MoS, I'd rather get consensus first.
Original Draft
|
---|
Identifying Art (Infobox) In most cases, cover art should be used as the identifying artwork in the game's infobox. However when this is not available, like with digitally distributed games or type-in games, then other forms of identifying art can be used. Other sources of identifying art include:
Only one piece of identifying art should be present in the infobox, regardless of platform or regional differences. English-language art is preferred for identification; if no English-language option is available, then use art from the game's native language. If the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, art without any platform-related logotypes should be used by editing the cover picture in order to create a platform-neutral picture. Game covers from PC games are generally considered platform-neutral if they do not feature OS branding (such as a Games for Windows banner). If a suitable English-language cover art already exists on the subject page, consider whether it needs replacing with a different version or if the current one is adequate Cover images can only be used in the body of the article if there is significant commentary on the specific cover itself. For example, the Wii cover of Ōkami was noted to contain a watermark as described by the text, so the cover is used to supplement this text. |
Feedback is welcome. CrimsonFox talk 21:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Based on everyone's comments, here's a second draft:
Draft 2
|
---|
Identifying Art (Infobox) In most cases, cover art should be used as the identifying artwork in the game's infobox. However when this is not available, like with digitally distributed games or type-in games, then other forms of identifying art can be used. Other sources of identifying art include:
Only one piece of identifying art should be present in the infobox, regardless of platform or regional differences. English-language art is preferred for identification; if no English-language option is available, then use art from the game's native language. If a suitable English-language cover art already exists on the subject page, consider whether it needs replacing with a different version or if the current one is adequate 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. 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. Covers from PC games are generally considered platform-neutral if they do not feature OS branding (such as a Games for Windows banner). The identifying art should be from the game's original release. If the game was released on other platforms at a later date, the original artwork with its respective platform-related logos should still be used. Exceptions can be made when a later release was significantly more notable than an earlier release. Cover images can only be used in the body of the article if there is significant commentary on the specific cover itself. For example, the Wii cover of Ōkami was noted to contain a watermark as described by the text, so the cover is used to supplement this text. |
CrimsonFox talk 16:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm facing this dilemma and would like you guys' opinion: a fighting game has a microtransaction that enables an existing fighter to become playable. I know Steam does call this DLC, but should we? The D stands for "downloadable" after all, and we're not downloading anything; just paying to remove a restriction. -- uKER ( talk) 12:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
To put this into other words and maybe give the discussion a fresh start, I know that the masses have come to call any paid content DLC; the question is whether we want to keep using the term to refer to content that is not downloaded as it is already in the base game, only locked behind a (paid) license check. I don't like calling stuff by a name that is not correct just because everyone else does, and I'd suggest calling it "paid content" instead, but if consensus is for continuing to use "DLC", guess I'll bite the bullet and live with it. -- uKER ( talk) 17:14, 25 April 2019 (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.
Should we adopt the video game character guidelines to Manual of Style? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I've been in an ongoing discussion in Quiet (Metal Gear) talkpage about using a more appropriate image to help readers get a clear idea of what the character looks like. I found an offial image showing an in-game render of Quiet that accurately conveys readers what the character is intended to look like. User:SNAAAAKE!! was against this idea of using it because all the other Metal Gear character articles chose to use promotional illustrations in their infoboxes. This is possibly what led to multiple free images added in to compensate to give a better idea of what she looks like all to keep the same artwork of the character. I don't think this is solving the problem and more input would be greatly appreciated in that talkpage.
For now, After reviewing the rest of the Metal Gear character articles, I noticed they all have multiple non-free images doing similar things. Venom Snake article already uses two concept art and one in-game render. I looked in WP:VG/MOS to see if it could help me in the discussion but I noticed there are no guidelines for the infobox lead image in regards to character articles. Here's a test guideline that may help avoid OTHERSTUFFEXIST in the future.
An official illustration can be used if it is more accurate in conveying to first time readers what the character was intended to look like as oppose to an in-game model of the character. Example of this is Yu Narukami from Persona 4 and Squall Leonhart from Final Fantasy VIII.
However if there is an in-game render or CGI/FMV render that conveys a more accurate portrayal than the official illustration, then the in-game or CGI/FMV render should be used for the infobox instead. Examples of this are Sora (Kingdom Hearts) and Jak (Jak and Daxter).This proposed guideline is intended for what should be in infobox images only. Its not suggesting how many non-free images should be in the article and which ones should be removed from the article. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 07:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Is it better if i remove the RfC and just see how the discussion works? Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 23:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I'd support this proposal for better identifying infobox images. Also discussion at Quiet (Metal Gear) has died down so feel free to replace the image if you wish. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 00:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
On Talk:Final Fantasy XIV#Removing plot tag, Axem Titanium ( talk · contribs) has raised some concerns about the current plot guidelines being too narrow of what forms a video game storyline can take. I'm thinking we might need to look into the plot guidelines. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 06:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Should video game plot guidelines allow for longer plot descriptions than current guidance allows? Should they account for episodic game content? -- Izno ( talk) 02:41, 17 May 2019 (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.
- Plot sections should be no more than approximately 900 words to retain focus.
Recognizing that a minority of video games can have dense plots that cannot be reasonably summarized with the same 700 word guideline borrowed from MOSFILM, several editors have suggested a small increase to the recommended limit. This should not be taken as a blanket license to expand existing plot sections, but to accommodate the small number of cases where 700 words is simply too spare. Axem Titanium ( talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (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.
- For episodic video games, plot summaries of no more than 300 words per episode should be presented either in the plot section as prose or in a table using {{ Episode table}} and {{ Episode list}}. If appropriate, these articles could instead include a prose plot summary of no more than 900 words per season instead of an episode table, but an article should not have full plot summaries in both an episode table and a plot section. A brief one sentence plot synopsis is permitted in the table for articles with both, such as Tales of Monkey Island.
This is modeled after MOS:TVPLOT with a small concession on length. I also included a bit to accommodate Tales of Monkey Island (a GA) which follows a format I see a lot in Telltale games articles, which employs a regular plot section and a table summary of all aspects of the episodic release. I couldn't find an example of GA quality or higher for an article that uses the Episode Table format to deliver plot summary. Axem Titanium ( talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (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.
- For narrative downloadable content (DLC), plot summaries of no more than 300 words per content should be presented in the main plot section or as an additional sub-section (such as Final Fantasy XV). If appropriate, larger narrative DLC may be split into its own article if it receives significant independent development and reception coverage, such as The Last of Us: Left Behind. Split articles should follow the main plot guideline of 900 words.
Also modeled after MOS:TVPLOT. Axem Titanium ( talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Add game plot in the Gameplay section in proportion to its coverage in reliable, secondary sources (i.e., do not create separate Plot sections unless secondary sources note the plot's importance to the game). When an elaborated Plot section is necessary for completeness, prioritize sources in this order: (1) reliable, secondary sources, (2) reliable video game strategy guides and overviews (e.g., Prima, Brady, not user-created guides), (3) the game manual or other primary source documentation, (4) as a last resort, the game itself. Plot sections should be concise, proportional in length to its amount of Reception section coverage, and limited to less than 700 words.
- Although not required, it is helpful to include the number of reviews GameRankings or Metacritic uses to calculate their scores, since it gives context and can help the reader understand how the score is averaged. The number can either be listed after Metacritic's qualitative summary in prose or footnoted in {{ Video game reviews}}. Examples: Team Sonic Racing's reception section
— [1]
Revisiting this discussion, I think this is bad advice as phrased. Very few articles stand to gain any benefit from including the review count for each aggregated review, especially if encouraged as a rule. We already have issues with extremely clunky/monotonous prose in Reception sections... If the review count is low, e.g., five or fewer reviews (including unreliable sources), my suggestion would be to omit the aggregated opinion altogether. For any larger counts, e.g., between five and forty, the general reader gains little from being thrown this figure—10 reviews? 40 reviews? What is the reader practically expected to do with this information? (Likely the same that they'll do with lists of every reviewer name and quotefarms: let their eyes glaze over.) I think the point stands even when footnoted—there is rarely use for including these figures, and we don't need to codify a rule for the off-case that knowing the total reviews would make a significant impact on the prose. If any advice is needed, we should be encouraging otherwise and offering edge cases for the few times when it is useful. (I can't think of any offhand.) czar 22:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Why must PC games be stated as "Microsoft Windows" as opposed to just "PC" if the box art for a certain game shows "PC CD-ROM" or "'PC' DVD-ROM" instead of "Microsoft Windows CD-ROM" or "Microsoft Windows DVD-ROM"? I mean, I would like Wikipedia to differentiate between the actual platform ("PC") and the operating system ("Microsoft Windows") as the latter is used to refer to the OS's install media, as in when Windows 95 prompted users with "Please insert the disc labeled 'Windows 95 CD-ROM' and click OK". -- Fandelasketchup ( talk) 13:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
i used CTRL+F to search Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Video_games for the word "free", then again to search for the word "online". i also searched for each word individually in the Talk page archive.
The Inappropriate content section includes Cost... unless the item's individual cost is particularly noteworthy. Does "free" count as noteworthy? Maybe as part of the release history? (Manual of Style lists Release dates as Essential content.)
What about if it used to be legally available for free online?
i'm specifically remembering that popcap.com used to have Bejeweled and some of their other games free to play online (no need to download/install the game software) and wondering if those games' articles should mention that.
71.121.143.99 ( talk) 00:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Cool Game 2 was released free on 22 February 2019 for...etc. Popcornduff ( talk) 00:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm 99% sure we discussed this a year or two ago and came to the consensus to not include them in articles any more, but it seems like a number of them have continued to do just that (including GAs such as Watch Dogs 2). I found a small discussion from 2012 and a more recent one that references the original dicussion I'm talking about. So unless consensus has changed since then, does anybody oppose this being directly added into our GAMECRUFT policy? The wording could be: Release edition tables: Do not add tables featuring a game's many release editions, such as special, limited, collectors, into articles. If they are notable, write them and their contents into prose instead. ~ Dissident93 ( talk) 00:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Based on a winding-down discussion from WT:VG I added a section about how to indicate platforms for a game in the lede and infobox, as to establish that Google Stadia (currently) should be the only streaming platform that is explicitly included. But I also added other practices that I know are true (eg avoid storefronts, etc.) to this. -- Masem ( t) 18:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The listed platforms should not include platforms where the game is playable due to emulation, as these are not considered official releases. Many old MS-DOS adventure games can be played on modern systems thanks to ScummVM, but that does not make these systems platforms the game was officially released on.
I boldly added some advice on spelling out genres in lede/infobox/gameplay sections based on generally what we advice, see [2] though Izno ( talk · contribs) reverted on a few concerns [3] which is fine, that's why we now go to talk pages :)
I have seen "genre kudzo" of trying to stuff tons of genres in the lede, particularly with sticking "open world" or "first person" or "third person" in there. So that would be part of the reason for these. But I understand there are other factors here. I do feel we need a section here but need more input. -- Masem ( t) 01:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Do we have something close to consensus to add this to the MoS? Popcornduff ( talk) 16:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
We don't need to write Microsoft Windows in articles and infoboxes.
Can we change "Microsoft Windows" to "Windows" in the MoS please? Popcornduff ( talk) 11:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
[[Windows]]
is going to continue to redirect there as the
primary topic.)
czar
13:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
a change like this shouldn't be exclusive to video game articles eitherYes, but WP:VG specifically says "Microsoft Windows" (under Platforms). Popcornduff ( talk) 17:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
MOS states to use "Microsoft Windows" not Windows"It doesn't though. It just gives "Microsoft Windows" as an example platform. Contrary to what Sergecross says here, I believe that when this has been discussed on video game articles before, the consensus has been to change it, so I'm proposing changing it in the MOS too. Popcornduff ( talk) 23:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Hope no one ever tells them to jump off a bridge because they'll be in the water before the sentence is finished"TurboSonic ( talk) 00:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
When should "stylized as" actually be added? Is it how the game title is displayed on Steam etc (e.g. Watch Dogs 2 → WATCH_DOGS 2)? What about in promotional material (e.g. Half-Life 2 → HλLF-LIFE²)? Capitalisation (e.g. Boneworks → BONEWORKS)? Nixinova T C 03:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
The MOS says the following: Release dates should be discussed in the body of the article (typically, as a section within "Development" or "Release"), and should include citations published after the game or content has been released to verify that the product came out as expected. Game reviews may be suitable for this, but not pre-release reviews.
Am I supposed to interpret this as:
It is unclear to me, and it is not very common to see articles or reviews mentioning the specific date after that date has already passed unless they have some "quick facts box" attached to them - normally you see wordings like "which is available now" or "which came out in 2004".-- Alexandra IDV 21:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
prefer post-release citations that confirm release dates (e.g., reviews) over citations that merely announce a date". czar 01:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I just added some notes on the MOS about awards documenting in the reception section. I was going to add that when one uses such tables, they should not include gaming website awards like GOTW from IGN/etc. However, in poking for examples to include, I find that pages like List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-Man and List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V include those website awards. I feel they should be handled differently, ideally in prose. My concern is 1) the normal awards like the Game Awards, etc. are either selected by a broad body within the VG space, or they are selected by people not normally with video games and as such those aren't playing to anyone's favorites, whereas website awards, done primarily by the site's staff, are much more prone to that. and 2) that whereas the number of game awards from associations/etc. is more limited, we have an endless supply of gaming websites, not all that notable, that can lead to excessively long accolade lists that may make the game seem more important than it is, especially with the wide variety of categories these can have.
Documenting the website awards via prose is fine, it's just the mingling with the more "practical" awards seems wrong. But before firming that in the MOS, I want to check on opinions on that. -- Masem ( t) 16:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
With regards to the section on release dates, it states that "If the release period spreads across a year boundary, this can be summarized as "released in 2008 and 2009"". However, it does not mention the possibility of an (albeit rare) occurrence where a video game is initially released as a bundle with another game, and is then sold standalone the following year. I refer to the notable example where Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered was bundled with Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare in 2016, and was then released as a standalone product six months later in 2017 on the same gaming platforms. Should both years be included in Remastered's lede (the 2017 release was even advertised with an official trailer as if it were treated like a new game), or is this unnecessary as the platforms were the same used during both years? -- Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 13:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Infobox character#Removing parameters regarding WP:WAF. This involves both the question of whether in-universe parameters should be used in such infoboxes, and if so which ones (with perhaps some conflicting expectations between TV, movies, video games, comics, anime/manga, novels, etc.). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much consistency with Japanese titles across articles when it comes to the Manual of Style guidelines. In the main body, it describes methods of keeping the Japanese name in a footnote, but there's an exception "for stand-alone titles, names of franchises, and first titles in franchises". There's also an exception for exact transliterations, like Katamari, which ironically doesn't necessarily follow the guideline because it includes the Hepburn translation, which is nearly identical to the English spelling and pronunciation to the point of superfluousness (the guideline's example only has the Kanji with the title). On the stand-alone titles exception, several series, standalones, and first titles don't follow this like Revelations: Persona (or Digital Devil Story: Megami Tensei, which would be the first Megami Tensei game overall), Demon's Souls, and Dragon Quest as examples.
The question is whether it makes more sense to just footnote all Japanese titles, or in the case of the Katamari example (which in my opinion is the only valid use of Japanese titles in the lede) we retain that exception while placing any additional context in a footnote (so the Katamari one would read Katamari Damacy (Japanese: 塊魂)[a] with the footnote containing a longer version i.e. (Japanese: 塊魂, Hepburn: Katamari Damashī, lit. "clump of souls"). I definitely think for consistency, the "stand-alone" and "first title in a series" exceptions should be changed to footnotes while I'm on the fence about series and franchise names. — seadoubleyoujay [talk] [海倍君ジェイ] 16:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
This page labels any articles assessing a game as a "review", however other articles exist that are not written as a review of the game overall, but instead highlight and critique certain aspects, such as a summary of what they dislike in particular. As an example, several of these exist in the Red Dead Redemption 2 page which criticize its controls and realism. Are any such articles (provided they are from reliable, third party-sources) eligible to be sourced as they are still technically contributing towards the overall reception of a game? Would they all come under what is determined as a "review" anyway? -- Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 13:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
See Teamfight Tactics. TFT is a game mode for League of Legends (available on Win/Mac) and also set to be released as a standalone game for Android and iOS. However, the article for TFT lists all four platforms side by side, with no clear distinction. This edge case does not seem to be covered by our guides on platform listings, so how should it be handled? IceWelder [ ✉] 15:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
So with news this week of a few 2K series coming to the Switch, we end up with some interesting situations, but let's take an easy example where we have BioShock 2, which was originally released on PC/Mac, Xbox 360, and PS3. Then the BioShock Collection came out where a remastered version for the PS4 and Xbox One was released, but only as part of BioShock: The Collection Then with this news this week, the Switch is getting both the standalone BioShock 2 as well as BioShock: The Collection.
At minimum, the list of platforms for the infobox on BioShock 2 should clearly be PC/Mac, PS3, Xbox 360, and Switch, but now would we consider this game released for the PS4 and Xbox One to be listed there? I had added language to the MOS but have since taken it out that suggests "no we shouldn't" on the same basis we shouldn't do that if this was a released based on emulation and that it gives the false impression that the game is available as a standalone title for the PS4/Xbox One from the Infobox alone. (The lede and body can mention the collection of course). But on challenge of this, technically the game is available in a non-emulated mode for the PS4/Xbox One.
This is not the only case, but as we move forward with the next-gen consoles coming, we may see more of these case, so it might be good to get a consensus what we should do here. -- Masem ( t) 00:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
BioShock 2 | |
---|---|
Platform(s) |
Under Inappropriate content#Exceptions, what about adding something along the lines of "It's usually inappropriate to list specific multiplayer servers / worlds for a game, unless they have individual notability and coverage in secondary sources, such as Hypixel" Leijurv ( talk) 20:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
SimRefinery was a "game" that we knew of from an offshoot of Maxis. It was never released in the public and no known copies of it were known to exist, so, (until now) it was referred to as past tense. "SimRefinery was a game..." However, a single copy of the game was found in the last month and now uploaded and "playable" in an emulated form on the Internet Archive.
Does this make this game now a present tense game? My gut says no - we can talk about the find and upload to IA, but the game still was never publicly released and a single floppy is not the equivalent of a wide-scale release. -- Masem ( t) 15:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)