This page 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. |
Are glitches/bugs notable? As an example the bugs and unofficial patches section of Fallout 2. -- Megaman en m ( talk) 10:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I just read over the section regarding screenshots, but am looking for clarification. I am looking at adding a couple of screenshots of a free video game. Is there any restrictions on uploading screenshots from this type of game? Thanks for your help. Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 21:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Two questions:
Where should info about expansions go? As a subsection at the end of Reception? There aren't too many FAs on games with expansions, but one ( Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings) has a paragraph regarding expansions at the end of Reception. Thoughts? — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 13:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The article on DragonRealms needs to have notability established. Note I am not saying that the game is not notable (I don't know enough about the topic to say that), I am saying that the article needs attention, and part of that is stating why the game is notable. Blueboar ( talk) 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Modifying box art to remove platform designations is a form of original research and should not be suggested in these guidelines. I've removed a passage from the guideline which suggested this was okay. — Locke Cole • t • c 11:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Added the paragraph, as it has been agreed upon, under content. Feel free to move it if you feel its better suited elsewhere. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This edit [1] removed the section of the guidelines that related to the "Platform neutral" guideline for boxart. User Locke Cole says that it goes against WP:OR and that cropped boxarts with platform branding removed constitute original research. WP:OI does state "Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed. It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to try to distort the facts or position being illustrated by a contributed photo." My interpretation of the situation is that the above statement from WP:OI is intended for obviously altered images like faked photos of Elvis at Preswick or images altered to show a person in a bad light. I feel that the original guidelines do not breach WP:OI or WP:NOR because we are not trying to falsify information by showing boxart without branding. - X201 ( talk) 11:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
←(Un-indent) While I see no reason to crop box art, I do not believe it be original research or an original image. There's a difference between a derivative piece of work, and a cropped piece of work.
For example, cropping File:SSF HD Remix Boxart.jpg to remove the Capcom logo is fine because you haven't really altered that portion of the picture, just removed it from view. However, photoshopping just the logo out of the image as if it were never there creates a derivative work. Edits like that are what lead to original research. ( Guyinblack25 talk 16:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC))
Quoting WP:OI;
Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed.
— WP:OI (bold emphasis mine)
The "unpublished idea" here is that the box art looked like this. It doesn't and it never has. What one sees in the store looks similar to this, but similarity is not a defense from original research. The emboldened part is particularly important here and needs restating: "Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed." There are no exceptions given for cosmetic changes, or those stemming from a style choice. — Locke Cole • t • c 11:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You asked if a discussion at WT:NOR would be more productive. Okay, sure, let's take it over there, since this is stepping into the realm of general Wikipedia policy and goes beyond the scope of WP:VG at this point. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 20:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The cropping of platform specific banners on box arts, does not constitute original research, but that isn't even really the issue at hand if you read the prior arguments (which is why I've commented here). The argument has been about whether identifying art should be 1:1 reproductions of products seen on store shelves, with the OR argument tacked onto the side to discredit the use of cropping.
Box art is primarily used for identifying art, but that does not mean that identifying art must be a 1:1 reproduction of an actual box. The identifying art that developers produce does not include system branding, that is added by the platform holders to ensure consistency across their library. File:GTAIV Logo.jpg for example, is the perfect piece of identifying art for GTA IV, cluttering that image with banners and age ratings does nothing. Those will vary between platforms and markets anyway, and given the data already given in the infobox, is largely redundant. Including the XBLA advertising banner on File:Megaman9cover.jpg actually detracts from the image, giving readers the first impression that it is an exclusive title. - hahnch e n 18:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually I think removing the logo might violate WP:COPYVIO as it's altering a copyrighted image to specifically remove a logo. じん ない 05:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Surely by removing the console logo we're actually reducing the the amount of copyright material we're seeking to use under FUR. And that can only be a good thing. - X201 ( talk) 13:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Copyright and trademark are separate areas of law. It appears that both weigh in this discussion. Please allow due discretion: as a Commons administrator I frequently encounter the former but not the latter, and during graduate coursework in a writing program a course on related law (including copyright) was required curriculum. This provided a limited framework of understanding, mainly for self-defense. Despite a long list of featured picture credits, I am not a lawyer and am unable to give expert opinion even on copyright. Regarding matters of trademark I confess profound ignorance. So with those caveats in mind, if there's any objection to removing a trademarked logo via cropping I am unaware of it. Issues of NPOV, etc. (if any exist) would be addressed separately via policy. Durova Charge! 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I can understand licensed soundtracks being added to music-based games such as the Guitar Hero or Rock Band series, but what about licensed soundtracks that are more or less just background music for a game, such as the Tony Hawk's series? I added soundtracks to articles of that series long ago, and they have long since been removed for apparently being a non-notable list, however I don't see anything saying that they shouldn't be added. Are licensed soundtracks notable information, or does it fall under part 6 of inappropriate content, "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts"? Licensed soundtracks aren't explicitly mentioned there, but I don't see anything else that would explain why they would be removed. For the record, I am not talking about games that have a separate soundtrack released on a CD, just background music from the game. -- GVOLTT How's my editing?\ My contribs 20:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The screenshots and cover art section contradicts itself. In one part, it states that "Where different cover designs are available for different regions, the one from the region in which the game has been developed should be used. If the game is not developed in an English-language region use the cover from the region in which the game receives its first English language release, unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it.", while another paragraph states that "Cover art should appear in the infobox (see below for more info on the infobox), and ideally, the most recognizable English-language cover should be used to illustrate the subject.". This needs to be fixed, preferably by incorporating the "most recognizable English-language cover" rule into the earlier paragraph's priority hierarchy. -- Gordon Ecker ( talk) 02:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Code (video game) wasn't moved to Base 10 (video game), Picopict wasn't moved to Pictobits, and Nemrem wasn't moved to Zengage when they hit NA, and yet this morning I wake up to see that Kubos has been moved to Precipice (video game), with the reasoning given as 'Nintendo announced that this is the title of this game per this article: http://press.nintendo.com/articles.jsp?id=19272 '. I know WP:ENGVAR covers spelling within articles (though I don't know if this counts as 'spelling' per se), WP:UE advises leaving it at the latest stable version (though it also says 'after the article has ceased being a stub', and the article in question is still a stub) if there's two different English words/titles involved, and Wikipedia doesn't hold any version of English as more correct than any other, but the WikiProject Video Games Naming Convention section does not cover this situation, so it would be nice to have project-official clarification on the matter.
long story short, should Precipice (video game) be moved back to Kubos on principle, or should it be left where it is since it's a stub-class low-importance article in terms of the project, and i'm probably the only one who noticed? ^^;;; -- Khisanth ( talk) 16:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
As all English-only and English-first rules, an execrable example of bigotry and arrogance. Anarchangel ( talk) 16:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Online Multiplayer is a very important aspect of many games today and I think that it might be helpful if we had guidelines for what types of information is and is not appropriate for sections of articles that discuss online multiplayer. Would a discussion about how the online multiplayer part of a game is different from the single player part of a game be alright? What if such a discussion included a mention of how the basic strategy differs, might that help people understand the game better? Would a mention of how the experience differs between single player and online multiplayer be appropriate? How would something like those last two items be properly referenced? It seems like the only references for something like that would be to refer to the game itself, a consensus amongst editors familiar with the game, and/or to discussion forums, preferably the official forums hosted by the game's developers. (In my experience, information where a journalistic reference does not exist is often easily verifiable by playing a game itself or by investigating alleged facts, such as visiting a website to verify that clan ladders exist.) Would information about online player counts and places where people tend to congregate ("the community can be found at this IRC channel") be permissible? Would information about the online multiplayer community itself, such as a description of the game's competitive clan scene ("several competitive sites offer clan ladders for this game") and how online games get organized ("team captains draft the teams and then they join the game server and a voice communications server") be appropriate? Would a list of popular mods (such as instagib) be alright? In some cases, might it make the sense to have and permit separate articles about some games' online multiplayer components, especially those that have very extensive and popular online multiplayer components? I think that explicit guidelines for all of this would be helpful and I hope that someone will draft them and that a fruitful discussion can take place. WhipperSnapper ( talk) 04:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed a large number of B, C and below articles have a cast list. Featured articles typically have no such list. It's rather difficult to explain to new users that a dedicated cast list is not usually necessary, and certainly a full cast list is not necessary in many cases. I've seen some articles that handle cast well by combining it with a character list, such as X-Men Origins: Wolverine (video game). I'm not asking for a new bullet point, but mentioning that a cast list is unnecessary in WP:GAMECRUFT would give me something to direct new users to. Thoughts? -- Teancum ( talk) 18:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
So I suppose my question now is what needs to be done to make note of this in the guidelines. New users are quick to disregard anything but "official policy" -- Teancum ( talk) 01:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Basically agree with Jinnai on this, mentioning major cast members in a prose section is appropriate, but listing voice casts strikes me as a bit crufty. The situation is not directly analogous to TV and film articles as voice casts aren't usually central aspects of a video game's notability the way film and TV casts are. I don't have a problem with Teancum's wording and I like the examples of appropriate mentions given by Guyinblack25 above ( Kingdom Hearts#Voice cast) and Teancum's edit to the guideline ( X-Men Origins: Wolverine (video game)#Characters). If there's significant dispute about this addition, an RfC might be in order? -- Muchness ( talk) 06:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The biggest issue with a "Voice Cast" section is that it's redundant. Such cast can easily be covered in the prose of the article, either in the plot section, or in the characters section, similar to how movie articles do it. Having a dedicated section to the voice cast is just list cruft, and it invites non-seasoned wiki editors to add voice actors for minor characters, such as "Security Guard #5", or even worse, to list every possible role for every actor. For example: in Fallout 3#Voice_actors are "Harold the Tree" or "Scribe Bigsley in Broken Steel" truly notable characters? I don't know, but they should be mentioned in the characters section and the actor mentioned there if so. Mentioning the actor in the characters section puts the focus on the in-game character, rather than the actor portraying them. It's not mentioning who voiced XXXX character, it's how we do it. -- Teancum ( talk) 13:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Is, "Generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices for video game characters ... not appropriate"? (See
Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Inappropriate content and the discussion above)
Anarchangel (
talk) 08:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree a bit with BovineBoy in that not all cast lists are appropriate, but I'm sure as anything else, there are the few exceptions out there. What we should not be doing is regurgitate the entire credit roll from a game and place it in the article or in an independent list as that is too indiscriminate, or even regurgitate every single voice actor credited in a game. My rule of thumb would be, if it has an article or might be notable enough to warrant mentioning, then mention it. That falls under editorial discretion depending on the article discussed. MuZemike 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
"Prose is preferred over tables and lists where listing the voice cast of an article is concerned. The information can be placed in Production sections (rationale: the default, to some extent, or there is information regarding the production that is relevant to the actors or vice versa) integrated into the plot section (rationale: character-driven plot), in its own section below Production (rationale: the actors are particularly notable), or above it (rationale: actors are notable, and the Production section is not detailed), whichever is most appropriate."
I'm going to be blunt and point out that recent edits by user Special:Contributions/Anarchangel have reverted several edits before this dispute was complete. Can we make the effort to be civil and discuss this through until its completion prior to reverting previously established edits? Clearly we're both seeking for what's best for Wikipedia, but given pretty standard operating procedures we don't make a move until the dispute is cleared. Additionally the general consensus thus far has been to not have cast lists, but listing notable actors in prose one way or another. I am re-reverting such edits until the dispute is complete, as currently that is policy. I am fine with someone adding them back in later if policy is changed. -- Teancum ( talk) 02:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
[ [2]] Wouldn't it be better to simply include the voice actors and motion capture actors within the appropriate character's article? Simply place it in the infobox for the Mortal Kombat characters and in the appearnce in other media for the DC characters. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain ( talk) 16:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I didn't really follow this discussion, but I have a question that is partially related to this discussion so I think I should open a new section here. The question is: if a game is developed by an English-language company and released in English-speaking countries first, are the non-English voice actors notable? (See Crash Tag Team Racing#Voice cast for example.) We already know from VG guidelines that non-English release dates are not notable in such cases, but what about voice actors? Megata Sanshiro ( talk) 00:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Just an inquiry about properly writing a Reception section. When using the VG reviews template, how many of the Review score fields need to be filled in? Would filling in all of them be too much? Similarly, how many of these review scores should be mentioned in the body of the section? VG Editor ( talk) 09:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there some kind of guideline or consensus on including game sales figures for games? I've noticed some articles list them and some don't. It's also a little strange because some games include the sales figures of expansions in addition to original sales, which inflates the figure compared with single product releases (eg Guild Wars includes all campaigns and Halo 3 only includes a single game). 122.111.0.60 ( talk) 22:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Mostly posting here to cross-reference a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#MobyGames paid Wikipedia?: I don't believe MobyGames has enough substance to justify linking to it as much as we do. See for instance this page on Hunt the Wumpus, which, if you take out all the content not already on Wikipedia and unique to that game, some screenshots (which you can get just about anywhere), links to Amazon and eBay (commercial), a bit of trivia, and a forum. It's pretty underwhelming as a whole. Nifboy ( talk) 23:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Since that's 5-0 in favor I went ahead and moved it, adding a rationale. Nifboy ( talk) 04:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
When browsing through articles within the scope of Project Video Games I have come across a few where the image in the infobox is a screenshot. In my opinion the image in the infobox should always be box art, with a screenshot in the main body of the article. I'd like to gain a few more opinions on the matter before making wholesale changes to various articles, so what do other editors think about images in infoboxes. AirRaidPatrol 84 ( talk) 13:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This issue is now being discussed at length on the main talk page for the project here. AirRaidPatrol 84 ( talk) 11:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Normally, non-English release dates are generally accepted when a game is released first in a non-English region and/or was developed in such a region. But shouldn't the owner of the intellectual property (which is not necessarily the developer) and a franchise's history also play a role? For example, Battalion Wars. The Japanese release date was removed since the game was developed by a British company. I don't think the inclusion of non-English release dates should be solely decided on the developer when said company doesn't even own the rights of the game and won't be allowed to develop it without the copyright holders agreement. The game is fully owned by the publisher, Nintendo, a company with its headquarters in Japan. The Wars series itself was established in Japan and was even exclusive to this region for many years. And it's not like that the (Japanese) copyright holder had no influence on the game's development, they had, as the credits prove. The property owner always has the last word on the game's content. In my opinion, the Japanese release date belongs to the article for reasons explained. -- Grandy02 ( talk) 19:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Is a release date of "TBA" appropriate for an unreleased game that has already missed its most recently-announced date (as has happened with Guitar Rising)? Neon Merlin 03:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
IMO the verb tense section should explicitly state that unreleased games, systems and other products should be referred to in present tense because they already exist in some form. I also think we should use present tense to refer to cancelled products. -- Gordon Ecker ( talk) 08:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
In the list of inappropriate content this article mentions cost: "The cost of games, products, or subscriptions in any form should not be included in articles". I'm guessing by this we mean the purchasing cost? e.g. how much it costs to buy a particular game in a store. But do you think it is okay to mention the costs of developing or producing a game? In some cases this might be interesting to note in the Development History or Reception sections. I don't think it is needed for every game.
I'm going to be bold and update the page. Feedback is welcome. -- Culix ( talk) 19:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The Naming Convention section has nice H3 headers that show up in the TOC. What do you think about doing this for the Organization section too, for games, characters, and settings? Do you think that would disrupt the flow of the article or make the TOC too long? Or would it be useful because you could link directly to those sections? -- Culix ( talk) 19:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
GOG.comis a website that has gotten quite famous for distributing old games in a playable state on current hardware. A lot of users are adding links to various games' GOG section; where the game can be purchased. I'm torn on this issue, because on one hand - GOG is clearly a commercial website like Gamespot, IGN, and 1UP, etc, so that's no good. On the other hand, GOG is the single most known distributor of old games, and often contains some relevant info on the games they sell.
So what is the verdict on this? Eik Corell ( talk) 22:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I think DMOZ should be mentioned [edit: in the External links section], as it is often ignored, and can be used to cover a lot of other external sites people may be tempted to add in one fell swoop. SharkD Talk 11:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Should we add terms/terminology? I am in a slow, but continual process of cleaning up the Tsukihime article(s) and believe that in-universe terms should also be removed. Criteria 6 doesn't exactly go out and say it is inappropriate though since the examples given are all tangible (well at least virtually tangible >_>).
Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts. Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are considered inappropriate. Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.
I think changing it to:
Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts. Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, in-universe terminology and so on are considered inappropriate.[...]
陣 内 Jinnai 08:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Where different cover designs are available for different regions, the one from the region in which the game has been developed should be used. If the game is not developed in an English-language region use the cover from the region in which the game receives its first English language release, unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it.
What is meant by an English-language region? Most European games are developed in English only, should it matter if a game is developed in the UK or Germany if they are both in English? I suggest changing the above to:
Where different cover designs are available for different regions, the one from the region in which the game has been developed should be used. If the game's original release is not in English use the cover from the region in which the game receives its first English language release, unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it.
If no one objects I'll change this in the next few days. -- MrStalker ( talk) 00:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I was one of the people behind the wording of that rule. The reason "If the game is not developed in an English-language region" was used was to raise the importance of the developement location over the release location. I wanted to keep release dates and release locations to a minimum in the guideline and keep it specifically focused on the developer. -
X201 (
talk) 08:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Also I think this need some clarification:
Video game covers should only be used in the game's infobox, and only one cover should be present. If the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, only one cover image should be used; if possible, a cover without the console's identification can be used by editing the cover picture in order to create a console-neutral picture.
Shouldn't PC be considered platform neutral? I guess this particular line is in the guideline because we don't want to promote any specific console with the console war(s) going on, but when it comes to PC it really doesn't matter, does it? When I say PC I mean PC covers with the old "PC-DVD only" markings, not the "Games for Windows" markings, because they obviously promote Windows as a product. Any generic PCs on the other hand I don't think matters. So, I suggest changing to:
Video game covers should only be used in the game's infobox, and only one cover should be present. If the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, only one cover image should be used; if possible, a cover without any platform-related logotypes can be used by editing the cover picture in order to create a console-neutral picture. PC game covers with "PC-DVD only" markings (or similar), but not "Games for Windows" markings, is considered console-neutral.
Again, if no one objects I'll change this myself within the next few days. -- MrStalker ( talk) 09:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Video game covers should only be used in the game's infobox, and only one cover should be present. If the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, only one cover image should be used; if possible, a cover 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 considered platform-neutral if they do not indicate a required operating system.
There seems to consensus for the two above changes so I've gone ahead and made them. -- MrStalker ( talk) 10:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we could/should suggest using multiple covers if there's significant coverage of the artwork itself, for example if the original cover is controversial in some way and the game is rereleased with a different cover. I think there's precedence in articles about albums. Wyatt Riot ( talk) 18:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Quoting from this project page (the essential content paragraph):
I would say that a reception section is only appropriate content of a video game article when the game had a SUBSTANTIAL impact on game industry either commercially, artistically and technologically. Most games do not qualify for this. And even for those games that do, it should be clearly stated HOW the game had impact, not only list review ratings in a number of magazines. Review ratings from computer magazines are consumer advisory content, but not encyclopedic content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.250.245 ( talk) 13:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This guideline set basically says that if the translated title resembles the original Japanese title in anyway, the romaji version of the title should be omitted. This was brought to my attention after Jinnai reverted my edits to the lead of Bishōjo game after I added "Bishōjo gēmu" and "gyarugē" to the lead. Basically, I don't think anyone does this on the project at all and I think it conflicts with the Japanese manual of style. This bit of text should probably be removed, because there are very rarely any titles that are identical when read in English and Japanese. Resident Evil should include the text "Baiohazādo" (as I just added it) and SoulCalibur should have "SōruKyaribā".— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 05:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to propose some new guidelines to improve the Non-English games section a bit, namely some elaborations on long nihongo templates, usage of boldface, and official/unofficial translations.
The inclusion of Japanese titles can enhance a video game article by providing additional cultural context. However, they should only be given for games of Japanese origin whose official English name differs significantly from its Japanese name. Phonetic transcriptions are, as a rule, not considered to be significantly different and thus do not warrant the inclusion of Japanese titles. Otherwise, one of the following formats is to be used:
{{nihongo|'''''English title'''''|kanji/kana|
rōmaji}}
:{{nihongo|'''''English title'''''|kanji/kana|rōmaji|translation}}
:{{nihongo|''Japanese title with official romanizations for proper names''|kanji/kana|rōmaji|translation}}
. Foreign language titles not commonly used in English are not given in
boldface but in italics. For example:As shown above, the meaning of the Japanese title may differ from the English title. In these cases, the Japanese title should be accompanied by an English translation.
In some cases, there are several Japanese titles, or the fully-utilized nihongo templates are so long they hurt the
readability of the lead paragraph. To prevent this, include them as
footnotes using {{ref|JAP|JAP}}
after the English title. Place the actual note with the Japanese title and nihongo template in a section separate from the references using {{note|JAP}}
:
Similar guidelines like those described above apply to games of other foreign origin, such as Korean RPGs.
Though the first point is likely to change soon given how romanization of foreign-language words is being discussed again at the moment, I think the other proposals will help standardize the video game articles. Questions, comments, other proposals? Prime Blue ( talk) 00:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:BOLDTITLE, all translations should be italicized:
Also, I don't think it's very efficient to open this discussion when there's a related discussion ongoing at WP:MOSJA. Megata Sanshiro ( talk) 18:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see a better example than Castlevania as I don't see where "Devil's Castle Dracula" is used in the reference. Megata Sanshiro ( talk) 20:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I did not see reference to #1 being a requirement for leads, just not to boldface them. For #2, that depends. For video game articles, the best place to put it is in the gameplay section, the first time it is mentioned. Other articles that might be secondarily under this project could be under its relevant media section, like School Rumble, if its not already elsewhere. #3, I don't see any problem with as we will only be used one title, just the English title in the lead and #4 was taken care of. I believe leadcite would also qualify for footnotes liek those mentioned, but I'm willing to to go there if you are for excruciation. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Both The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages{{r|group=Note|Nihongo}} have similar gameplay elements to each other.
In both The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages{{r|group=Note|Nihongo}} the stories begin as the Triforce calling out to Link whereupon he in transported to a different world depending on the game—Holodrum in Seasons and Labrynna in Ages—in order to save it from a calamitous disruption caused shortly after his arrival. Each game has its own ending and if [continue with the moved #linked ending section here].
2. Okay, now you confused me completely with your example (more and more, I think I might not be having a slow week but a Slowpoke week). I thought you were against using footnotes and wanted to include the fully utilized nihongo templates in a section below, but now you're using footnotes ({{r|group=Note|Nihongo}}) in your example. I'll have to pose this question to avoid even further misunderstandings: Are you, in general, for or against the usage of footnotes for long Japanese titles (disregarding for the moment if these footnotes would be placed in the lead section or in another section further down)?
3. I feel the original name from the country of origin should always be included in the article (disregarding what consensus will be reached on using footnotes and on where to put the foreign titles).
4. I still think you are misinterpreting WP:LEADCITE. To prevent this discussion from moving in circles, I asked SlimVirgin to come over and to confirm which of our two interpretations is valid. He/she (?) was one of the last administrators to make an edit to it.
5. You are misunderstanding me: I asked why footnotes (no matter where they go) were not appropriate to solve this issue, not if Japanese titles should be mentioned in the lead or not. Prime Blue ( talk) 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
While I'm reading this again, I think that it is not a good idea to put an official translation as one of the "extra" parameters in {{ nihongo}}. If we know that "Castlevania" is "Devil's Castle Dracula" in Japan, it should be written as
Castlevania, originally released as Devil's Castle Dracula (悪魔城ドラキュラ, Akumajō Dorakyura, [2]) in Japan...
in the article. The issue still stands as to what to do with games that have different names for which we can only give a literal translation. That could be what {{ nihongo3}} is for, as I have modified The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages currently. Rather than giving two romaji names, with just modifying "Zelda" and "Zeruda", you can save space and just have it once and use "Zeruda no Densetsu..." (kanji, literally translated as "The Legend of Zelda..."— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 00:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Should be brought up because it came up, but what about terms that use english words transformed into katakana? This takes 2 forms:
As announced above. Also see the previous discussion for reference. Prime Blue ( talk) 10:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
At Talk:Sid_Meier's_Alpha_Centauri#External_Links, we have been discussing adding a second external link :
* Jenson, Chris; Radcliffe, Doug; Chin, Elliot; O'Brien, Ethan (Design) (1999-02-17). "Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri Game Guide". Gamespot. San Francisco, CA, USA 94105: CBS Interactive Inc. Retrieved 2010-08-03.
{{ cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location ( link) - 335 page game guide, covering units, combat, terraforming, bases, facilities, secret projects, technology, factions, social engineering, multiplayer and modifications.
There is a sentence in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#External_links that counsels against this:
Additionally, Wikipedia is not a game guide - external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game.
This seems contrary to WP:ELYES, point 3 that encourages linking to
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.
This is the diff that inserted the language into Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#External_links. In the archived talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines/Archive_1#two_suggested_changes are the following comments:
I propose we modify the current section "Links to remakes" to expand into more about what links are generally acceptable or not acceptable for VG articles; while some of this repeats WP:EL, citing specific examples related to VGs can't hurt. My thought is that acceptable links (for games themselves) include an official game site, links to the developer/publisher barring official game sites, and then possibly a Moby Games-type link; non-acceptable include fan-made remakes, GameFAQS's guides for the game, or other game guide information (360 achievement point lists), PlanetINSERTGAMEHERE-type sites, and similar fan sites. Mind you, there's exceptions on both sides, but the examples should help prevent the EL linkfarm creepage that can be seen in some articles. -- MASEM 14:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think those are good suggestions. Though I think the nature of VG release dates will always lend itself to inaccuracies. Another suggestion I'd like to bring up is the addition of more Organization guidelines in the Article guidelines#Organization section. Currently there are only recommendations for games. I think it would be helpful for new and current editors to have recommendations for series, character, setting, system, and music articles. I think it will help standardize some of the lower rated articles and improve their overall quality. Any thoughts? ( Guyinblack25 talk 16:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC))
- I had created the links to remakes section specifically to deal with the plethora of online or downloadble clone games that kept getting added. These of course violate the copyrights of the game. If you want to expand to a section covering linking policies in general for video game articles, I'd suggest having a main section on links and having this as one of the sub-sections under it. I think its a good idea all around, the more specific we can be (i.e. the more we spell things out so there is no question), the better. -- Marty Goldberg ( talk) 17:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've been WP:BOLD and expanded the section to talk about EL's in general for VG articles and included a breakout of examples for appropriate, inappropriate, and unacceptable links. The existing case of remakes falls under inappropriate (not unacceptable) because some of these may be notable but in general to be avoided. -- MASEM 16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I like it. I think the new changes adequately explains the limitations on external links but still gives editors room to make exceptions as needed. ( Guyinblack25 talk 16:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC))
In looking at the statement
Additionally, Wikipedia is not a game guide - external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game.
the link is to WP:NOT#GUIDE, which states that WikiPedia articles should not read like a "how-to" style game guide. WP:NOT#GUIDE does not cover external links (which is covered by WP:EL). I believe that the subject statement took a WP policy about what an article should not be and erroneously applied it to external links contrary to WP policy on external links. While there are editors that disfavor external links and WP policy cautions against link farms, I think the subject statement goes too far. After all, WP:CONLIMITED explicitly states
participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right.
Please note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#External_links also states
Appropriate external links - These links should be present if possible in a video game article
...
- If the page contains substantial information that is relevant but not necessarily encyclopedic in nature, a video game's page at MobyGames, Allgame or the Internet Movie Database may be added on a case by case basis.
I find it odd that these three sources should be recommended on a case by case basis while a game guide would be categorically dismissed (subject to exception and common sense) without any consideration about whether it is neutral, accurate, substantial and relevant. For a video game article, isn't gameplay as important to the general reader interested in researching the subject further as a review or cast?
My primary interest in bringing this matter up is to prevent editors from using a statement that seems to derive its authority from a WP policy on articles from being used to disqualify an external link encouraged by the WP policy on external links. My secondary interest is that the subject statement may discourage an external link that the official WP policy on external links encourages.
Thank you for reading this long comment. Vyeh ( talk) 09:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
How should reception sections be handled for unreleased games? -- Gordon Ecker ( talk) 03:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at WT:PW about whether or not including the list of characters constitutes a "game guide" or if it is essential information. Opinions from this project would be helpful in establishing a consensus. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
A small difference of opinion regarding tenses has arisen on the APB article between an IP users and myself. The guidelines state "When describing a video game or console itself in the abstract, use present tense unless a reliable source proves that no instances of the product exist or the product was never released." How does this relate to MMOs etc that have closed? Personally I think they should still be described with the present tense "is" rather than "was". I can understand people writing "was" as the problem arises from the fact that the servers were switched off rendering the game unplayable. But the game code still exists. Its like the problem the BBC hit a while back. They have programme footage recorded with experimental video recorders. The programme doesn't stop existing just because they don't have a machine to play it back on. Opinions? - X201 ( talk) 14:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
WP's coverage of games is weakened to the point of uselessness, leading game experts to not expand WP articles, leading back to deletion in a vicious circle.
For example, game coverage has at least one glaringly obvious double standard. There are scores, perhaps hundreds, of articles on Chess openings, and individual articles for each of the five Chess pieces, and even the chessboard itself, but computer game mechanics are not allowed in any computer game article. Video game mechanics are more complex and thus require more explanation than the moves of individual chess pieces. Chess is elegant in its simplicity, but it is simple, and therefore can be covered in a few sentences. Without anything to say, the articles are flabby and repetitious, padded with illustrations and filled with hypothetical recommendations of the same kind as the strategy guides which are forbidden on WP. Meanwhile other game articles are bled dry of essential content.
Similarly, while
Voice acting in Japan is given as much or more credit as/than film actors, WP rules forbid the listing of voice actors in game articles altogether. There is a again, an obvious double standard here: animation articles, whether shorts or feature length, have no such restriction on the listing of their voice actors, and this is reflected in the fact that there is no note paid in the Japanese voice acting culture to a distinction that has been created wholesale from the WP culture. Voice actors in Anime, animated features and games are all Seiyu to the Japanese.
Anarchangel (
talk) 08:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no move. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 09:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines →
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (video games) — It would be ideal to rename the various guidelines written up by our various wikiprojects under the same naming style so it will be easier to find. I also suggest inclusion at {{
style}}.
Bernolákovčina (
talk) 21:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
As the LttP+FS discussion has shown, people seem are having issues with what goes where because we commonly combine sections when there isn't enough detail - a wiki-wide practice - and it has come to be assumed that because its usually there, they are the same things.
I was considering going with a more formalized structure like WP:MOS-AM, but geared toward the concerns that video games have. This would include combining current practices, elements from content and style, and info from WP:LAYOUT and rework the content and style sections.
I'll be doing this in a sandbox version so it won't interfere with the current version as it would be a major restructuring, but feel free to voice and comments or concerns beforehand. 陣 内 Jinnai 16:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
An editor is making a case at Diaspora (computer game) to try and provide an external list of some homebrew remakes. Confusion has arisen, I think, because of a lack of clarification between what the guidelines call a "remake" (which I take to be "officially licensed") and a "fan remake" (not officially licensed - perhaps my interpretation is wrong.) His argument also intersects with WP:PRIMARY/ WP:SECONDARY but first I think we should explicitly define the terminology. Marasmusine ( talk) 14:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This topic is being discussed and mediated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#WP:VG/GL mediation. |
Looking at the pages it links to for support it appears there is no longer any guideline that supports this section. In fact WP:TRIVIA actively discourages such sections under any name saying they should be integrated elsewhere or removed.
In addition, I do not see many such sections in existance. The closest would be In other media which are not lists, but prose that follow standard requirements for inclusion and limited to character articles. I think we should remove this, but as I'm doing the overhaul, its something that can wait. 陣 内 Jinnai 04:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Trying to kick start the discussion again, one area I see that could be consolidated is music bullet point. It could tag along with the film and TV bullet point with a few examples given. Any thoughts? ( Guyinblack25 talk 16:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC))
I think we need to better distinguish what is allowed for fan remakes or hacks. Somari is up for deletion, and Mushroom Kingdom Fusion was just nominated. Both have a decent amount of coverage, but not as much as some people would like. This guideline says:
Both examples given here don't have barely any sources, and don't seem to be notable. Why are these listed as examples? Blake ( Talk· Edits) 15:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to bring something up here while not trying to toot my own horn, but why not swap the examples for such articles for Chrono Resurrection and Final Fantasy VII (Famicom)? Both have much more significant coverage than the current examples, no?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 03:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Most fan remakes are not notable and can't be sourced. There are certainly exceptions, when they can be appropriately sourced with reliable non-trivial coverage, and cease and desist letters are often broadly covered in the media. I agree those two examples are inappropriate. Although Grid Wars might be notable, Armagetron does not seem to be. Andrevan @ 16:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why we need specific guidelines for fan games. It doesn't matter whether a video game is made by fans or professionals. The same guidelines should apply to all video games. If a professional game is notable enough for an article, it should have one. If a fan game is notable enough for an article, it should have one. I don't see what else there is to say. Jonathan Hardin' ( talk) 01:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Asian MMORPG articles often have a slew of external links: For example covering Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Vietnam, etc. I've seen admins remove such links per WP:NONENGEL, so I started doing it, too. Now I've met resistance to this on the Counter-Strike_Online article, and now I'm wondering - Did I, or the people I observed doing this, get this all wrong? What is the policy on non-English external links? The way I've been doing it is removing non-English official links, and, if no official English link exists, go for one link, that being the one for the country that the developers are based in. Eik Corell ( talk) 22:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Despite coverage, the decision was made to merge Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire with Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Originally the infoboxes of both games were shown, but it was then decided since much of the information was the same, to just add in an extra few lines to the first infobox. The cover image remained in the section for the expansion pack, since they had different covers. Despite one requiring the other one to play, they were still sold as separate games. Should each not have its own cover? The guideline seems to be written to prevent the same game, released on multiple platforms, from having a cover picture for each platform it was released on. WP:VGBOX currently reads: generally, only one cover should be present, regardless of platform or regional differences. Anyone object to me adding a bit about expansion packs? If an expansion pack is listed in the game article, and has no article of its own, then it is acceptable to have its cover in that article. Dream Focus 08:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The examples only covers the most common kind of video game images, while there are a number of video game-related fair use images that need to be covered here in more detail. For example, setting images can often be art that doesn't fall under these guidelines and as such editors have no good reference points as to when such an image is acceptable for use. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I found a request for box art or logo for the game titled above on the talk page. I have the logo but am nervous about just placing it in case it causes the article to be deleted while it is still new and being added too. Any help or advice or someone checking the logo file I have, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. VoltairSHK ( talk) 13:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone convert to svg and upload to Commons the Wii U's logo? Here's the source: [5] User Name: E32011 Password: nintendo « ₣M₣ » 21:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on the article Spiral Knights. I want to add some new screenshots. I've read the fair use guidelines, but they don't address one detail: Should I take my own screenshots from within the game, or should I use the canned screenshots from the company's web site? Two possible considerations: The company's screenshots seem slightly doctored (no heads-up display) and they are not easy to cut-and-paste (perhaps indicating that the company doesn't want them cut-and-pasted?). Mgnbar ( talk) 14:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Also: The company's screenshots are probably more diverse and more visually appealing than the ones I would take. Mgnbar ( talk) 14:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
What exactly is meant by "weight classes"? This seems like a bizarrely over-specific idea, applicable mostly to Mario Kart and fighting games. Is this supposed to refer to character classes (such as mage, summoner, warrior, etc, which I think are overly specific minutia) or only classes categorized by weight? Some guy ( talk) 00:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Now that actors are lending not only their voice, but also their likenesses and motion captured performances to video games, I think our cast list guideline needs a tweak. I've seen a couple of articles where cast lists have been added, at one point the L.A. Noire article listed almost every bit-part character in the game, the motivation seemed to be the fact that the character happened to be played by that bloke from Heroes or The Sopranos.
I've listed the current and proposed versions below. The main reason for the change is to clearly indicate that, in general, cast lists are not notable, and to clarify in what circumstance they are, and to urge editors to not got over the top with the length of the list if one is needed.
The current guideline:
10 Cast lists: Generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices for video game characters is not appropriate. Exceptions to the rule would be games where the voice cast is particularly notable, such as actors reprising their roles in a video game translation of a movie, as in the case of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. In this case the character cast follows the general standard for listing a movie cast, with minor adaptations for the game's article. However, if characters are listed in a table, cast should not be listed separately. If actors/actresses must be added to the article, typically they should be done in the article prose, and generally in the development section.
Proposed version:
10 Cast lists: Generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices, likenesses or motion capture acting performances for video game characters is not appropriate. If mention of the actors is an important factor of the article, typically they should be done in the article prose, and generally in the development section (Good examples are: Batman: Arkham Asylum, Portal 2, and Bioshock Infinite.
Exceptions to the rule would be games where the video game cast is particularly notable, such as actors reprising their roles in a video game translation of a film. In this case the video game cast follows the general standard for listing a film cast, but should only list the major characters in the plot, and as a rule should be no longer than 10 actors.
-
X201 (
talk) 10:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Edit: Added suggested examples. -
X201 (
talk) 14:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the cover art section needs an exception to it where certain games are concerned. For Eg. Pokémon Crystal and Pokémon Emerald have no main article to themselves in fact they redirect to Pokémon Gold and Silver and Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire. I personally do not see the sections on the sister/companion versions as part of the main article myself. I see them as a separate article, so to speak, and think that because of this the Cover art section needs to make exceptions in these rare cases. Now I am not saying go and take a GBA game and put it with a PS2 remake like Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories, which was a GBA game first then a PS2 game later though their cover arts are significantly different I can agree with the cover art rule as if I have read correctly there is no significant differences within the games themselves. But in the case of the sister/companion version to Pokémon there needs to be exception when no main article is available as both Crystal and Emerald have significant differences to their predecessors but no main article to themselves. Swifty* talk 17:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like to make a proposal: the inclusion of notability guidelines for character articles and character lists. There were issues about merging characters in the talk page for the Metal Gear character list, which resulted in this discussion. In the same discussion, Sergecross73 ( talk · contribs) proposed that we should develop a guideline based on the notability of the characters. As such, I have opened a discussion here to seek opinions on whether to include it in the guidelines or not. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 22:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
In order to establish a page for a stand-alone video game character, the article should feature reception of the character; critical commentary about the character from a fiction standpoint, not as a playable entity. If there is detail about the history and development of the character in question in addition to some reception of the character, the character may also have a stand-alone article.
Still a bit clunky sounding. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 19:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I like the direction that Sjones's proposal is going so far. I think some parts could be trimmed down. For instance, the parts regarding "preferred referencing" seems like it would either be considered un-enforcable, (per things like WP:REFB, editors are free to reference how they chose.) or conversely, could be seen as applicable to any article in Wikipedia, not especially VG characters.
The other thing would probably be to come to a consensus on how we feel on using "Top X Lists" as sources that go towards establishing a character's notability. I know there's a lot of disagreements on this. My personal stance is, it's useable if it says something of substance, but but unusuable if it's just "Chun Li is hot!" or "Master Chief is the favorite character of website X! He is awesome." type stuff. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd be *really* careful on using gameplay style as a factor here; otherwise, you've basically now assured any character in any fighting game with a reliable third-party strategy guide becomes notable. In fact, gameplay aspects of a video game character should remain distant from the character article unless they are tied closely with the character's fiction. (eg Big Daddies from BioShock will not attack unless provoked by the player in order to protect their Little Sister). The focus needs to be on the character as a fictional element, not a gameplay element. If the character has little fiction associated with it but otherwise has notable gameplay elements, that can go in the article about the game itself, baring the exceptional cases like Missing No.
On the lists, I would agree that the lists needs to be something of substance and not just trivial metrics. It could be possible there is a "good" "Top 10 female game characters" where each one listed gets a good paragraph or so of why they selected that character, and that's fine. But at the same time there's more than enough "Top 10 hottest video game females" which is trivial coverage. --
MASEM (
t) 14:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Per the guidelines for writing about fiction, you must have at least some of this material in hand before you create a character article—this is the meat of your notability. -- I really like this part. In fact, in my opinion, this could almost be included in the introduction of the whole thing. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I have requested a comment about the use of "Top X lists" in video games below. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Now that this RfC is being closed, Sergecross73 and I have begun work on the proposal that I am doing. Feel free to give out suggestions and ideas on the talk page. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:19, 28 August 2012 (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 use "Top X Lists" (i.e. Top 10 lists) to determine notability for a video game character if it has significant coverage from a reliable source? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I like saying "the site doesn't appear reliable" about the website of the several hundred thousand / month circulation U.S. young adult men style magazine with many millions of monthly hits. It's totally like someone's Wordpress blog, or maybe not reliable because not. Also it's Game Informer, not "GameInformer" as you both keep saying. -- Niemti ( talk) 20:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The vidya is one of the main subjects of Complex, and you can also note how these lists are the most popular articles there ("MOST POPULAR IN VIDEO GAMES" table). [6] Not reviews, news, interviews (that are also there). Also Jmajeremy, you have some peculiar understanding of "trivial mention". A place on the list is not a "trivial mention", it's the core subject of this article. A "trivial mention" would be an offhand remark like a comparision to someone else, or being qualified but rejected. Or like this particular list of "less revered platforming heroes", [7] which is pretty useless for the obvious reasons (obvious reasons: it's just a lazy/random gallery, with no explaination comments on the selection, and nothing regarding notability of any kind - more like anti-notability, actually). -- Niemti ( talk) 20:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Also rejecting the notability of characters as being acclaimed for their attractiveness would be like purging most real-life models from Wikipedia (their whole notability is "she's hot" and nothing else). -- Niemti ( talk) 21:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
And quite obviously, female characters are usually regarded "hot" because of the T&A type factors. Do you really need this to be elaborated on in several paragraphs about each of them every time? Which is just like in the case of most many of
gravure idols, for example. And totally unlike the case of Anita Sarkeesian, who is instead highly notable for her troll-baiting and her epic fight for pixels' rights (and whose opinions I'm going to cite in the various articles anyway). --
Niemti (
talk) 22:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - The subject of Complex's list of girls is girls in video games. It isn't Princess Farah from Prince of Persia. Being part of a list is not "significant coverage". If I applied the "list OK" criteria to other facets of video games, you'd have articles on Shrink Ray (Duke Nukem) and Cerebral Bore (Turok) ( reliable source). Steelix, IGN readers' 80th favourite Pokemon? Elena (Street Fighter), Top 50 Street Fighter Character? No.
What do we usually require from video game articles? Multiple reliable sources. These are previews, reviews and interviews which are generally dedicated to the subject. This is "significant coverage".
Our guidelines should stress that significant coverage is needed, and that a mention in a list is not significant. It's useful supplementary material, but they do not establish notability. - hahnch e n 01:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Support, but within reason: The problem isn't the lists themselves but how they're being used. We can't simply use one be all to end all blanket to say "no x lists for notability" because some do genuinely go into depth as to why they feel the character is significant and why they're notable outside of their original source material. I think it's better we emphasize substance and what's actually being said over reference count. There's a big difference between "We added this character because she has nice tits" like Complex did, and something like this from Tom's Games which discusses the subject in detail. Ruling lists out entirely will only result in excluding opinions that do demonstrate notability, and can be too easily warped to cover a broader range.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 17:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
As Masem pointed out, the OP's wording makes this question totally useless. Broadly agree with what the oppose votes have said though. bridies ( talk) 04:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, of course. It's the most important thing after the official awards/nominations, or stuff like something being named after them. But that's besides some special individual cases (also of course), like when the list is being obviously pointless/random or is even actually indicating non-notability (like "platform heroes that failed back than and remain forgotten", which I just made up to illustrate the point). -- Niemti ( talk) 09:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
But speaking of this, some people manage to DO engage in original research. Not the bext example (I don't have them on hand), but on the recent (yesterday) Good Article Yuna (Final Fantasy), there is the following phrase (as re-rewritten by me, here quoted unwikified):
And it was originally it was written as following:
Which was kinda OR-ish to change the overall message by skipping over how they "address the subject directly" by pointing out how a "fine eye-candy" then became "gratuitously exploitative" (and which was still being "fine[est]" for them), like if to make the whole thing more acceptable for Anita Sarkeesian's stamp of approval. But this was also completely needless to do.
Another example (not a list, but a pretty good example of something stupid and/or pointless). There used to be a following:
OK, what? I just thought "wow, it was retarded" and removed it. So, that's it. -- Niemti ( talk) 08:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Support - I don't see why this can't be used to indicate notability. I've seen arguments that they don't offer "significant coverage". Well, if there's a good amount of them in the article, then I don't see any good reason why it couldn't be considered "significant coverage". Top lists are one of the easiest ways to get reception on video game characters. Kokoro20 ( talk) 12:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Now, having said so much, my opinion regarding the minimum criteria: a character (any character, and not just video game-related) SHOULD have Reception section, containing references to multiple (several different) reliable sources (with some very obvious exceptions to them, as I've discussed them twice here), for a start. The content of this section should accurately reflect the opinions as stated by the original authors, with no OR regarding them, or cherry-picking or censorship (as it was in case of Yuna's "exploitation"), but only the relatively valuable/relevant opinions should be actually cited in quite a detail on Wikipedia, as opposed to just mentioning them. Examples (sample and about roughly the same): this Complex list is fine to be quoted in part, but this IGN list (which was about the characters in all media, that's why 50) should be just mentioned, because it's rambling and pretty stupid. That's all. -- Niemti ( talk) 14:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been keeping tabs on this discussion, and I think it's mostly settled, but I'll add my view in brief: being on a "Top X Somethingest People" list in and of itself isn't a guarantee of meeting WP:GNG. I don't see that we need to make a separate standard for those types of articles. If the list contains so-called significant coverage, in other words more than just a sentence or two, a couple such sources would be enough to establish notability. As Masem has said, just saying "she is hot" or "he is the worst villain ever" isn't enough. We need some Why. — Torchiest talk edits 17:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
So since the above discussion has seemed to ground down and we're all on the same page hopefully. Let's take a look at a merge discussion I started, Julia Chang. Now looking at this version of the article's reception, we can discern the following from the references:
Out of everything there's probably two references that actually discuss the character in any context (14, and 16). This coincides with the standards discussed above, and the subject does not appear to satisfy notability in any context. And before it gets pointed out, yes we have quite a few articles too that follow this same pattern. Thoughts?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 16:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Julia's article, despite being new (only little over 1 month old), is already written better than most of character articles on Wikipedia (and there are many completely ridiculous articles like Clawdia Chauchat, which is 7 years old and made of literally 2 sentences and 3 tags also for years, and yet you don't care about it at all even after I've showed you it and then reminded you about it repeatedly). KFM just accused me of a "double standard" on my talk page, but actually that is the real double standard. -- Niemti ( talk) 17:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Since the above discussion break is seriously getting us nowhere fast, I have requested input from an uninvolved administrator to weigh in on the matter here. I would like to ask any uninvolved user or administrator who intends to comment on this topic, before they do, to read the discussions we had with the other people involved at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Merge discussion, User talk:Sergecross73#RfC question, as well as the above discussions, so that they know exactly what has happened. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh boy, oh boy. Sephiroth's (basically a quintissential video game villain of all time) reception is actually quite a mess (mostly undated while some having unncessary months in dates that are there, plenty of incirrectly-written stuff like "twenty-fifth" instead of 25th, bossess mixed with FF characters in one huge paragraph, and more) and needs to be rewritten. But hey, let's analyse:
The part "many websites have commented on how difficult it is to defeat Sephiroth in the games in which he appears" from the lead is quite odd and I don't think it's really based on the article's actual content (or maybe "many" being only IGN and some defunct website called AnimeFringe). That's not counting USER COMMENTS in a poll, as supposedly "Most of the comments noted the difficulty of the final fight with Sephiroth, as well as its distinctive elements when compared to other games." which was given an entire separate sentence there just for these user comments, and I think some original research by someone counting them (the article itelf said about these comments, only that: "Leave us your rant in the Comments section", but now WPVG believes these users' "rants" are being essential, while the editors' opinions are "effusive").
And do you really think that the citations in the style "battle against Sephiroth is top-notch" are being oh-so informative? Is this really "a manner which adds context to the ranking"? (And no, I don't think it's being wrong. I just point out stuff.) And just how informative ("describes more then just physical attributes") is the super-weird following statement: "GamesRadar simply called him "the biggest cock blocker in the gaming world," as writer Shane Patterson found Aerith's character to be appealing, and due to the fact Sephiroth killed her, players were unable to use her anymore"? Because I think that's like a PARODY now. Like, "the biggest cock blocker" is someone who kills the character that Shane Patterson finds "to be appealing" and then "players" are unable to "use" her "anymore"? WHAT?
I also find it interesting to note how the reception mentions him being compared to Liquid Snake, another extremely notable video game villain / modern pop culture icon. Who, however, has no Wikipedia article of his own (being unnotable according to WPVG, apparently). As for Link, his reception section is just poor. Barely ever updated for years. I've about doubled it in side when rewriting the article, but that's barely enough.
And you know what? That's all. I already said everything, it's going nowhere, and people usually don't even read what I write (even when I write it to them specifically), I feel like I'm wasting my time on around here (having no effect, just hearing complaints that "I'm ranting" and the comments that basically say "tl;dr"), and so I'm out. -- Niemti ( talk) 12:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like there is a consensus to be cautions in how we use Top 10 lists and quotefarms about aesthetics. May we close this? Votes below.
Japanese: 悪魔城の城主、邪心の神、ドラキュラ伯爵の復活であった。 Konami translation by Ken Ogasawara: Dracula, lord of darkness, master of the devil's castle, walks among us.
Japanese: 悪魔城の城主、邪心の神、ドラキュラ伯爵の復活であった。 Konami translation by Ken Ogasawara: Dracula, lord of darkness, master of the devil's castle, walks among us.
This page 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. |
Are glitches/bugs notable? As an example the bugs and unofficial patches section of Fallout 2. -- Megaman en m ( talk) 10:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I just read over the section regarding screenshots, but am looking for clarification. I am looking at adding a couple of screenshots of a free video game. Is there any restrictions on uploading screenshots from this type of game? Thanks for your help. Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 21:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Two questions:
Where should info about expansions go? As a subsection at the end of Reception? There aren't too many FAs on games with expansions, but one ( Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings) has a paragraph regarding expansions at the end of Reception. Thoughts? — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 13:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The article on DragonRealms needs to have notability established. Note I am not saying that the game is not notable (I don't know enough about the topic to say that), I am saying that the article needs attention, and part of that is stating why the game is notable. Blueboar ( talk) 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Modifying box art to remove platform designations is a form of original research and should not be suggested in these guidelines. I've removed a passage from the guideline which suggested this was okay. — Locke Cole • t • c 11:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Added the paragraph, as it has been agreed upon, under content. Feel free to move it if you feel its better suited elsewhere. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This edit [1] removed the section of the guidelines that related to the "Platform neutral" guideline for boxart. User Locke Cole says that it goes against WP:OR and that cropped boxarts with platform branding removed constitute original research. WP:OI does state "Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed. It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to try to distort the facts or position being illustrated by a contributed photo." My interpretation of the situation is that the above statement from WP:OI is intended for obviously altered images like faked photos of Elvis at Preswick or images altered to show a person in a bad light. I feel that the original guidelines do not breach WP:OI or WP:NOR because we are not trying to falsify information by showing boxart without branding. - X201 ( talk) 11:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
←(Un-indent) While I see no reason to crop box art, I do not believe it be original research or an original image. There's a difference between a derivative piece of work, and a cropped piece of work.
For example, cropping File:SSF HD Remix Boxart.jpg to remove the Capcom logo is fine because you haven't really altered that portion of the picture, just removed it from view. However, photoshopping just the logo out of the image as if it were never there creates a derivative work. Edits like that are what lead to original research. ( Guyinblack25 talk 16:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC))
Quoting WP:OI;
Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed.
— WP:OI (bold emphasis mine)
The "unpublished idea" here is that the box art looked like this. It doesn't and it never has. What one sees in the store looks similar to this, but similarity is not a defense from original research. The emboldened part is particularly important here and needs restating: "Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed." There are no exceptions given for cosmetic changes, or those stemming from a style choice. — Locke Cole • t • c 11:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
You asked if a discussion at WT:NOR would be more productive. Okay, sure, let's take it over there, since this is stepping into the realm of general Wikipedia policy and goes beyond the scope of WP:VG at this point. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 20:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The cropping of platform specific banners on box arts, does not constitute original research, but that isn't even really the issue at hand if you read the prior arguments (which is why I've commented here). The argument has been about whether identifying art should be 1:1 reproductions of products seen on store shelves, with the OR argument tacked onto the side to discredit the use of cropping.
Box art is primarily used for identifying art, but that does not mean that identifying art must be a 1:1 reproduction of an actual box. The identifying art that developers produce does not include system branding, that is added by the platform holders to ensure consistency across their library. File:GTAIV Logo.jpg for example, is the perfect piece of identifying art for GTA IV, cluttering that image with banners and age ratings does nothing. Those will vary between platforms and markets anyway, and given the data already given in the infobox, is largely redundant. Including the XBLA advertising banner on File:Megaman9cover.jpg actually detracts from the image, giving readers the first impression that it is an exclusive title. - hahnch e n 18:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually I think removing the logo might violate WP:COPYVIO as it's altering a copyrighted image to specifically remove a logo. じん ない 05:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Surely by removing the console logo we're actually reducing the the amount of copyright material we're seeking to use under FUR. And that can only be a good thing. - X201 ( talk) 13:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Copyright and trademark are separate areas of law. It appears that both weigh in this discussion. Please allow due discretion: as a Commons administrator I frequently encounter the former but not the latter, and during graduate coursework in a writing program a course on related law (including copyright) was required curriculum. This provided a limited framework of understanding, mainly for self-defense. Despite a long list of featured picture credits, I am not a lawyer and am unable to give expert opinion even on copyright. Regarding matters of trademark I confess profound ignorance. So with those caveats in mind, if there's any objection to removing a trademarked logo via cropping I am unaware of it. Issues of NPOV, etc. (if any exist) would be addressed separately via policy. Durova Charge! 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I can understand licensed soundtracks being added to music-based games such as the Guitar Hero or Rock Band series, but what about licensed soundtracks that are more or less just background music for a game, such as the Tony Hawk's series? I added soundtracks to articles of that series long ago, and they have long since been removed for apparently being a non-notable list, however I don't see anything saying that they shouldn't be added. Are licensed soundtracks notable information, or does it fall under part 6 of inappropriate content, "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts"? Licensed soundtracks aren't explicitly mentioned there, but I don't see anything else that would explain why they would be removed. For the record, I am not talking about games that have a separate soundtrack released on a CD, just background music from the game. -- GVOLTT How's my editing?\ My contribs 20:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The screenshots and cover art section contradicts itself. In one part, it states that "Where different cover designs are available for different regions, the one from the region in which the game has been developed should be used. If the game is not developed in an English-language region use the cover from the region in which the game receives its first English language release, unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it.", while another paragraph states that "Cover art should appear in the infobox (see below for more info on the infobox), and ideally, the most recognizable English-language cover should be used to illustrate the subject.". This needs to be fixed, preferably by incorporating the "most recognizable English-language cover" rule into the earlier paragraph's priority hierarchy. -- Gordon Ecker ( talk) 02:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Code (video game) wasn't moved to Base 10 (video game), Picopict wasn't moved to Pictobits, and Nemrem wasn't moved to Zengage when they hit NA, and yet this morning I wake up to see that Kubos has been moved to Precipice (video game), with the reasoning given as 'Nintendo announced that this is the title of this game per this article: http://press.nintendo.com/articles.jsp?id=19272 '. I know WP:ENGVAR covers spelling within articles (though I don't know if this counts as 'spelling' per se), WP:UE advises leaving it at the latest stable version (though it also says 'after the article has ceased being a stub', and the article in question is still a stub) if there's two different English words/titles involved, and Wikipedia doesn't hold any version of English as more correct than any other, but the WikiProject Video Games Naming Convention section does not cover this situation, so it would be nice to have project-official clarification on the matter.
long story short, should Precipice (video game) be moved back to Kubos on principle, or should it be left where it is since it's a stub-class low-importance article in terms of the project, and i'm probably the only one who noticed? ^^;;; -- Khisanth ( talk) 16:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
As all English-only and English-first rules, an execrable example of bigotry and arrogance. Anarchangel ( talk) 16:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Online Multiplayer is a very important aspect of many games today and I think that it might be helpful if we had guidelines for what types of information is and is not appropriate for sections of articles that discuss online multiplayer. Would a discussion about how the online multiplayer part of a game is different from the single player part of a game be alright? What if such a discussion included a mention of how the basic strategy differs, might that help people understand the game better? Would a mention of how the experience differs between single player and online multiplayer be appropriate? How would something like those last two items be properly referenced? It seems like the only references for something like that would be to refer to the game itself, a consensus amongst editors familiar with the game, and/or to discussion forums, preferably the official forums hosted by the game's developers. (In my experience, information where a journalistic reference does not exist is often easily verifiable by playing a game itself or by investigating alleged facts, such as visiting a website to verify that clan ladders exist.) Would information about online player counts and places where people tend to congregate ("the community can be found at this IRC channel") be permissible? Would information about the online multiplayer community itself, such as a description of the game's competitive clan scene ("several competitive sites offer clan ladders for this game") and how online games get organized ("team captains draft the teams and then they join the game server and a voice communications server") be appropriate? Would a list of popular mods (such as instagib) be alright? In some cases, might it make the sense to have and permit separate articles about some games' online multiplayer components, especially those that have very extensive and popular online multiplayer components? I think that explicit guidelines for all of this would be helpful and I hope that someone will draft them and that a fruitful discussion can take place. WhipperSnapper ( talk) 04:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed a large number of B, C and below articles have a cast list. Featured articles typically have no such list. It's rather difficult to explain to new users that a dedicated cast list is not usually necessary, and certainly a full cast list is not necessary in many cases. I've seen some articles that handle cast well by combining it with a character list, such as X-Men Origins: Wolverine (video game). I'm not asking for a new bullet point, but mentioning that a cast list is unnecessary in WP:GAMECRUFT would give me something to direct new users to. Thoughts? -- Teancum ( talk) 18:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
So I suppose my question now is what needs to be done to make note of this in the guidelines. New users are quick to disregard anything but "official policy" -- Teancum ( talk) 01:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Basically agree with Jinnai on this, mentioning major cast members in a prose section is appropriate, but listing voice casts strikes me as a bit crufty. The situation is not directly analogous to TV and film articles as voice casts aren't usually central aspects of a video game's notability the way film and TV casts are. I don't have a problem with Teancum's wording and I like the examples of appropriate mentions given by Guyinblack25 above ( Kingdom Hearts#Voice cast) and Teancum's edit to the guideline ( X-Men Origins: Wolverine (video game)#Characters). If there's significant dispute about this addition, an RfC might be in order? -- Muchness ( talk) 06:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The biggest issue with a "Voice Cast" section is that it's redundant. Such cast can easily be covered in the prose of the article, either in the plot section, or in the characters section, similar to how movie articles do it. Having a dedicated section to the voice cast is just list cruft, and it invites non-seasoned wiki editors to add voice actors for minor characters, such as "Security Guard #5", or even worse, to list every possible role for every actor. For example: in Fallout 3#Voice_actors are "Harold the Tree" or "Scribe Bigsley in Broken Steel" truly notable characters? I don't know, but they should be mentioned in the characters section and the actor mentioned there if so. Mentioning the actor in the characters section puts the focus on the in-game character, rather than the actor portraying them. It's not mentioning who voiced XXXX character, it's how we do it. -- Teancum ( talk) 13:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Is, "Generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices for video game characters ... not appropriate"? (See
Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Inappropriate content and the discussion above)
Anarchangel (
talk) 08:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree a bit with BovineBoy in that not all cast lists are appropriate, but I'm sure as anything else, there are the few exceptions out there. What we should not be doing is regurgitate the entire credit roll from a game and place it in the article or in an independent list as that is too indiscriminate, or even regurgitate every single voice actor credited in a game. My rule of thumb would be, if it has an article or might be notable enough to warrant mentioning, then mention it. That falls under editorial discretion depending on the article discussed. MuZemike 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
"Prose is preferred over tables and lists where listing the voice cast of an article is concerned. The information can be placed in Production sections (rationale: the default, to some extent, or there is information regarding the production that is relevant to the actors or vice versa) integrated into the plot section (rationale: character-driven plot), in its own section below Production (rationale: the actors are particularly notable), or above it (rationale: actors are notable, and the Production section is not detailed), whichever is most appropriate."
I'm going to be blunt and point out that recent edits by user Special:Contributions/Anarchangel have reverted several edits before this dispute was complete. Can we make the effort to be civil and discuss this through until its completion prior to reverting previously established edits? Clearly we're both seeking for what's best for Wikipedia, but given pretty standard operating procedures we don't make a move until the dispute is cleared. Additionally the general consensus thus far has been to not have cast lists, but listing notable actors in prose one way or another. I am re-reverting such edits until the dispute is complete, as currently that is policy. I am fine with someone adding them back in later if policy is changed. -- Teancum ( talk) 02:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
[ [2]] Wouldn't it be better to simply include the voice actors and motion capture actors within the appropriate character's article? Simply place it in the infobox for the Mortal Kombat characters and in the appearnce in other media for the DC characters. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain ( talk) 16:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I didn't really follow this discussion, but I have a question that is partially related to this discussion so I think I should open a new section here. The question is: if a game is developed by an English-language company and released in English-speaking countries first, are the non-English voice actors notable? (See Crash Tag Team Racing#Voice cast for example.) We already know from VG guidelines that non-English release dates are not notable in such cases, but what about voice actors? Megata Sanshiro ( talk) 00:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Just an inquiry about properly writing a Reception section. When using the VG reviews template, how many of the Review score fields need to be filled in? Would filling in all of them be too much? Similarly, how many of these review scores should be mentioned in the body of the section? VG Editor ( talk) 09:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there some kind of guideline or consensus on including game sales figures for games? I've noticed some articles list them and some don't. It's also a little strange because some games include the sales figures of expansions in addition to original sales, which inflates the figure compared with single product releases (eg Guild Wars includes all campaigns and Halo 3 only includes a single game). 122.111.0.60 ( talk) 22:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Mostly posting here to cross-reference a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#MobyGames paid Wikipedia?: I don't believe MobyGames has enough substance to justify linking to it as much as we do. See for instance this page on Hunt the Wumpus, which, if you take out all the content not already on Wikipedia and unique to that game, some screenshots (which you can get just about anywhere), links to Amazon and eBay (commercial), a bit of trivia, and a forum. It's pretty underwhelming as a whole. Nifboy ( talk) 23:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Since that's 5-0 in favor I went ahead and moved it, adding a rationale. Nifboy ( talk) 04:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
When browsing through articles within the scope of Project Video Games I have come across a few where the image in the infobox is a screenshot. In my opinion the image in the infobox should always be box art, with a screenshot in the main body of the article. I'd like to gain a few more opinions on the matter before making wholesale changes to various articles, so what do other editors think about images in infoboxes. AirRaidPatrol 84 ( talk) 13:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This issue is now being discussed at length on the main talk page for the project here. AirRaidPatrol 84 ( talk) 11:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Normally, non-English release dates are generally accepted when a game is released first in a non-English region and/or was developed in such a region. But shouldn't the owner of the intellectual property (which is not necessarily the developer) and a franchise's history also play a role? For example, Battalion Wars. The Japanese release date was removed since the game was developed by a British company. I don't think the inclusion of non-English release dates should be solely decided on the developer when said company doesn't even own the rights of the game and won't be allowed to develop it without the copyright holders agreement. The game is fully owned by the publisher, Nintendo, a company with its headquarters in Japan. The Wars series itself was established in Japan and was even exclusive to this region for many years. And it's not like that the (Japanese) copyright holder had no influence on the game's development, they had, as the credits prove. The property owner always has the last word on the game's content. In my opinion, the Japanese release date belongs to the article for reasons explained. -- Grandy02 ( talk) 19:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Is a release date of "TBA" appropriate for an unreleased game that has already missed its most recently-announced date (as has happened with Guitar Rising)? Neon Merlin 03:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
IMO the verb tense section should explicitly state that unreleased games, systems and other products should be referred to in present tense because they already exist in some form. I also think we should use present tense to refer to cancelled products. -- Gordon Ecker ( talk) 08:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
In the list of inappropriate content this article mentions cost: "The cost of games, products, or subscriptions in any form should not be included in articles". I'm guessing by this we mean the purchasing cost? e.g. how much it costs to buy a particular game in a store. But do you think it is okay to mention the costs of developing or producing a game? In some cases this might be interesting to note in the Development History or Reception sections. I don't think it is needed for every game.
I'm going to be bold and update the page. Feedback is welcome. -- Culix ( talk) 19:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The Naming Convention section has nice H3 headers that show up in the TOC. What do you think about doing this for the Organization section too, for games, characters, and settings? Do you think that would disrupt the flow of the article or make the TOC too long? Or would it be useful because you could link directly to those sections? -- Culix ( talk) 19:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
GOG.comis a website that has gotten quite famous for distributing old games in a playable state on current hardware. A lot of users are adding links to various games' GOG section; where the game can be purchased. I'm torn on this issue, because on one hand - GOG is clearly a commercial website like Gamespot, IGN, and 1UP, etc, so that's no good. On the other hand, GOG is the single most known distributor of old games, and often contains some relevant info on the games they sell.
So what is the verdict on this? Eik Corell ( talk) 22:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I think DMOZ should be mentioned [edit: in the External links section], as it is often ignored, and can be used to cover a lot of other external sites people may be tempted to add in one fell swoop. SharkD Talk 11:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Should we add terms/terminology? I am in a slow, but continual process of cleaning up the Tsukihime article(s) and believe that in-universe terms should also be removed. Criteria 6 doesn't exactly go out and say it is inappropriate though since the examples given are all tangible (well at least virtually tangible >_>).
Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts. Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are considered inappropriate. Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.
I think changing it to:
Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts. Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, in-universe terminology and so on are considered inappropriate.[...]
陣 内 Jinnai 08:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Where different cover designs are available for different regions, the one from the region in which the game has been developed should be used. If the game is not developed in an English-language region use the cover from the region in which the game receives its first English language release, unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it.
What is meant by an English-language region? Most European games are developed in English only, should it matter if a game is developed in the UK or Germany if they are both in English? I suggest changing the above to:
Where different cover designs are available for different regions, the one from the region in which the game has been developed should be used. If the game's original release is not in English use the cover from the region in which the game receives its first English language release, unless another English language version has been uploaded first in which case don't change it.
If no one objects I'll change this in the next few days. -- MrStalker ( talk) 00:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I was one of the people behind the wording of that rule. The reason "If the game is not developed in an English-language region" was used was to raise the importance of the developement location over the release location. I wanted to keep release dates and release locations to a minimum in the guideline and keep it specifically focused on the developer. -
X201 (
talk) 08:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Also I think this need some clarification:
Video game covers should only be used in the game's infobox, and only one cover should be present. If the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, only one cover image should be used; if possible, a cover without the console's identification can be used by editing the cover picture in order to create a console-neutral picture.
Shouldn't PC be considered platform neutral? I guess this particular line is in the guideline because we don't want to promote any specific console with the console war(s) going on, but when it comes to PC it really doesn't matter, does it? When I say PC I mean PC covers with the old "PC-DVD only" markings, not the "Games for Windows" markings, because they obviously promote Windows as a product. Any generic PCs on the other hand I don't think matters. So, I suggest changing to:
Video game covers should only be used in the game's infobox, and only one cover should be present. If the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, only one cover image should be used; if possible, a cover without any platform-related logotypes can be used by editing the cover picture in order to create a console-neutral picture. PC game covers with "PC-DVD only" markings (or similar), but not "Games for Windows" markings, is considered console-neutral.
Again, if no one objects I'll change this myself within the next few days. -- MrStalker ( talk) 09:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Video game covers should only be used in the game's infobox, and only one cover should be present. If the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, only one cover image should be used; if possible, a cover 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 considered platform-neutral if they do not indicate a required operating system.
There seems to consensus for the two above changes so I've gone ahead and made them. -- MrStalker ( talk) 10:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we could/should suggest using multiple covers if there's significant coverage of the artwork itself, for example if the original cover is controversial in some way and the game is rereleased with a different cover. I think there's precedence in articles about albums. Wyatt Riot ( talk) 18:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Quoting from this project page (the essential content paragraph):
I would say that a reception section is only appropriate content of a video game article when the game had a SUBSTANTIAL impact on game industry either commercially, artistically and technologically. Most games do not qualify for this. And even for those games that do, it should be clearly stated HOW the game had impact, not only list review ratings in a number of magazines. Review ratings from computer magazines are consumer advisory content, but not encyclopedic content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.250.245 ( talk) 13:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This guideline set basically says that if the translated title resembles the original Japanese title in anyway, the romaji version of the title should be omitted. This was brought to my attention after Jinnai reverted my edits to the lead of Bishōjo game after I added "Bishōjo gēmu" and "gyarugē" to the lead. Basically, I don't think anyone does this on the project at all and I think it conflicts with the Japanese manual of style. This bit of text should probably be removed, because there are very rarely any titles that are identical when read in English and Japanese. Resident Evil should include the text "Baiohazādo" (as I just added it) and SoulCalibur should have "SōruKyaribā".— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 05:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to propose some new guidelines to improve the Non-English games section a bit, namely some elaborations on long nihongo templates, usage of boldface, and official/unofficial translations.
The inclusion of Japanese titles can enhance a video game article by providing additional cultural context. However, they should only be given for games of Japanese origin whose official English name differs significantly from its Japanese name. Phonetic transcriptions are, as a rule, not considered to be significantly different and thus do not warrant the inclusion of Japanese titles. Otherwise, one of the following formats is to be used:
{{nihongo|'''''English title'''''|kanji/kana|
rōmaji}}
:{{nihongo|'''''English title'''''|kanji/kana|rōmaji|translation}}
:{{nihongo|''Japanese title with official romanizations for proper names''|kanji/kana|rōmaji|translation}}
. Foreign language titles not commonly used in English are not given in
boldface but in italics. For example:As shown above, the meaning of the Japanese title may differ from the English title. In these cases, the Japanese title should be accompanied by an English translation.
In some cases, there are several Japanese titles, or the fully-utilized nihongo templates are so long they hurt the
readability of the lead paragraph. To prevent this, include them as
footnotes using {{ref|JAP|JAP}}
after the English title. Place the actual note with the Japanese title and nihongo template in a section separate from the references using {{note|JAP}}
:
Similar guidelines like those described above apply to games of other foreign origin, such as Korean RPGs.
Though the first point is likely to change soon given how romanization of foreign-language words is being discussed again at the moment, I think the other proposals will help standardize the video game articles. Questions, comments, other proposals? Prime Blue ( talk) 00:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:BOLDTITLE, all translations should be italicized:
Also, I don't think it's very efficient to open this discussion when there's a related discussion ongoing at WP:MOSJA. Megata Sanshiro ( talk) 18:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see a better example than Castlevania as I don't see where "Devil's Castle Dracula" is used in the reference. Megata Sanshiro ( talk) 20:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I did not see reference to #1 being a requirement for leads, just not to boldface them. For #2, that depends. For video game articles, the best place to put it is in the gameplay section, the first time it is mentioned. Other articles that might be secondarily under this project could be under its relevant media section, like School Rumble, if its not already elsewhere. #3, I don't see any problem with as we will only be used one title, just the English title in the lead and #4 was taken care of. I believe leadcite would also qualify for footnotes liek those mentioned, but I'm willing to to go there if you are for excruciation. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Both The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages{{r|group=Note|Nihongo}} have similar gameplay elements to each other.
In both The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages{{r|group=Note|Nihongo}} the stories begin as the Triforce calling out to Link whereupon he in transported to a different world depending on the game—Holodrum in Seasons and Labrynna in Ages—in order to save it from a calamitous disruption caused shortly after his arrival. Each game has its own ending and if [continue with the moved #linked ending section here].
2. Okay, now you confused me completely with your example (more and more, I think I might not be having a slow week but a Slowpoke week). I thought you were against using footnotes and wanted to include the fully utilized nihongo templates in a section below, but now you're using footnotes ({{r|group=Note|Nihongo}}) in your example. I'll have to pose this question to avoid even further misunderstandings: Are you, in general, for or against the usage of footnotes for long Japanese titles (disregarding for the moment if these footnotes would be placed in the lead section or in another section further down)?
3. I feel the original name from the country of origin should always be included in the article (disregarding what consensus will be reached on using footnotes and on where to put the foreign titles).
4. I still think you are misinterpreting WP:LEADCITE. To prevent this discussion from moving in circles, I asked SlimVirgin to come over and to confirm which of our two interpretations is valid. He/she (?) was one of the last administrators to make an edit to it.
5. You are misunderstanding me: I asked why footnotes (no matter where they go) were not appropriate to solve this issue, not if Japanese titles should be mentioned in the lead or not. Prime Blue ( talk) 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
While I'm reading this again, I think that it is not a good idea to put an official translation as one of the "extra" parameters in {{ nihongo}}. If we know that "Castlevania" is "Devil's Castle Dracula" in Japan, it should be written as
Castlevania, originally released as Devil's Castle Dracula (悪魔城ドラキュラ, Akumajō Dorakyura, [2]) in Japan...
in the article. The issue still stands as to what to do with games that have different names for which we can only give a literal translation. That could be what {{ nihongo3}} is for, as I have modified The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages currently. Rather than giving two romaji names, with just modifying "Zelda" and "Zeruda", you can save space and just have it once and use "Zeruda no Densetsu..." (kanji, literally translated as "The Legend of Zelda..."— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 00:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Should be brought up because it came up, but what about terms that use english words transformed into katakana? This takes 2 forms:
As announced above. Also see the previous discussion for reference. Prime Blue ( talk) 10:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
At Talk:Sid_Meier's_Alpha_Centauri#External_Links, we have been discussing adding a second external link :
* Jenson, Chris; Radcliffe, Doug; Chin, Elliot; O'Brien, Ethan (Design) (1999-02-17). "Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri Game Guide". Gamespot. San Francisco, CA, USA 94105: CBS Interactive Inc. Retrieved 2010-08-03.
{{ cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location ( link) - 335 page game guide, covering units, combat, terraforming, bases, facilities, secret projects, technology, factions, social engineering, multiplayer and modifications.
There is a sentence in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#External_links that counsels against this:
Additionally, Wikipedia is not a game guide - external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game.
This seems contrary to WP:ELYES, point 3 that encourages linking to
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.
This is the diff that inserted the language into Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#External_links. In the archived talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines/Archive_1#two_suggested_changes are the following comments:
I propose we modify the current section "Links to remakes" to expand into more about what links are generally acceptable or not acceptable for VG articles; while some of this repeats WP:EL, citing specific examples related to VGs can't hurt. My thought is that acceptable links (for games themselves) include an official game site, links to the developer/publisher barring official game sites, and then possibly a Moby Games-type link; non-acceptable include fan-made remakes, GameFAQS's guides for the game, or other game guide information (360 achievement point lists), PlanetINSERTGAMEHERE-type sites, and similar fan sites. Mind you, there's exceptions on both sides, but the examples should help prevent the EL linkfarm creepage that can be seen in some articles. -- MASEM 14:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think those are good suggestions. Though I think the nature of VG release dates will always lend itself to inaccuracies. Another suggestion I'd like to bring up is the addition of more Organization guidelines in the Article guidelines#Organization section. Currently there are only recommendations for games. I think it would be helpful for new and current editors to have recommendations for series, character, setting, system, and music articles. I think it will help standardize some of the lower rated articles and improve their overall quality. Any thoughts? ( Guyinblack25 talk 16:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC))
- I had created the links to remakes section specifically to deal with the plethora of online or downloadble clone games that kept getting added. These of course violate the copyrights of the game. If you want to expand to a section covering linking policies in general for video game articles, I'd suggest having a main section on links and having this as one of the sub-sections under it. I think its a good idea all around, the more specific we can be (i.e. the more we spell things out so there is no question), the better. -- Marty Goldberg ( talk) 17:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've been WP:BOLD and expanded the section to talk about EL's in general for VG articles and included a breakout of examples for appropriate, inappropriate, and unacceptable links. The existing case of remakes falls under inappropriate (not unacceptable) because some of these may be notable but in general to be avoided. -- MASEM 16:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I like it. I think the new changes adequately explains the limitations on external links but still gives editors room to make exceptions as needed. ( Guyinblack25 talk 16:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC))
In looking at the statement
Additionally, Wikipedia is not a game guide - external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game.
the link is to WP:NOT#GUIDE, which states that WikiPedia articles should not read like a "how-to" style game guide. WP:NOT#GUIDE does not cover external links (which is covered by WP:EL). I believe that the subject statement took a WP policy about what an article should not be and erroneously applied it to external links contrary to WP policy on external links. While there are editors that disfavor external links and WP policy cautions against link farms, I think the subject statement goes too far. After all, WP:CONLIMITED explicitly states
participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right.
Please note that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#External_links also states
Appropriate external links - These links should be present if possible in a video game article
...
- If the page contains substantial information that is relevant but not necessarily encyclopedic in nature, a video game's page at MobyGames, Allgame or the Internet Movie Database may be added on a case by case basis.
I find it odd that these three sources should be recommended on a case by case basis while a game guide would be categorically dismissed (subject to exception and common sense) without any consideration about whether it is neutral, accurate, substantial and relevant. For a video game article, isn't gameplay as important to the general reader interested in researching the subject further as a review or cast?
My primary interest in bringing this matter up is to prevent editors from using a statement that seems to derive its authority from a WP policy on articles from being used to disqualify an external link encouraged by the WP policy on external links. My secondary interest is that the subject statement may discourage an external link that the official WP policy on external links encourages.
Thank you for reading this long comment. Vyeh ( talk) 09:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
How should reception sections be handled for unreleased games? -- Gordon Ecker ( talk) 03:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at WT:PW about whether or not including the list of characters constitutes a "game guide" or if it is essential information. Opinions from this project would be helpful in establishing a consensus. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
A small difference of opinion regarding tenses has arisen on the APB article between an IP users and myself. The guidelines state "When describing a video game or console itself in the abstract, use present tense unless a reliable source proves that no instances of the product exist or the product was never released." How does this relate to MMOs etc that have closed? Personally I think they should still be described with the present tense "is" rather than "was". I can understand people writing "was" as the problem arises from the fact that the servers were switched off rendering the game unplayable. But the game code still exists. Its like the problem the BBC hit a while back. They have programme footage recorded with experimental video recorders. The programme doesn't stop existing just because they don't have a machine to play it back on. Opinions? - X201 ( talk) 14:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
WP's coverage of games is weakened to the point of uselessness, leading game experts to not expand WP articles, leading back to deletion in a vicious circle.
For example, game coverage has at least one glaringly obvious double standard. There are scores, perhaps hundreds, of articles on Chess openings, and individual articles for each of the five Chess pieces, and even the chessboard itself, but computer game mechanics are not allowed in any computer game article. Video game mechanics are more complex and thus require more explanation than the moves of individual chess pieces. Chess is elegant in its simplicity, but it is simple, and therefore can be covered in a few sentences. Without anything to say, the articles are flabby and repetitious, padded with illustrations and filled with hypothetical recommendations of the same kind as the strategy guides which are forbidden on WP. Meanwhile other game articles are bled dry of essential content.
Similarly, while
Voice acting in Japan is given as much or more credit as/than film actors, WP rules forbid the listing of voice actors in game articles altogether. There is a again, an obvious double standard here: animation articles, whether shorts or feature length, have no such restriction on the listing of their voice actors, and this is reflected in the fact that there is no note paid in the Japanese voice acting culture to a distinction that has been created wholesale from the WP culture. Voice actors in Anime, animated features and games are all Seiyu to the Japanese.
Anarchangel (
talk) 08:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no move. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 09:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines →
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (video games) — It would be ideal to rename the various guidelines written up by our various wikiprojects under the same naming style so it will be easier to find. I also suggest inclusion at {{
style}}.
Bernolákovčina (
talk) 21:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
As the LttP+FS discussion has shown, people seem are having issues with what goes where because we commonly combine sections when there isn't enough detail - a wiki-wide practice - and it has come to be assumed that because its usually there, they are the same things.
I was considering going with a more formalized structure like WP:MOS-AM, but geared toward the concerns that video games have. This would include combining current practices, elements from content and style, and info from WP:LAYOUT and rework the content and style sections.
I'll be doing this in a sandbox version so it won't interfere with the current version as it would be a major restructuring, but feel free to voice and comments or concerns beforehand. 陣 内 Jinnai 16:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
An editor is making a case at Diaspora (computer game) to try and provide an external list of some homebrew remakes. Confusion has arisen, I think, because of a lack of clarification between what the guidelines call a "remake" (which I take to be "officially licensed") and a "fan remake" (not officially licensed - perhaps my interpretation is wrong.) His argument also intersects with WP:PRIMARY/ WP:SECONDARY but first I think we should explicitly define the terminology. Marasmusine ( talk) 14:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This topic is being discussed and mediated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#WP:VG/GL mediation. |
Looking at the pages it links to for support it appears there is no longer any guideline that supports this section. In fact WP:TRIVIA actively discourages such sections under any name saying they should be integrated elsewhere or removed.
In addition, I do not see many such sections in existance. The closest would be In other media which are not lists, but prose that follow standard requirements for inclusion and limited to character articles. I think we should remove this, but as I'm doing the overhaul, its something that can wait. 陣 内 Jinnai 04:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Trying to kick start the discussion again, one area I see that could be consolidated is music bullet point. It could tag along with the film and TV bullet point with a few examples given. Any thoughts? ( Guyinblack25 talk 16:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC))
I think we need to better distinguish what is allowed for fan remakes or hacks. Somari is up for deletion, and Mushroom Kingdom Fusion was just nominated. Both have a decent amount of coverage, but not as much as some people would like. This guideline says:
Both examples given here don't have barely any sources, and don't seem to be notable. Why are these listed as examples? Blake ( Talk· Edits) 15:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to bring something up here while not trying to toot my own horn, but why not swap the examples for such articles for Chrono Resurrection and Final Fantasy VII (Famicom)? Both have much more significant coverage than the current examples, no?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 03:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Most fan remakes are not notable and can't be sourced. There are certainly exceptions, when they can be appropriately sourced with reliable non-trivial coverage, and cease and desist letters are often broadly covered in the media. I agree those two examples are inappropriate. Although Grid Wars might be notable, Armagetron does not seem to be. Andrevan @ 16:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why we need specific guidelines for fan games. It doesn't matter whether a video game is made by fans or professionals. The same guidelines should apply to all video games. If a professional game is notable enough for an article, it should have one. If a fan game is notable enough for an article, it should have one. I don't see what else there is to say. Jonathan Hardin' ( talk) 01:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Asian MMORPG articles often have a slew of external links: For example covering Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Vietnam, etc. I've seen admins remove such links per WP:NONENGEL, so I started doing it, too. Now I've met resistance to this on the Counter-Strike_Online article, and now I'm wondering - Did I, or the people I observed doing this, get this all wrong? What is the policy on non-English external links? The way I've been doing it is removing non-English official links, and, if no official English link exists, go for one link, that being the one for the country that the developers are based in. Eik Corell ( talk) 22:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Despite coverage, the decision was made to merge Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire with Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Originally the infoboxes of both games were shown, but it was then decided since much of the information was the same, to just add in an extra few lines to the first infobox. The cover image remained in the section for the expansion pack, since they had different covers. Despite one requiring the other one to play, they were still sold as separate games. Should each not have its own cover? The guideline seems to be written to prevent the same game, released on multiple platforms, from having a cover picture for each platform it was released on. WP:VGBOX currently reads: generally, only one cover should be present, regardless of platform or regional differences. Anyone object to me adding a bit about expansion packs? If an expansion pack is listed in the game article, and has no article of its own, then it is acceptable to have its cover in that article. Dream Focus 08:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The examples only covers the most common kind of video game images, while there are a number of video game-related fair use images that need to be covered here in more detail. For example, setting images can often be art that doesn't fall under these guidelines and as such editors have no good reference points as to when such an image is acceptable for use. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I found a request for box art or logo for the game titled above on the talk page. I have the logo but am nervous about just placing it in case it causes the article to be deleted while it is still new and being added too. Any help or advice or someone checking the logo file I have, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. VoltairSHK ( talk) 13:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone convert to svg and upload to Commons the Wii U's logo? Here's the source: [5] User Name: E32011 Password: nintendo « ₣M₣ » 21:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on the article Spiral Knights. I want to add some new screenshots. I've read the fair use guidelines, but they don't address one detail: Should I take my own screenshots from within the game, or should I use the canned screenshots from the company's web site? Two possible considerations: The company's screenshots seem slightly doctored (no heads-up display) and they are not easy to cut-and-paste (perhaps indicating that the company doesn't want them cut-and-pasted?). Mgnbar ( talk) 14:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Also: The company's screenshots are probably more diverse and more visually appealing than the ones I would take. Mgnbar ( talk) 14:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
What exactly is meant by "weight classes"? This seems like a bizarrely over-specific idea, applicable mostly to Mario Kart and fighting games. Is this supposed to refer to character classes (such as mage, summoner, warrior, etc, which I think are overly specific minutia) or only classes categorized by weight? Some guy ( talk) 00:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Now that actors are lending not only their voice, but also their likenesses and motion captured performances to video games, I think our cast list guideline needs a tweak. I've seen a couple of articles where cast lists have been added, at one point the L.A. Noire article listed almost every bit-part character in the game, the motivation seemed to be the fact that the character happened to be played by that bloke from Heroes or The Sopranos.
I've listed the current and proposed versions below. The main reason for the change is to clearly indicate that, in general, cast lists are not notable, and to clarify in what circumstance they are, and to urge editors to not got over the top with the length of the list if one is needed.
The current guideline:
10 Cast lists: Generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices for video game characters is not appropriate. Exceptions to the rule would be games where the voice cast is particularly notable, such as actors reprising their roles in a video game translation of a movie, as in the case of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. In this case the character cast follows the general standard for listing a movie cast, with minor adaptations for the game's article. However, if characters are listed in a table, cast should not be listed separately. If actors/actresses must be added to the article, typically they should be done in the article prose, and generally in the development section.
Proposed version:
10 Cast lists: Generally speaking, a list of the actors providing voices, likenesses or motion capture acting performances for video game characters is not appropriate. If mention of the actors is an important factor of the article, typically they should be done in the article prose, and generally in the development section (Good examples are: Batman: Arkham Asylum, Portal 2, and Bioshock Infinite.
Exceptions to the rule would be games where the video game cast is particularly notable, such as actors reprising their roles in a video game translation of a film. In this case the video game cast follows the general standard for listing a film cast, but should only list the major characters in the plot, and as a rule should be no longer than 10 actors.
-
X201 (
talk) 10:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Edit: Added suggested examples. -
X201 (
talk) 14:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the cover art section needs an exception to it where certain games are concerned. For Eg. Pokémon Crystal and Pokémon Emerald have no main article to themselves in fact they redirect to Pokémon Gold and Silver and Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire. I personally do not see the sections on the sister/companion versions as part of the main article myself. I see them as a separate article, so to speak, and think that because of this the Cover art section needs to make exceptions in these rare cases. Now I am not saying go and take a GBA game and put it with a PS2 remake like Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories, which was a GBA game first then a PS2 game later though their cover arts are significantly different I can agree with the cover art rule as if I have read correctly there is no significant differences within the games themselves. But in the case of the sister/companion version to Pokémon there needs to be exception when no main article is available as both Crystal and Emerald have significant differences to their predecessors but no main article to themselves. Swifty* talk 17:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like to make a proposal: the inclusion of notability guidelines for character articles and character lists. There were issues about merging characters in the talk page for the Metal Gear character list, which resulted in this discussion. In the same discussion, Sergecross73 ( talk · contribs) proposed that we should develop a guideline based on the notability of the characters. As such, I have opened a discussion here to seek opinions on whether to include it in the guidelines or not. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 22:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
In order to establish a page for a stand-alone video game character, the article should feature reception of the character; critical commentary about the character from a fiction standpoint, not as a playable entity. If there is detail about the history and development of the character in question in addition to some reception of the character, the character may also have a stand-alone article.
Still a bit clunky sounding. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 19:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I like the direction that Sjones's proposal is going so far. I think some parts could be trimmed down. For instance, the parts regarding "preferred referencing" seems like it would either be considered un-enforcable, (per things like WP:REFB, editors are free to reference how they chose.) or conversely, could be seen as applicable to any article in Wikipedia, not especially VG characters.
The other thing would probably be to come to a consensus on how we feel on using "Top X Lists" as sources that go towards establishing a character's notability. I know there's a lot of disagreements on this. My personal stance is, it's useable if it says something of substance, but but unusuable if it's just "Chun Li is hot!" or "Master Chief is the favorite character of website X! He is awesome." type stuff. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd be *really* careful on using gameplay style as a factor here; otherwise, you've basically now assured any character in any fighting game with a reliable third-party strategy guide becomes notable. In fact, gameplay aspects of a video game character should remain distant from the character article unless they are tied closely with the character's fiction. (eg Big Daddies from BioShock will not attack unless provoked by the player in order to protect their Little Sister). The focus needs to be on the character as a fictional element, not a gameplay element. If the character has little fiction associated with it but otherwise has notable gameplay elements, that can go in the article about the game itself, baring the exceptional cases like Missing No.
On the lists, I would agree that the lists needs to be something of substance and not just trivial metrics. It could be possible there is a "good" "Top 10 female game characters" where each one listed gets a good paragraph or so of why they selected that character, and that's fine. But at the same time there's more than enough "Top 10 hottest video game females" which is trivial coverage. --
MASEM (
t) 14:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Per the guidelines for writing about fiction, you must have at least some of this material in hand before you create a character article—this is the meat of your notability. -- I really like this part. In fact, in my opinion, this could almost be included in the introduction of the whole thing. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I have requested a comment about the use of "Top X lists" in video games below. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Now that this RfC is being closed, Sergecross73 and I have begun work on the proposal that I am doing. Feel free to give out suggestions and ideas on the talk page. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:19, 28 August 2012 (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 use "Top X Lists" (i.e. Top 10 lists) to determine notability for a video game character if it has significant coverage from a reliable source? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I like saying "the site doesn't appear reliable" about the website of the several hundred thousand / month circulation U.S. young adult men style magazine with many millions of monthly hits. It's totally like someone's Wordpress blog, or maybe not reliable because not. Also it's Game Informer, not "GameInformer" as you both keep saying. -- Niemti ( talk) 20:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The vidya is one of the main subjects of Complex, and you can also note how these lists are the most popular articles there ("MOST POPULAR IN VIDEO GAMES" table). [6] Not reviews, news, interviews (that are also there). Also Jmajeremy, you have some peculiar understanding of "trivial mention". A place on the list is not a "trivial mention", it's the core subject of this article. A "trivial mention" would be an offhand remark like a comparision to someone else, or being qualified but rejected. Or like this particular list of "less revered platforming heroes", [7] which is pretty useless for the obvious reasons (obvious reasons: it's just a lazy/random gallery, with no explaination comments on the selection, and nothing regarding notability of any kind - more like anti-notability, actually). -- Niemti ( talk) 20:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Also rejecting the notability of characters as being acclaimed for their attractiveness would be like purging most real-life models from Wikipedia (their whole notability is "she's hot" and nothing else). -- Niemti ( talk) 21:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
And quite obviously, female characters are usually regarded "hot" because of the T&A type factors. Do you really need this to be elaborated on in several paragraphs about each of them every time? Which is just like in the case of most many of
gravure idols, for example. And totally unlike the case of Anita Sarkeesian, who is instead highly notable for her troll-baiting and her epic fight for pixels' rights (and whose opinions I'm going to cite in the various articles anyway). --
Niemti (
talk) 22:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - The subject of Complex's list of girls is girls in video games. It isn't Princess Farah from Prince of Persia. Being part of a list is not "significant coverage". If I applied the "list OK" criteria to other facets of video games, you'd have articles on Shrink Ray (Duke Nukem) and Cerebral Bore (Turok) ( reliable source). Steelix, IGN readers' 80th favourite Pokemon? Elena (Street Fighter), Top 50 Street Fighter Character? No.
What do we usually require from video game articles? Multiple reliable sources. These are previews, reviews and interviews which are generally dedicated to the subject. This is "significant coverage".
Our guidelines should stress that significant coverage is needed, and that a mention in a list is not significant. It's useful supplementary material, but they do not establish notability. - hahnch e n 01:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Support, but within reason: The problem isn't the lists themselves but how they're being used. We can't simply use one be all to end all blanket to say "no x lists for notability" because some do genuinely go into depth as to why they feel the character is significant and why they're notable outside of their original source material. I think it's better we emphasize substance and what's actually being said over reference count. There's a big difference between "We added this character because she has nice tits" like Complex did, and something like this from Tom's Games which discusses the subject in detail. Ruling lists out entirely will only result in excluding opinions that do demonstrate notability, and can be too easily warped to cover a broader range.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 17:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
As Masem pointed out, the OP's wording makes this question totally useless. Broadly agree with what the oppose votes have said though. bridies ( talk) 04:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, of course. It's the most important thing after the official awards/nominations, or stuff like something being named after them. But that's besides some special individual cases (also of course), like when the list is being obviously pointless/random or is even actually indicating non-notability (like "platform heroes that failed back than and remain forgotten", which I just made up to illustrate the point). -- Niemti ( talk) 09:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
But speaking of this, some people manage to DO engage in original research. Not the bext example (I don't have them on hand), but on the recent (yesterday) Good Article Yuna (Final Fantasy), there is the following phrase (as re-rewritten by me, here quoted unwikified):
And it was originally it was written as following:
Which was kinda OR-ish to change the overall message by skipping over how they "address the subject directly" by pointing out how a "fine eye-candy" then became "gratuitously exploitative" (and which was still being "fine[est]" for them), like if to make the whole thing more acceptable for Anita Sarkeesian's stamp of approval. But this was also completely needless to do.
Another example (not a list, but a pretty good example of something stupid and/or pointless). There used to be a following:
OK, what? I just thought "wow, it was retarded" and removed it. So, that's it. -- Niemti ( talk) 08:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Support - I don't see why this can't be used to indicate notability. I've seen arguments that they don't offer "significant coverage". Well, if there's a good amount of them in the article, then I don't see any good reason why it couldn't be considered "significant coverage". Top lists are one of the easiest ways to get reception on video game characters. Kokoro20 ( talk) 12:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Now, having said so much, my opinion regarding the minimum criteria: a character (any character, and not just video game-related) SHOULD have Reception section, containing references to multiple (several different) reliable sources (with some very obvious exceptions to them, as I've discussed them twice here), for a start. The content of this section should accurately reflect the opinions as stated by the original authors, with no OR regarding them, or cherry-picking or censorship (as it was in case of Yuna's "exploitation"), but only the relatively valuable/relevant opinions should be actually cited in quite a detail on Wikipedia, as opposed to just mentioning them. Examples (sample and about roughly the same): this Complex list is fine to be quoted in part, but this IGN list (which was about the characters in all media, that's why 50) should be just mentioned, because it's rambling and pretty stupid. That's all. -- Niemti ( talk) 14:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been keeping tabs on this discussion, and I think it's mostly settled, but I'll add my view in brief: being on a "Top X Somethingest People" list in and of itself isn't a guarantee of meeting WP:GNG. I don't see that we need to make a separate standard for those types of articles. If the list contains so-called significant coverage, in other words more than just a sentence or two, a couple such sources would be enough to establish notability. As Masem has said, just saying "she is hot" or "he is the worst villain ever" isn't enough. We need some Why. — Torchiest talk edits 17:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
So since the above discussion has seemed to ground down and we're all on the same page hopefully. Let's take a look at a merge discussion I started, Julia Chang. Now looking at this version of the article's reception, we can discern the following from the references:
Out of everything there's probably two references that actually discuss the character in any context (14, and 16). This coincides with the standards discussed above, and the subject does not appear to satisfy notability in any context. And before it gets pointed out, yes we have quite a few articles too that follow this same pattern. Thoughts?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 16:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Julia's article, despite being new (only little over 1 month old), is already written better than most of character articles on Wikipedia (and there are many completely ridiculous articles like Clawdia Chauchat, which is 7 years old and made of literally 2 sentences and 3 tags also for years, and yet you don't care about it at all even after I've showed you it and then reminded you about it repeatedly). KFM just accused me of a "double standard" on my talk page, but actually that is the real double standard. -- Niemti ( talk) 17:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Since the above discussion break is seriously getting us nowhere fast, I have requested input from an uninvolved administrator to weigh in on the matter here. I would like to ask any uninvolved user or administrator who intends to comment on this topic, before they do, to read the discussions we had with the other people involved at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Merge discussion, User talk:Sergecross73#RfC question, as well as the above discussions, so that they know exactly what has happened. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh boy, oh boy. Sephiroth's (basically a quintissential video game villain of all time) reception is actually quite a mess (mostly undated while some having unncessary months in dates that are there, plenty of incirrectly-written stuff like "twenty-fifth" instead of 25th, bossess mixed with FF characters in one huge paragraph, and more) and needs to be rewritten. But hey, let's analyse:
The part "many websites have commented on how difficult it is to defeat Sephiroth in the games in which he appears" from the lead is quite odd and I don't think it's really based on the article's actual content (or maybe "many" being only IGN and some defunct website called AnimeFringe). That's not counting USER COMMENTS in a poll, as supposedly "Most of the comments noted the difficulty of the final fight with Sephiroth, as well as its distinctive elements when compared to other games." which was given an entire separate sentence there just for these user comments, and I think some original research by someone counting them (the article itelf said about these comments, only that: "Leave us your rant in the Comments section", but now WPVG believes these users' "rants" are being essential, while the editors' opinions are "effusive").
And do you really think that the citations in the style "battle against Sephiroth is top-notch" are being oh-so informative? Is this really "a manner which adds context to the ranking"? (And no, I don't think it's being wrong. I just point out stuff.) And just how informative ("describes more then just physical attributes") is the super-weird following statement: "GamesRadar simply called him "the biggest cock blocker in the gaming world," as writer Shane Patterson found Aerith's character to be appealing, and due to the fact Sephiroth killed her, players were unable to use her anymore"? Because I think that's like a PARODY now. Like, "the biggest cock blocker" is someone who kills the character that Shane Patterson finds "to be appealing" and then "players" are unable to "use" her "anymore"? WHAT?
I also find it interesting to note how the reception mentions him being compared to Liquid Snake, another extremely notable video game villain / modern pop culture icon. Who, however, has no Wikipedia article of his own (being unnotable according to WPVG, apparently). As for Link, his reception section is just poor. Barely ever updated for years. I've about doubled it in side when rewriting the article, but that's barely enough.
And you know what? That's all. I already said everything, it's going nowhere, and people usually don't even read what I write (even when I write it to them specifically), I feel like I'm wasting my time on around here (having no effect, just hearing complaints that "I'm ranting" and the comments that basically say "tl;dr"), and so I'm out. -- Niemti ( talk) 12:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like there is a consensus to be cautions in how we use Top 10 lists and quotefarms about aesthetics. May we close this? Votes below.
Japanese: 悪魔城の城主、邪心の神、ドラキュラ伯爵の復活であった。 Konami translation by Ken Ogasawara: Dracula, lord of darkness, master of the devil's castle, walks among us.
Japanese: 悪魔城の城主、邪心の神、ドラキュラ伯爵の復活であった。 Konami translation by Ken Ogasawara: Dracula, lord of darkness, master of the devil's castle, walks among us.