|1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18|
I noticed your undoing of my edits on the article Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. As a huge gamer myself I'm familiar with terms like MGS, LoZ: OoT or FF7. But when are these abbreviations 'common' enough? Do they appear in mainstream media as such, or only in video game magazines and websites? If so, how often? This is all very tricky, so let's skip this part and focus on Wikipedia's guidelines.
The reason why I usually take abbreviations out is that Wikipedia maintains a formal tone, doesn't use insider terms and is written for the general reader. Because of these guidelines I'm very active in trying to make sure that video game articles are for everybody to understand. For some abbreviations you'll have to explain them again and again in articles, like downloadable content (DLC) or massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG). Does the reader gain any new knowledge, knowing that for insiders the term MGS is used?
Now, concerning Snake Eater, did you notice that the only time the abbreviation MGS3 is used, is in the reception section, when a review is cited? The article itself uses Snake Eater, not MGS3. Even if it is fact 'common' enough, what good does it do to introduce the abbreviation in the lead, only to find it once in the article? --Soetermans. T / C 08:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- The guidelines you've linked are important, and I fully agree with them. Some articles on this website are indecipherable due to difficult concepts being explained with technical jargon - computer science articles are particularly bad offenders, and if I had the time and motivation I would go through and fix them where I can. Similarly, I wouldn't want an article to open with "XYZ is an MMORPG with lots of DLC" any more than you would.
- Luckily, the Metal Gear Solid 3 article has none of these problems. Simply stating that the abbreviation 'MGS3' exists does not change the tone of the article, nor does it make the article difficult to understand due to the introduction of technical jardon. Your assertion that it does is not credible. – Steel 17:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)