Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject icon This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.
Gamepad.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
  Talk page archive talk
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Templates talk
Sources talk
Assessment talk
Reference library talk
  Print archive talk
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Article alerts talk
Pages for deletion talk
New pages talk
Article requests talk
Essential articles talk
Most popular articles talk
Featured content talk
Good content talk
Recognized content talk



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










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

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

Adding two things to guidelines...[edit]

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

  1. For the lead, a small note that common abbreviations or common names shouldn't be mentioned. Often I encounter articles that start with Actual title (also known as Internet slang). For instance, Toontown Online (Toontown), Age of Mythology (AoM) and just now DayZ (DayZ Standalone).
    Or Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos (War3 or WC3 or RoC). --Soetermans. T / C 14:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. For the engine field, a small note that "modified" shouldn't be mentioned. Every use of a video game engine is somehow modified. For instance, BioShock Infinite (modified Unreal Engine 3), Borderlands 2 (Modified Unreal Engine 3) and again DayZ (Real Virtuality 3 (Modified)). --Soetermans. T / C 11:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
@Soetermans: Your first suggestion would seem to contradict the manual of style. --Izno (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Izno, thanks for your reply. Maybe 'common' here isn't the right word. If a RS would call a game something else, then that would be a common name to me. But the examples I brought up aren't 'common' enough. Also, ping didn't work. @Izno:, does it work for you? --Soetermans. T / C 11:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
@Soetermans: [Yes, it worked; I didn't use it in my original comment.] The MoS uses the word "common" without qualification or note on sourcing. Besides that, I would call all of AoM, WC3, and RoC common (in fact, AoM was originally redirected to Age of Mythology, in 2005!, and WC3 shows up with Warcraft 3 results...). War3 is a little less common, but I've seen it before... In all though, I stand by my original statement; the notion "that common abbreviations or names shouldn't be mentioned" plainly contradicts the MoS. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
On the first point, we definitely should include the slang if it is common enough that we'd likely have a redirect or a disamb page with the slang pointing to the main article. The restatement in the lead first sentence assdures the reader they know they hit the right page. For example to not mention "WoW" for World of Warcraft would not be helpful. But the slang should have very common use, and not just simpfication for that reason. P2 frequently implies Portal 2 when talking about Valve games but doesn't make much sense out of that context. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
That the term 'common' is very subjective makes it hard to discuss this. Throughout my life I would always call the current Mario game is was playing "Mario" and I've seen RSes call Call of Duty: Black Ops Codblops, but I have never come across DayZ Standalone (then again, I'm a die-hard PlayStation gamer). Sure, to my friends and online I can say 'Ocarina' or 'FF7' and they'll know what I mean. Are those popular names common enough and notable to mention them specifically? Can't we just go by the subtle way of introducing it in prose? For instance, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is just called Skyrim throughout the article (which might even be confusing for those not familiar with the game, as it also set in Skyrim, a fictional location). --Soetermans. T / C 23:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Using something like WoW in the context of World of Warcraft might work, but something like WC3 in the context of Warcraft 3 isn't particularly elegant in prose. Abbreviations, and in particular acronyms, aren't always suitable for plain prose. But that aside, you still need to introduce the synonymy to the reader, and the lead is the best place (and the place provided for in the MoS) to do so. --Izno (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

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

We can use infinite redirects to apply even uncommon "common" names for games, but the idea for including a common alternate name in the lead is that if the reader is coming from one of these common redirects, they'll see the common alternate name in bold and realize that they did arrive at the right place. But I stress that this only should be for "common" names. "TF2" for Team Fortress 2, "DOTA" for Defense of the Ancients. Internet forum slang/shortcuts that don't get adopted in mainstream press, like the Ocarina of Time one you give, should have redirects but should not be included in the lead. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Would a RS requirement be okay for inclusion? PC Gamer did use AoM for instance. If we (or you?) could add a small note here that a RS is a criteria to add a common name to articles, that'd be great, because then there is at least something I can refer to when I take out TPP in The Phantom Pain. --Soetermans. T / C 15:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I would say that if the inclusion of an alternate name in the lead is in question, the discussion should be on the talk page and yes, bringing in RSs to show how the term is used. Ideally we would be talking about the term appearing in articles that are not directly about the game, to show how it is a common word used in the larger discussions of video games and not in the narrow sliver of that game itself. But yes, RSes using the term would help to justify it if it is questioned. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree on not adding "modified" notes to engines, as it doesn't really tell anything -- they are always at least a little modified. We already list only notable engines, and if they have been modified significantly, then this should be discussed in prose, otherwise it is trivia.
  • Don't agree on not listing common acronyms (WoW, DOTA) and some abbreviations, some are in wide use and by sources. Of course, not redundant or uncommon ones if there are better ones (War3). However, agree on not listing just a generic obvious shorter title of the same title (Toontown, Black Ops, Skyrim) or technical names (.. Standalone). Obviously, more than a couple is almost always unnecessary. A good measure would be -- will the non-obvious alternate title be used in prose later? If not, then it might not need inclusion. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Clone notability?[edit]

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

About inappropriate content #9[edit]

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

That's information they should be able to find on the developers site. Wikipedia doesn't need to host such information, and it would often end up out of date. -- ferret (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
However, I think it would be relevant to mention the latest version's date and/or the most recent work done on the software. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  00:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
For emulations which are pieces of software, there is usually a field for latest version and release date. That would at least give you the idea of how active it is. Further, "major" revisions can be documented reasonably, being the v1.0, v2.0, etc. Further, if secondary sources do state a summary of new features in releases, that can be documented. But if all there is the changelog, we should avoid including that. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


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

Can we have a link to the discussion please. It makes it easier if we can see what you have already discussed. - X201 (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Never mind. Found it. - X201 (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)