Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games

WikiProject Video games

Main page

talk

Archives

Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

Borrowing advice from MOS:FILM

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

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

I agree that this gets into a level of detail that's unnecessary, with few exceptions. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

100% support this. This is the problem with Wikipedia being written in realtime, as editors tend to lack historical perspective and thus stuff like this gets overlooked as the game releases and ends up being kept in articles for months/years despite barely being notable in the first place. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Except, notability isn't supposed to apply to stuff "...being kept in articles for months/years despite barely being notable in the first place." per WP:NNC. Huggums537 (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It might be a separate guideline (WP:RECENTISM) but it still applies. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. RECENTISM is clearly talking about articles (where notability is concerned), not sections, subtopics or other content within articles, and neither should anything else that refers to notability. If it suggests anything else it needs to be rewritten to avoid confusion. Huggums537 (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not particularly helpful to harp on every time an editor uses the term "notable" to mean "worth mentioning". Make that substitution, and his comment makes complete sense. We are still allowed to use the term in the traditional English language sense as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It's also not particularly helpful to pretend that an editor is just using the term "notable" to mean "worth mentioning". when it is abundantly clear they are not. The fact they responded with WP:RECENTISM to backup their comment is proof of this. So, nope making that substitution does not make his comment make any sense at all unless you take the single comment out of context - something the Wikipedified seem to be fond of doing around here... Huggums537 (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That being said, I will add that your point has been duly made about not harping on every time other editors use the term "notability", and I shall drop the matter considering my RfC has been shut down so it's pointless to continue the debate further. Huggums537 (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Question: I rarely would add something as mundane as

"Game X's first trailer was released on September 30th. A second trailer was released October 2nd"

But I would mention it in conjunction with other developments, like:

"Game X's first trailer was debuted at the Tokyo Game Show on September 30th, where it was announced as joint project between (company) and (company). On October 2nd, they released a second trailer that revealed that the game was already 40% complete and the developers were eyeing a worldwide 2022 release date."

My understanding is, if we adapted something like this, that the former would be discouraged, but something like the latter would still be okay, right? Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I would even omit the trailer part of that, because trailers are expected parts of release news, but those dates are relatively key production/marketing data points to be kept (first announcement of a game, and its development progress). Obviously, when trailers have their own type of notability or attention (and to that end, like Goat Simulator's parody of the Dead Island trailer) that would be worth mention, or like that Keanu introduced CP2077 at E3 as well as his role in it, but the average run-of-the-mill trailer shown at E3/etc. is a mundane and expected thing nowadays. --Masem (t) 14:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha. Sometimes I add a bunch of that stuff to unlocalized JRPG articles, and if they never end up being localized, there's not a ton more to add when it comes to development info. But actually looking back at some of the articles I had in mind, I didn't tend to mention the trailer part after all, just the nuggets of interest publications took note of from them. So I'm fine with this. I've also questioned how important it is for editors to shoe-horn mentions of trailers and Nintendo Direct announcements into dev sections. As you say, there are special cases (when an indie game like No Man's Sky or Good Job! gets major attention that indies don't often get) but it's less important that, yes, the tenth Mario game fir the Switch was announced in a Direct, just like the first nine. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, just while the point of announcement of a game is very relevant, an editor needs to consider if where that announcement was made to be as critical. Nintendo Directs are not as "special" compared to an E3 showcase or as a reveal at the Game Awards, for example, but I don't see the harm in the three to four words to mention that as part of the announcement ("Suchandsuch Game was first announced in June 2021 during a Nintendo Direct"). But its like, when a game gets a delay or a port announcement for the Switch via a Direct, that's where a problem is. A lot of editors get hung on on dates of announcements about upcoming dates, and those dates and modes of announcements are rarely necessary, outside of delay aspects. And even for delays, we should come back after all the products are released to rework that and summarize better, a product delayed, say, 4 times over, we don't necessarily need to hit each of the four delay points unless each is a significant point of discussion. But this is a lot of stuff that does get covered in the day-to-day media reporting on games, hence why it ends up in our articles. --Masem (t) 14:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the goal is to avoid getting too pedantic within articles, and we shouldn't be too pedantic here either. The obvious is: we try to avoid cataloging every marketing announcement / material released as part of the game's promotion, but you'll never get into trouble for having a sentence summarizing the who/what/when/where of the marketing overall. Everything in between can be a matter of discussion, and the guideline is meant to support that. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I basically would want to take the language MOS:FILMMARKETING presently has, and simply readapt in terms of video games without adding anything more to it. Any specific cases beyond what is not covered is stuff for discussion on talk pages. Eg where that MOS for film talks about Cloverfield, we could talk about Bioshock Infinite's pre-teasing campaign (one I know off hand that was discussed). --Masem (t) 15:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Their language is pretty good. Examples are useful, but shouldn't belabor the point. From a recent good article, the mention of N7 Day in the rollout of Mass Effect Legendary Edition is a fine example of how to cover marketing, without crossing over into WP:NPOV/WP:ADVERT/WP:UNDUE gushing about every marketing activity. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Just chiming in to voice my support for the proposal. Some trailers do generate significant commentary (Watch Dogs and No Man's Sky came to mind), and some trailers may be notable when a game in development has resurfaced after several years of silence (e.g. Beyond Good & Evil 2 and Bayonetta 3). These should definitely be the exceptions. OceanHok (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Japanese titles

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

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

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

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

RfC: Video game cover or video game logo?

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

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

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

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

More context:

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

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

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

• Why is this only a problem for video game articles? Aren't articles about films and music albums having the same issue? I personally do not find a picture of an logo an effective mean to identify a product, since cover artwork is the one that is featured prominently in both retail and digital storefronts. OceanHok (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with OceanHok. Featuring the logo somewhat defeats the purpose of displaying the cover art, which is showing something that cannot be conveyed merely by words and meant to depict the themes and/or characters of the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• To me it is case by case, but for living video games that often go through number updates time over time, which both Minecraft and Genshin qualify for, a single cover pulled from the game's history may not be as representative of the game compared to just the logo which nearly remains static, whereas for most other games that have a single release (with updates, DLC , etc) you get one cover art and that's it, so that's the obvious choice. --Masem (t) 12:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  This is pretty much my stance on it too. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Same. Not seeing why an RFC or change to MOS is needed over one case. -- ferret (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Fourth'd. Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Also agree with @Masem and others. So, Fifth it. Huggums537 (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok so I guess I'll just remove (withdraw) the RfC since there is an obvious answer already and I don't want to waste other's time with this trivial matter. I think one of the reasons I have used RfC tags is to get wider community input, but I think that kind of already happens when using talk pages of policy pages. Case-by-case seems like a good compromise here. :) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 00:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Generally video game cover, although yes for some games continually updated games it may make more sense to you the most update cover art (as opposed to the original), or logo (like the case MMORPGs).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

As said in the original discussion, initial sales figures noted by reliable sources are important, as they indicate the initial "splash" and impact of a game's release. After that, the most recent or latest sales are a fine data point. We generally do not need a running record of every sales announcement in between. I would typically say only mention says in regards to the first 2 weeks to first month, and then the latest figures. -- ferret (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)