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

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 sales in regards to the first 2 weeks to first month, and then the latest figures. -- ferret (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable approach. Also probably make sure to keep in mind that at least first week sales should be recorded for multiple regions if there's concrete sales data. The Japanese game articles I've worked on usually had sales data from at least two and usually three regions to summarise. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure for the purposes of a MOS we should be very specific on exactly what sales are covered, but if something needs to be said in addition to the usual common sense "it makes no sense and is terrible to read a blow-by-blow accounting of sales" something along the lines of "Keep sales data summarized to the most relevant figures; for example, initial month or year sales, or verified totals." Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Roughly same as my idea. "Initial sales, first year, and most recent verified totals" could be a tad cleaner? Anyways we're in the same ballpark. -- ferret (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The only thing I'd add to this would be clarifying that "initial sales" would be within the first month or so, like you said above. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is a problem, and I'm open minded on the solution. One approach is to advise that we mention debut sales, total cumulative sales, and maybe any major important milestones. Another approach is to just say don't be stupid about it, and don't endlessly catalog every sales figure update. I'll go with the consensus on this. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I largely disagree. We do not need anything added to the MOS about this. This is already covered at WP:SUMMARY STYLE. Adding anything more to this MOS page would be WP:CREEP.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 09:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

A single sentence directly clarifying something would be considered creep? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Just seems unnecessary when we have a whole page dedicated to summarising infomation already.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 10:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue that half of this MOS is already based on the existing MOS, just reformatted to fit video games. In that case I don't see why a single sentence should be opposed just for creep reasons. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd say just summarize the initial sales splash and the cumulative sales because that's ultimately all that's notable in the long run. JOEBRO64 18:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Developed and published by

Is there really any good reason why we still write "developed and published by" for games that had the same company do both? For example "Breath of the Wild is an action-adventure game by Nintendo" follows the summarizing elements of MOS:LEAD better than "Breath of the Wild is an action-adventure game developed and published by Nintendo". The exact studio name can be listed later in the lead if needed and will always be reflected in the infobox regardless. Thoughts? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

You make an interesting point, but wouldn't saying "by [company]" usually just suggest the developer though? Like if I said "Uncharted 2 was by Naughty Dog" you'd probably assume I'm talking about just the developer? "Developed and published by" does remove that possible ambiguity.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 10:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

No because despite Naughty Dog being a part of Sony's studios, they have a distinct branding/name that wouldn't count for what I proposed. In Uncharted 2's case it would still say "developed by Naughty Dog and published by Sony". This would mostly apply to first-party games by companies such as Nintendo, Ubisoft, Capcom, and Square Enix. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)