Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games

Are GOG.com links acceptable?

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)

Would probably fall under "advertisement". Even IGN and Gamespot include some information we don't. SharkD  Talk  11:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate costs

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)

As with all such content, both purchase price and development cost CAN be noteworthy on a case-by-case basis. For example, say "Assassin's Creed 3" retails for $120 when all other games on the same platform retail for $70, and there isn't anything in particular about the new game that justifies the cost. That's going to get a lot of press coverage and would be worth noting in the article about that game (the game costs an unusual amount in the stores). Such a thing is unlikely, but if it were to happen, it would be an example of a "particularly noteworthy" detail that would be supported by sources. As for development costs, such data is always worth including if it falls in that "particularly noteworthy" column - for example, if "Assassin's Creed 3" ends up having the largest-ever budget for a video game, or a larger budget than Hollywood's biggest blockbuster movie of the year, etc. Again, that sort of info will be well-sourced and easily verifiable. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great. Thanks for the reply! --Culix (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The "In general, anything can become suitable for coverage in Wikipedia if it is given significant attention by reliable sources." line in the exceptions section already covers this. Perhaps the cost exception line in the inappropriate content section could be converted to an example in the exceptions section. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I revised the point in the main "inappropriate content" list to make it more concise. There actually already is an example in the "Exceptions" section further down - the PS3's launch price. So I think we're covered. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding subheaders for Organization

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)

DMOZ

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)

Inappropriate content for lists -termilogy

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)

Are you trying to remove glossary sections, or in-universe terms in general? In many cases, tight restrictions on in-universe terminology would force us to use awkward, needlessly verbose language to avoid using in-universe terminology, and we don't have any similar restrictions for in-univrse terminology in articles about television or literature. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well to be frank I think that is because it isn't as big of an issue in telivision or literature in general. It is moreso with video games, and to a lesser extent anime, because of the culture around them seeks to be exhaustive (FE, wanting to have an article for every pokemon character in the past). While there are certainly isntances that occur with this outside video games, they are generally focused around a particular series. Specifically what I meant this to apply for is various in-game terminology which I see a lot of articles use. It isn't clearly traditional trivia because it may have relevence in another format, but a listing of terms is not that.陣内_Jinnai 05:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change

Language/region preference

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'm not too familiar with guidelines, but it seems fine correction to me.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  15:53, 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)

Well then, if I understand you correctly, this new wording should be more precise to your original purpose since it to a greater extent prefers cover arts chosen based on developer location rather than where the game gets its first "English-region", i.e. North American or UK, release. --MrStalker ^(talk) 14:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Console neutrality

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)

Given that these are fair use, are we allowed to actually modify them? Isn't that kind of derivation of work which I assume isn't allowed for fair use imgs? I have no idea though, so correct me on this. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  10:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question, and I can't say for sure what the rule says about it but I guess cropping and resizing isn't actually modifying in a sense, this is what we've always been doing so I would be surprised if it wasn't allowed. --MrStalker ^(talk) 10:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Some guy a while back started a huge discussion on the validity of altering cover artwork to make it neutral. It started on this page, escalated to WT:VG and then onto WT:OR (I think), where it came down quite clearly on the "yes, its ok" side of things. -- Sabre (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Okey then, now that's been clarified. What about my proposed changes? --MrStalker ^(talk) 15:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"logotypes" part seems fine to me. Shouldn't "can be used" be "should be used"? About discouraging "Games for Windows". If the game is only for Windows (which is many) I don't see a problem with leaving that logo in. It's not promotional if the game is indeed only for Windows PC and nothing else. I rather it said ""Games for Windows" markings should only be used for Windows-exclusive games" or something. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  15:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

PC-DVD is a Windows-only marking, as much as "Games for Windows" is; games for Mac are not marked with PC, and as Linux really doesn't have native games it's a moot point in that direction. Point is you're still favoring one system over another. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I assumed PC-DVD can refer to more than Windows. If PC-DVD is indeed only Windows games (which I did not know), then I am all for the former and dropping "for Windows".—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  16:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I was also wondering about this. I always think "Windows system" when I see "PC" on games. —Ost (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I know "PC-DVD only" means Windows, but I'm not sure. Anyway, question is what is the intention of the rule? Since the term "console" rather then "platform" is used in the original text I've interpreted it like it's to not favor any specific console in the ongoing "console-war", but since PC is neutral in that war PC covers are also neutral. Besides, the "PC-DVD only" markings are much more discrete, doesn't include any trademarks or logos and only take up the top left corner of the cover. It serves more as notice that you need a DVD-player to play it than anything else. I wouldn't say it favors Windows in any way. --MrStalker ^(talk) 18:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that you want to be explicit that marked games only be used for console/OS-exclusive games. Not everyone knows how to remove markings from the covers and cover art without the platform may not be readily available. —Ost (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, probably not a good idea being too explicit. --MrStalker ^(talk) 18:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I understand the sentiment, but this is starting to sound WP:CREEPy. I think that this could better be served without explicitly whitelisting or blacklisting cover markings, with a phrase like Game covers from PC games are considered console neutral if they do not indicate a required operating system. Although personally, I don't even think that that is necessary; The portion feels more like a footnote and if the issue ever came up, directing people to this discussion would demonstrate the intention. —Ost (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I think your point of not mentioning any specific markings is a solid one. That way it just states what the consensus is, rather than saying this and this is (not) allowed, avoiding instruction creep. Also I was thinking of replacing "console" with "platform" to clear up any ambiguity. So, how about this instead:

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.

--MrStalker ^(talk) 18:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, since you can't call a cover that states "Mac-only" neutral.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

...Except PC games are still platform specific. Why the hell are we legislating all this? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. A PC DOS game is not the same as a PC Windows game nor a PC Linux game, etc. Consoles only have 1 OS by default so we list consoles by their system, not their OS. Computers, particularly PCs, have multiple OSes so the industry uses OS to separate them.陣内_Jinnai 18:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Because we don't have anything better to do! Jokes aside, yes covers that just say "PC-<something>" usually requires Windows, but point is it doesn't say so on the cover, it doesn't have any big fat trademark logo on it that console covers do. Those logos are designed to attract attention and promote the console which the PC-CD markings are not. I don't know for sure, but I think this was the intention when that paragraph originally was formed. One positive side effect would also be that people that don't know how to handle image editing programs could take the PC cover and it would be fine. --MrStalker ^(talk) 18:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

To an extent they are advertising. FE, when Windows Vista came out there were stickers and items that listed an item as Vista compatable as a way of marketing to consumers that this item is compatable with Windows Vista and the person buying it would be more comfortable making the purchase. Some software also had these logos.陣内_Jinnai 20:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

multiple covers

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)

I think this is already covered: "Cover images can only be used in the body of the article if there is significant commentary on the cover itself." --MrStalker ^(talk) 23:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Good call, not sure how I missed that.  :) Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

About that, what about titles like Dragon Quest 4 or Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages which use 2 in the infobox. For the former, the release dates, covers and art are radically different and finally the latter is the more well known one (which part of the image's fair use rationale is helping readers recognize this is the right article for what they are looking for). With different titles while the latter is an article about 2 games?陣内_Jinnai 05:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess if a game isn't notable enough to have its own article then it isn't notable enough to have its own cover art pictured. --MrStalker ^(talk) 14:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Might make sense for the latter, but the former is its own game. Many people do not spinout articles needlessly for every remake.
Although the Zelda one is more in keeping with the useless spinout debate. I am certain both could be split out into their own articles and pass the GNG, but would it increase the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia to do so? So in neither case is it really a question of notability (both examples could have an article that passes the GNG for each game).陣内_Jinnai 18:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Reception sections

Quoting from this project page (the essential content paragraph):

A "Reception" section. This shows the impact that the subject had on the game industry: commercially, artistically, and technologically.

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)

Listing review scores is not enough, but your ideas beyond that are not generally supported for media of any type as long as it passes the WP:GNG. That doesn't mean that its always best to have a seperate article, just that the GNG supports reviews as valid reasons to show notability of an item, including video games.陣内_Jinnai 21:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the standard treatment of most media types in encyclopedias is to not write much about reception. It is usually only noted if it caused some sort of outrage, sales were very unproportional to the reviews, or were intially not highly regarded but became a classic much later, or is notable for some other reason. For example literature articles, very little is written about sales and how much the critics community liked it. Compare to video game articles, which sometimes have reception sections longer than my screen, sometimes even "prerelease reception" sections. I agree that GNG supports reviews as indicators of notability of the game itself, but it does not support reviews as indicators of notability of the reviews. 213.66.250.245 (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is some other real world impact, then yes, that should be explained. However there are times, such as Chrono Trigger where the reception of the item is of key concern. Sales data is a bit different. Listing basic sales data is all that is needed, except price unless the price was notable enough to have RS commentary. It's not black and white except to say that more than basic scores are needed and having several paragraphs for each source is too much. It all depends on the topic, the amount and depth of the commentary, and balance so that the article doesn't look like it is too {{in-universe}} nor just about sales figures and reception.

FE: an article I worked on, School Rumble, is likely to get a FA soon and has a substantial amount of reception. However, each point is about the various major media types that have been released and the way they are viewed differences depending on the what is being reviewed and how. Thus it has a huge reception section.陣内_Jinnai 14:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Check for instance Leaves of Grass, Walt Whitmans poetry classic from 1855. It also has a quite long reception paragraph, and I think it is justified. I even agree with the people on the talk page claiming it could be expanded. But it is a good article, including the reception paragraph, which is written in clear prose, is not overly detailed and conveys efficiently how it was recieved. I think that kind of reception paragraphs should be the model to follow. If I were to add that Leaves of Grass were placed 32 in the Top 100 Greatest Poetry Collection List of the Poetry Magazine 1888 it would not really add much quality to the article (I dont know if it was 32, I just picked a number).

I know that wikipedia articles on popular media, like movies and computer games, it is commonplace to have long sections of quotes by magazine reviewers, placing in dozens of lists, reviewer scores and such. But I think much of this information is not really encyclopedic, but more of a trivia nature, and most articles would be improved without it. 213.66.250.245 (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's also a start-class article, the second lowest. It may be close to a C-class, I didn't check it too thoroughly. But in comparison to the two i listed, Chrono Trigger a FA article, and School Rumble a FAC and probable future FA article, that's what we look toward as benchmarks, not lower-class ones because those have issues and often haven't been vetted by parties not wholely invested in the subject. You'll have to find some FA articles (after 2007 and preferably 2009 or later) that have such before you can begin to make a case.陣内_Jinnai 18:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand one point, 213.x, in that unfortunately many articles' reception sections aren't that good. We shouldn't be giving scores without context, and we should also not be just parroting critics; to be meaningful and useful to readers, you have to synthesize and summarize wherever possible to be clear and concise without distortion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You just made my eyes bleed. We should not be synthesizing antyhing. Summarizing is good, but we should not be drawing our own conclusions. We have to use verifiable information from reliable sources and this unfortunately leads to a bit of parroting. —Ost (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it helps to be obtuse. Sure we need to avoid the alphabet soup of proscribed thoughts, but summary is synthesis, whether we like to admit it or not. Sticking to the sources without regurgitation is a tough balance and David has described it reasonably. Protonk (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The ideal is when it is possible find sources which has already summarized and synthesized the reception for us, but we will have to look deeper than just GameSpot and similar sources to find it, and we can not expect to find it for every game. 213.66.250.245 (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

←People who haven't done lots of research outside of Wikipedia, I fear, have given synthesis a bad name. Fact is, when you've got a massive pile of sources, you are synthesizing them into a whole article. That doesn't mean you combine sources to suggest a third idea, it means that you are putting some intelligence into the construction and presentation of facts. Summarizing would mean that a reception section would be one or two sentences on every notable review of the game out there; the worst Wikipedia articles are made in this brain-dead manner, and we suffer for it. Any large topic is a matter of insightful reduction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I may have jumped too high when I saw a wikiword like synthesis. I agree that summarizing is needed and acceptable, and I understand that it can be seen as a subset of synthesizing. Finding sources that already summarize reviews would be ideal, but in most situations we have to settle for objective summaries of attributable critiques. —Ost (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There's only been a few sources that summarize reviews that I've ever seen. Joystiq does "frankenreviews" where it takes 5 scores and includes a quote without analysis from the review. Plus, Joystiq still remains in our unreliable section. Gamasutra on the other hand has "Critical Reception" articles for select titles (see [1] for example) and while they add some of their own language, the bulk is still a combination of review score and several review quotes without synthesizing them together. Long after a game's been out, there may exist such sources that make all those connections but that's only for select games that get high praise. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:VG/GL#Non-English games

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)

You might get more discussion posting this at WT:VG.陣内_Jinnai 17:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

New Non-English games guidelines

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.

• 1. The issue was drowned a bit in the discussion about romanization of foreign-language words last time, so I'll bring it up here again. Basically, if fully utilized nihongo templates [in the format: Title with official romanizations of proper names (kanji + kana, rōmaji, official or unofficial translation)] for foreign language titles get so long they hurt the readability of the lead paragraph, they are to be included as a footnote. Example: the two Oracle games. Use common sense to determine when this is the case, otherwise discuss it.
• 2. The guidelines should mention that foreign language titles not commonly used in English should not use boldface (with a link to WP:BOLDTITLE), as I see this happening a lot in video game articles. Prime Blue (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• 3. We need an established format for official and unofficial translations. We already determined that unofficial translations are to be enclosed in quotation marks. I think it should also be mentioned that those translations are not to use italics, but to instead use that for official translations, which always need a reference.

My proposal for a newly worded "Non-English games" section

As the inclusion of Japanese titles can enhance an article on a video game by providing additional cultural context, these titles should be provided as follows:

• Japanese titles should only be provided 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. However, games known in English-speaking countries by their phonetic Japanese titles are an exception to this rule and should also have their Japanese titles included for clarity:

"Katamari Damacy (塊魂, Katamari Damashii, lit. "Clump Spirit") is a is a third-person puzzle-action video game [...]"

• If there is a significant difference between the two titles, put the Japanese title in a separate nihongo template using the format {{Nihongo|Japanese title with romanized proper names|kanji/kana|rōmaji|translation}}. Foreign language titles not commonly used in English are not given in boldface but in italics. For example:

"The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap, known as Zelda no Densetsu: Fushigi no Bōshi (ゼルダの伝説 ふしぎのぼうし, Zeruda no Densetsu: Fushigi no Bōshi, lit. "The Legend of Zelda: The Mysterious Hat") in Japan [...]"

• In cases where the meaning of the Japanese title differs from the official English title, the Japanese title should be accompanied by an English translation. If an official translation for the foreign title exists in the country of origin, give it in italics and provide a reference for it:

"Castlevania, known as Akumajō Dracula (悪魔城ドラキュラ, Akumajō Dorakyura, officially Devil's Castle Dracula) in Japan [...]"

• If no official translation exists, give a literal translation enclosed in quotation marks to indicate its unofficial status:

"The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, known as Zelda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima (ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島, Zeruda no Densetsu: Yume o Miru Shima, lit. "The Legend of Zelda: The Dreaming Island") in Japan [...]"

• If fully-utilized templates are so long they hurt the readability of the lead paragraph, include them as footnotes:

"The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages are two action-adventure games [...]"

• Although optional, phonetic transliterations of the Japanese titles are strongly recommended to aid Japanese speakers who are not familiar with kanji. Romanization should follow the Manual of Style guidelines on romanization.

Similar guidelines apply to other games of non-English origin, such as Korean RPGs.

Comments

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)

What about game series articles like .hack (video game series)? That standard could add a lot of excess wordiness to the lead.陣内_Jinnai 00:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean if all of the individual game titles there would include nihongo templates? Prime Blue (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I picked that article in particular because it is a merged article and so none of those games have their own indivisual one to link to. They are all indivusally released titles as well and the main subject of the article (something we usually use the templates for in the lead).陣内_Jinnai 02:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, I wasn't sure if that is what you meant. If someone felt like adding the Japanese titles in that article, it would be a typical case of putting them in a common footnote. So, applying the guideline, I would put the footnote with fully-utilized nihongo templates after the sentence "The four games are titled [...]". It preserves the readability of the lead while at the same time providing the Japanese titles with their phonetic transcription and their translation. Prime Blue (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is that while not exactly restrictied, that goes against the spirit of WP:LEAD as nothing there is contriversial nature. In this case I'll admit though there may not be an easy solution given the titles are in kanji, not katakana of English words.陣内_Jinnai 15:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you elaborate? I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you talking about controversial subjects as mentioned in WP:LEADCITE in particular? Prime Blue (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, particulary the part about not putting citations in the lead unless they are for contriversial info because of transclusion issues. notations have the same transclusion issues.陣内_Jinnai 18:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that WP:LEADCITE does not talk about footnotes as proposed above but instead about redundant citations and references for material that is not challenged or not likely to be challenged: It means that sources for non-controversial information in the lead (e.g. the name of a game and its genre) are not absolutely mandatory.

Also, the alternative names section of WP:LEAD even addresses the readability issue caused by foreign names:

• "When the subject is best known by an English title, its alternative names may be included; however, the editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability."

It seems only logical to use footnotes, as it maximizes the information available while still preserving the readability of the lead. I see no good reason against their usage. Prime Blue (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

non-titles

Should be brought up because it came up, but what about terms that use english words transformed into katakana? This takes 2 forms:

• Terms with use a japanese word in the tile + an english word such as "bishōjo game" the first word, a japanese word, is already in romaji form and the second is a loan word, ゲーム. Repeating here serves no real purpose as far as i can see.
• second one is with words that use the original Japanese, but without the special characters "ō" and "û". but are otherwise the same.陣内_Jinnai 15:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)