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, 176

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

Revise GAMECRUFT points 1 and 5?

Gamecruft point 5 reads: "Excessive fictional details: A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting. Information beyond that is unnecessary and should be removed, as articles should focus on the real-world elements of a topic, such as creation and reception."

Gamecruft point 1 reads: "Non-notable articles and spinouts: Avoid creating new articles on non-notable topics. A notable topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A smaller article should only be split from a larger topic if the new article would itself be notable. "

Since there seems to be a consensus that lists such as List of Pokémon (1–51) (the first of twelve lists covering 650 Pokémon), List of Call of Duty characters, and List of Skylanders characters are acceptable on Wikipedia, I feel like we should revise these two points. These types of articles generally do not demonstrate the real-world elements of a topic, and include copious amounts of information that is unnecessary, but are allowed to stay on Wikipedia because they represent portions of large franchises. In practice there seems to be a consensus that spinout articles for notable franchises are inherently acceptable because the franchise is notable, which directly contradicts rule #1. We sometimes see the argument that a particular article should be maintained because it theoretically could be sourced, but of course it never will be, and the Pokémon list for example has been tagged for its extensive reliance on primary sources for four years.

I feel that these points, as written, have lost their relevance, and need to be revised to reflect years of practice. Some guy (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The different is primarily between single game or a 2-3 game series, and a franchise, for the most part. I would be reasonably sure that franchise articles (like Pokemon, etc.) where there is a long extended fiction outside would have support for a list of characters. Points 1 and 5 are still valid on single games and/or smaller series. Note that I have seen single games support separate character lists, but this is usually when the characters have out-of-universe sourced discussion (primarily the Final Fantasy games). --MASEM (t) 02:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying, as I am saying, that the rules only apply to small games. Doesn't this indicate the rules need to be rewritten? Some guy (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No, as first these are guidelines and not requirements, and thus we use discretion as appropriate. In general we avoid these but its difficult to make the distinction clearly in text. --MASEM (t) 01:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

System requirements

Following this discussion that resulted in a consensus that System Requirements for video games are generally not required in articles, I've drafted up a version of the guideline for inclusion here.

Please comment and suggest improvements. - X201 (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No comments, in the last seven days, so I'm going to add it as is. - X201 (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice this until I saw the template for system requirements were to be deleted. I know I'm a bit late, but if I may chime in: the systems requirements are notable because they concisely and objectively describe the constrains these games were developed in. What brought this aspect of Wikipedia to my attention was how the media was reveling how video games are becoming increasingly realistic, and part of what's made that possible is the increase in system requirements. This information is something I'd much rather see it in a table form rather than worked into the prose as the proposal suggests. If it were worked in the prose, I don't think it would be "easily understandable" to even technical people. 155.99.180.65 (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose per 155.99.180.65. I see no reason to determine system requirements as UN-notable. Firstly, it is needed for reader who play game and, secondly, it reflects the game graphic. And I am not an technical people, I find system requirement is one of the most easy-to-understand information of a game.--27.74.16.39 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

New sections pertaining to Non-English games

I have proposed two new sections in addition to the section on Japanese titles, one pertaining to use of Japanese language outside of the titles, and another pertaining to where it may be appropriate to use an animanga infobox. Since a certain someone seems to object to everything I do, I'd thought I'd bring the discussions here for approval. Any suggestions on how to improve it are welcome.

Japanese elsewhere in the article

• As with the header, English terms should be used over other Japanese terms when available, most often when an official English version of a Japanese-made game, featuring its own terminology, is available.

Example:

In Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Dual Destinies, the "Mood Matrix" mechanic, known as "Kokoro Scope" in the Japanese version, should be written as "Mood Matrix" instead of "Mood Matrix ("Kokoro Scope" (ココロスコープ, lit. Heart Scope) in Japan)", as it is the established English terminology.

• Examples where Japanese should be used include the description or mention of characters in Japanese-oriented games such as visual novels, (provided it is not already listed in a seperate article)...

Rintarō Okabe (岡部 倫太郎, Okabe Rintarō), the protagonist of Steins;Gate

• the mentioning of related titles that do not have their own article...

Example:

Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4 had a PlayStation Vita remake, Persona 4: Golden, known as Person 4: The Golden (ペルソナ4 ザ・ゴールデン, Perusona Fō Za Gōruden) in Japan.

• or when describing systems, terminology or a game mechanic unique to the game which benefits from having Japanese text included, such as terms from games not announced for English release and/or have no discernable English equivalent or mechanics that retain a Japanese-style name in their international release, which can then be provided with a literal translation.

Example:

The cutting technique in Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance retains its Japanese name of "Zandatsu" and should be written as "Zandatsu" (斬奪, lit. "cut and take").

• In-game terms based on English words in the original Japanese version, or are more or less direct translations, should not be presented in Japanese outside of a terminology listing.

Example:

A "Fairy" class in a role-playing game does not need to be written as Fairy (フェアリー, Fearī), unless it is referring to the game's title or the name of a character or notable item.

Animanga infoboxes

As a general rule, most stand-alone video games should be assigned with the appropriate video game infobox. However, if a Japanese-made video game has spawned various Japanese media based on the game, such as manga and anime (examples include Steins;Gate, Danganronpa: Trigger Happy Havoc and Senran Kagura), an Animanga infobox listing the game and its spin-off media may be used in its place. For larger articles, an Animanga info box may also be used seperately from the video game infobox to represent the additional media. This is not neccessary for games in which the spin-off media is listed as a seperate article from the game or franchise (eg. Devil May Cry: The Animated Series or Pokémon (anime)) and should not be used for Western animation/comic media, as it does not fall under the category of manga or anime (eg. The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3).

Wonchop (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with all of these proposals. Just as the Japanese language title provides cultural information, so would its inclusion with terminology. You are essentially suggesting that all Japanese text be banned from the prose of the article if an English language localization was made which goes against common sense. If it's a game made originally in Japan, then the article should include Japanese text beyond the title as per WP:MOS-JA. Also, video games should use the dedicated video game infobox rather than the animanga video game one just because it may be a visual novel or it has an animated adaptation.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I've converted your headings above to bold sections, just for the ease of discussing in a single section. As to the proposed content, it seems a bit wordy and unnecessary. I can't think of any similar topics we cover where we spend time giving translations throughout the article. How is knowing the original Japanese name of a gameplay item doing anything but cluttering up the gameplay sections, which often suffer from being dense and impenetrable for non-game players? It would be akin to listing the ingredients of a Sauerbraten in English and German. What's important is that it contains cloves, not that in the original German it's gewürznelken. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the point I'm more or less making is that the Japanese should be used sparingly where it benefits from being translated, such as the aforementioned Zendatsu example, rather than just being there for the sake of it being about a Japanese game. If you have suggestions on how to simplify it, feel free.Wonchop (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow that is a really out of there comparison. Giving the Japanese language text for phrases invented for the Japanese language game is nto cluttering anything up. It is giving a real world perspective showing that a video game originally made, developed, and sold exclusively in Japan had unique words for these things rather than just presenting just the information from the English language localization. It is nothing like saying "this recipe includes cloves (Gewürznelken)", but rather "this recipe includes a kind of clove known as [proper noun]".—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

To put it your way, "それはちょうどあなたの意見です". The only time we really need to bring a Japanese term over for an internationally released game is if the Japanese terms is used in the international game itself. For example, if the English version of a Japanese game uses the same "Matsuri Time" system used in the Japanese version, then you could have a Japanese explanation explaining its origins. Otherwise, we just use what the English medium uses.Wonchop (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no. There's absolutely no reason to omit information simply because a purely English language proper noun replaced a Japanese language one. And stop being a smartass. There was no point to use Japanese other than to provoke me.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Nor is there any reason to provide Japanese translations of English words, especially when they were English words in the Japanese version to begin with.Wonchop (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact they are the same means we can show the reader that it's called the same thing in Japanese.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is about as pointless as saying "Sonic the Hedgehog is blue, which is also the colour of the sky." Remember, this is an English Wikipedia, not a 'we <3 Japan' site.Wonchop (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop using shit comparisons. We know we're not going to convince each other of shit. And I'm sorry if one of thosethi ngs I'm never going to convince you of is "if something is Japanese in origin we should probably have Japanese text within the article beyond the title".—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, there's no should about it. We're technically not obliged to include any Japanese text whatsoever. We just add what's necessary and then say the rest in our own damn language.Wonchop (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly this. Wikipedia:MOS-JA#Using_Japanese_in_the_article_body states that _{"Japanese script for a word can be added to the text the first time it is introduced"}. Nowhere does it state that a Japan origin article should use Japanese text, only that it can. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

←Rylulong, the Manual of Style specifically says that foreign words should be used sparingly. We are an English-language Wikipedia. If you can show me an example in a video game where the difference in titles was critically remarked upon by English sources, then that might well be a reason to include the original Japanese term, but otherwise it's falling into the realm of minutiae. If there aren't these sources, then I think you're giving undue weight to an aspect of the topic not relevant for understanding it as a whole. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

So, as far as the first section goes, how about something along the lines of: "Outside of the titles, the use of Japanese text should be used sparingly and only the first time a word is introduced, with editors encouraged to use official English terms if they are available. Japanese text may be used when describing an element that benefits from the use of Japanese text, such as gameplay mechanics that retain a Japanese name in its English release (eg. the "Zendatsu" technique in Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance) or the mention of other Japanese titles that do not have their own article. I'm not the best writer out there, so any suggestions on how to phrase this better would be appreciated. Wonchop (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with the spirit of your proposal, Wonchop, I think we need to keep in mind that the article guidelines for video games are all derived from the more general guidelines and policies for ALL Wikipedia content. As such, I think this proposal is too narrow in scope (there are other languages aside from Japanese that should be covered by this), and really not necessary, given that guidelines already exist in the Manual of Style, which Der Wohl pointed out above. I don't see that this really adds anything that isn't already covered elsewhere.

The purpose of this Guidelines article is to clarify information specific to video games that the MOS doesn't cover - for instance, the inappropriateness of scoring details and strategies. But inclusion or exclusion of Japanese terms with or without translations is a more general issue that also affects articles about books, movies, art, businesses, art, etc., and as I mentioned, this also seems too narrowly focused on Japanese text seemingly at the exclusion of text in any other language where the same rules should apply. My opinion is that this is a well-reasoned, good-faith effort, but that it isn't necessary. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: Ryulong, watch your tone. You're taking this way too personally. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

He formulated this whole proposal because of a dispute he and I are having on another article and he purposefully has done things with the intent to piss me off.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That being said, this is too restrictive. We should not be restricting anything. As pointed out by Blake, WP:MOS-JA says it can (rather than should) be added and I did add it. Whether or not it should be removed is not covered by anything, but I feel it adds more to the article. Also, David Fuchs, this isn't about titles. It's just about simple terms that may or may not be called something different in the other originating language. I doubt that anyone is going to go and discuss it ever. This project as a whole has had some sort of weird abhorrence to using Japanese text at all, which is what spawned the creation ofof the "Non-English titles" section that I helped draft up. And I do not see how adding upwards of 6 strings of Japanese text is adding undue weight when the subject is originally Japanese. It might not be useful to add something like "Sukai Batoru" for "Sky Battle" but the difference between "Mood Matrix" and "Kokoro Sukōpu" is a fact the readers might want to know.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That's mainly your opinion that comes from a general preference of Japanese media (considering most of the articles we tend to have debates on tend to revolve around anime, sentai and JRPGs). You need to realise that fans of general games made for an international audience, as opposed to some of the more Japanese-centric visuals novels and dating sims where Japanese characters are terminology are frevalent, don't neccessarily have an interest in Japanese, and these people will only find the added Japanese translations to interupt the flow of the article. Try reading the Pokémon X & Y segment out loud and see how the rocky the explanation gets when you have to say "English word *pause* Japanese word *pause" every time. This is an English Wikipedia, so you need to bear in mind that it's mainly going to be read by English people with an English mindset. Also you're not really helping your case by resorting to 'he started it' arguments.

Kiefer Skunk: So in lieu of having a section all to itself, do you think it would be worth expanding the existing section to cover mentions of Japanese outside of non-english Titles, with a possible reference to the MOS-JA for more information?Wonchop (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Video games originally made and released in Japan and then released internationally should not completely ignore the Japanese origins outside of mentioning the Japanese title in the lede or on some character lists. You should not speak for other editors or readers as to what they are interested in or how they read pages just because in your head you read both terms.

And you are the one who decided to parse the intent of WP:OPINION in Japanese text on this page and using ad hominem attacks in your posts to the article talk page and WP:3O by referring to me as "a certain editor". It's also not my fault you abhor using your user talk page and do not like it when people post on it despite it being the whole reason the page exists. And beginning these revert wars when I've personally told you several times that if you get reverted you are the one who has to start a discussion and not continue to revert things back and forth. I have tried to work with you but you refused and insisted on making all of these pages the way you want them to be without acknowledging my view points because you feel your version is infallible. Why else would you keep reverting to the form you prefer when you do not have an existant manual of style that backs up your edits and you have to resort to edit warring on another one to get your way?—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Good job trying to disprove Kiefer's point that you're taking this way too personally. Either way, there's been various arguments against the use of unneccessary Japanese inclusions whilst you have more or less just been repeating the same thing over and over.Wonchop (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In your interactions with me you have been unnecessarily provocative, and you definitely drafted this up after I had revealed in discussions that I was involved in creating WP:VG/JP. And "unnecessary" is subjective.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, me trying to make improvements to an English language article by limiting unneccessary elements and simplifying descriptions and providing guideline suggestions how to improve articles is all part of some evil scheme to specifically get on your nerves. If you've got nothing productive to add to the topic at hand, namely the proposal of additional sections to cover aspects that are generally left vague, I suggest you leave the discussion to other people, because right now, you're just giving off an "it sucks because he made it" tone. Wonchop (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That is not what I'm talking about. It's the tone you've taken here, here, and here. But you are right that I should not focus on this.

You act as if all foreign languages should not be mentioned at all outside of line 1 unless they meet some unnecessarily strict criteria you came up with. I am not opposing this because you wrote it. It's not useful. We should not forbid the use of Japanese text or Korean text or French text or whatever in parts of an article on something that originates from Japan or Korea or France just because it has been released in English with different terms. Maybe the ones I had been adding to Pokémon X and Y are superfluous. This project cannot come with a guideline saying "Do not ever include the Japanese (or other language) terms for a video game that has since been released in English" when it conflicts with "Generally, Japanese script for a word can be added to the text the first time it is introduced..." I've already seen that there's no consensus at the X and Y page and I'll live with that. But there should not be a rule here that codifies that.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Noone said it was forbidden. It was just being said 'by multiple people' that we don't need to hear every single bit of terminology in Japanese simple because it is a Japanese article. Sonic articles don't mention 'ringu', Metal Gear articles don't mention 'Koudekku', Mario Kart articles don't mention 'Taimu Torairu Modo', etc. Even when it's not about Japanese, articles based on things originating from other countries don't use examples of said languages when not neccessary. It has namely been your attitude over the apparent neccessity that we know what Fairy means in Engrish. Noone's forbidding Japanese, we're just saying to tone it down to where it is appropriate, namely when the terms have a particular relevance to Japanese in which a Japanese translation would benefit the article. In the case of Pokémon, the game is being released in English as a simultaneous worldwide release, with almost all the terms having direct parralels to the Japanese terms, and as an English article, people expect to read about it in English. Even in articles of Japanese games that haven't been released into English yet, people would much rather just read the articles in natural English without having Japanese stuffed down their throat every five seconds. Wonchop (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What is it with this WikiProject and it's abhorrence of Japanese? I remember having just as many problems when drafting the "Non-English titles" section. Fine. The items are not necessary. But that does not mean we should rule out their usage in the ways that you want them to be. And all this constant "This is the English Wikipedia" stuff is getting annoying. All Wikipedias regardless of their language include other languages within the prose of their articles if the subject is something other than the language of the main project. Video games for whatever reason are constantly being treated as being something that should be an exception to everything else. Special rules for the romanization part of the {{nihongo}} template. Special rules for hiding long Japanese titles. Special rules for when and when not to include other language text in the prose. No other set of articles has made their content this specialized and it's just so damn annoying. I don't see the extreme negative consequences that led to our edit war of having メガシンカ or ポケパルレ on Pokémon X and Y just because the former was translated directly and the latter has a different localized name.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Dropping the whole language matter for now, since that is more relating to our current dispute on the Pokémon X and Y article than anything else, how do you feel about the mention of the 'Animanga infobox'? There are various examples, such as visual novels like Steins;Gate and Danganronpa: Trigger Happy Havoc, where a game with large amounts of spin-off media, such as manga and anime, benefit from having an animanga infobox included to list its various media, whilst Ryulong appears to be firm in his stance that video games should only use vg infoboxes regardless of spin-off media (one case was brought up concerning Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4, which I have recently compromised by including a seperate animanga infobox for the other media), albeit once again, his reasoning seems very much in the "it should be this" manner, but I don't think it's explicitly stated whether this is allowed or disallowed. My general feeling is that vg infoboxes should be used for most games whenever possible, but certain Japanese-developed games that have a self-contained franchise consisting of various other media may use the animanga infobox where appropriate. I'd just like to hear the opinions of those besides Ryulong, and whether or not it should be clarified better in the guidelines. On another note, I'm kinda curious over whether the VG infobox should possibly adapt a multi-box format similar to the animanga one, in which multiple games in a series (in which individual articles are not available) or minor sequels/remakes can be listed together without the need for seperate infoboxes. Wonchop (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

My brief exchange fwith Ryulong over that exact subject at Attack on Titan leads me to believe he is an aggressive edit war user who refuses to accept any reasoning that is not his own even if he supplies none, so any discussion with him is not going to go anywhere. It ISthe English wikipedia, and the only Japanese text should appear if and only if a game was released in Japan first under a different title, otherwise supplying english articles filled with Japanese text is worthless and that is not a knock against Japan or the Japanese language, it is a basic fundamental aspect of the English wikipedia being read by people who speak English. That said, my argument with Ryulong was over him creating an infobox for every single item of media related to the previously mentioned anime, which contained incredibly basic information that was unnecessary, harming the article visually, and could have been covered in more detail in prose. Not EVERYTHING requires an infobox simply because it exists. Foreign text should be used sparing where important per the MOS and not used just because it is foreign language. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The infobox stuff at Attack on Titan has nothing to do with this. I did not create an infobox for every single item of media on that page. Someone else did. You removed it, and I reverted it. Why are you bringing it up? Why doesn't anyone know about WP:BRD? The discussion on this page about infoboxes is whether or not Template:Infobox animanga should be used on video game articles for video games that are similar to anime and manga. And the English Wikipedia is read by people who speak every language. However, for articles where the subject is not from an Anglosphere nation it should be expected that the language spoken in that nation would be used in some form on the article. Maybe it's not useful to have "Sukai Batoru" or "Fearii" on Pokémon X and Y. But if it's an anime or a video game or a television drama, and you're introducing a term that's integral to the fiction, it would be useful to provide the original form of that word.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, the discussion's been quiet for a little while now, so here's a few thoughts:

• I'm sticking to my guns that I think the proposal in general is well-reasoned but unnecessary - it doesn't add anything to the project's guidelines that would specifically benefit the project compared to the general MOS. It's too specific and limited in scope, and Wikipedia as a whole has a lot of rules and guidelines already that deal with this issue in a much broader scope. I don't think we need to put them here.
• On the Animanga infobox issue in specific: IMO, video games are video games, not manga, not anime. There is obviously some overlap between them, but claiming that a game is a manga or anime (or implying that it is by using that form of infobox) is likely to confuse readers. We wouldn't go putting a video-game infobox on the movie Macross Plus (as an example) even though someone also made a game based on it. I think it would be wrong to say you can do that in VG articles, and to my knowledge there is no consensus for that.
• On the personal dispute involving Ryulong: I have advised him to back off and cool off (though he keeps deleting my comments in his Talk page, so I don't know if he's actually read anything I've said to him), as I don't see any evidence that anyone else in this discussion is being deliberately antagonistic toward him. I believe many of Ryu's points are well thought-out and valid, and I happen to agree with some of them, but I think he is taking this too personally and is perilously close to violating several of WP's user-conduct policies, including WP:AGF and WP:BITE.
• Everyone needs to remember to deal with the content and stop attacking the contributors. Differences of opinion are healthy, and discussions about those differences can lead to greater understanding and mutual respect, and are ultimately beneficial to the project as a whole. Things tend to break down when discussions turn into edit wars and personal disputes. That goes for all sides. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleting the only comment you ever left does not equate "keeps deleting my comments". Also Template:Infobox animanga/Game exists.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I suppose this comment doesn't count, because it was in reply to someone else's use of a template (into which they inserted a lot of non-templated text, I might add)? Perhaps you should consider actually reading things before you just blow them away. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That was the one I was referring to. Is there another one I should be aware of?—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

For reference: your talk page's recent edit history. And apparently, then, you missed my FIRST comment on your page. Yes, I used a Twinkle template, but I wrote a fair amount of my own text into it as well, as is standard practice with a lot of editors here on WP. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

My query was mainly in the context of why an article of a video game that has spawned a lot of manga/anime should specifically have to use a VG infobox on the grounds of it being a video game when an Animanga infobox which can list all relevant media (naturally with the game listed as the primary media) would be more convenient. A lot of articles based on things like visual novels and JRPGs have used this format without quarrel so it'd be unfortunate if they were suddenly determined to be not allowed just on the grounds of 'x should use x things'. I think unless the template of VG Infobox were to be expanded to allow the listing of other related media, the animanga infobox would more than suffice due to its convenient structure. Admittedly, there are a lot of vaguities and exceptions that summarising it would be pretty difficult. I guess unless the hardcore Wikinuts really take an issue with the use of animanga infoboxes, we can more or less leave it ambiguous so as not to specifically approve or forbid it. Wonchop (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Template:Infobox animanga/Game is intended for when a video game is not notable for its own article but it can be included within the context of the anime and manga. If a video game has its own page then it should utilize the video game infobox rather than the anime manga one. The fact that it falls within a small range of video games that may be covered is irrelevant.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

But like I said, there's nothing specifically enforcing that. And like you're always telling me, 'should' is subjective. It's not like it is specifically saying a game is specifically anime, it just means it has a lot of anime and manga related media that would otherwise make the article look messy if they were required to be put in seperate infoboxes. Wonchop (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not messy if they get their own dedicated articles like Persona 4 The Animation did.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a relevant topic for this talk page, but only the episode article should be neccessary, particularly since the plot is identical to the game and a lot of information you have on your dedicated article could easily just go on the episode article. Wonchop (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

In principle, I disagree, actually. Just because an anime's plot may be identical to that of a game doesn't mean it can't be stated in two different articles. As I said below, it's a question of independent notability and coverage - if the anime is itself well-covered and notable, it deserves its own article separate from that of the game, and it's appropriate to either re-describe the plot or make reference to the game's plot - eg. "The plot of Persona IV closely follows the events in the game by the same name". Usually, articles strike a balance by letting the 'parent' article (in this case, the game) describe the plot in detail, and the 'offshoot' article (the anime) would briefly summarize it and provide a {{main}} link to the game's plot section. Does that help? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying in this case, the plot of Persona 4: The Animation isn't distinguishable enough from it's source material for it to warrant two seperate articles for both the anime adaptation of a video game and its episodes, when they can just be put into a single episode article. The anime itself is only 26 episodes long so it wouldn't need to be split up into seperate season listings. Wonchop (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There are some differences in how they are presnted and what has been chosen to be presented though. What characters that are choices in the video game and the characterization of the protagonist, as he is no longer the player character, exist.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wonchop, if I'm reading this correctly, it seems the main crux of this debate has less to do with anime/manga topics specifically and more to do about how to handle overlapping genres in general. I personally believe that there should only be one infobox for the main subject of an article, and that having multiple infoboxes on a single page makes the article messy. But then, which infobox to use? The main subject of the article should be clear enough to decide on the most appropriate infobox, and IMO "compound" infoboxes can cause more confusion about the subject of the article than they seek to clarify. Again, if it's a game, use the VG Infobox. If it's an anime, use whatever the appropriate box is for that. If it's an article about multiple subjects under a single title, where none of those subjects have enough notability to warrant their own individual articles, then it's not likely to be in the same category of articles that would use the VG infobox to begin with. And in that case, one would wonder if the VG guidelines as a whole would apply to that article, or if it falls under a different MOS entirely. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe he is referring to instances where video games receive unique anime or manga adaptations, such as what has happened with Persona 3, Persona 4, and Steins;gate, and there would not be a new article simply dedicated to the anime or manga created but rather sections of the article on the video game and separate episode/chapter list pages.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Kiefer seems to have it about right. For example, series that have heavy amounts of animanga media, such as Steins;Gate, would definitely benefit the animanga box more, but the same would not be said for say, someone doing a manga adaptation of Assassin's Creed IV. Again, it is a very hard subject to pin down to a particular ruling, given all the potential exemptions that could be brought up. The main question is, what really is the difference between a game infobox and an animanga game infobox, aside from maybe the ommission of certain categories like disc formats or something? For a lot of Wikipedia readers who aren't involved in the editing process, they're both just boxes with information. So yeah, in summation, there's a lot of grey area surrounding the use of animanga infoboxes over vg infoboxes, but it's too vague and obscure to put down as an enforcable guideline one way or the other. Wonchop (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Also Ryulong there shouldn't really be seperate articles with seperate episode listings for anime that doesn't neccessarily need it. In the case of Persona 4, it is a direct adaptation of that game and only requires a solitary episode article, as opposed to something like Sonic X, which is part of a franchise as a whole and isn't a direct adaptation of a single game. Wonchop (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As with all things, it's not whether the manga adaptation overlaps with, or belongs in, the game article (or vice versa) - or more accurately, it's not up to us to decide the merits of the individual topics in terms of whether they get their own articles or are part of an existing article. The point is, WP policies (most particularly on notability and reliable sources) tell us how to determine that - if the manga adaptation of Persona IV has sufficient independent notability and coverage, it can and should have its own article, and then the topic of the adaptation should be mentioned and linked in the game article. If it doesn't have that, then making a section for it in the game article is sufficient. But in the latter case, having a separate infobox for that adaptation is almost always overkill and tends to just clutter the article - the idea being that that topic should only take at most 2-3 paragraphs of the whole article, so another infobox stands a good chance of being bigger than the prose itself.

I get the feeling that the "Animanga Game infobox" (I haven't seen it) is a "hybrid" infobox - as in, it's trying to serve two or more purposes in a single template. You have to be really careful with templates like that - as I said earlier, they can cause a lot more confusion than they resolve (is it a game or a manga?). On Wikipedia, article topics really need to be specific and well-scoped, and to use a business term, the concept I'm hearing in this Animanga box sounds an awful lot like scope creep. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well upon further reading, there's a bit pertaining to visual novels at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Visual_novels, so that more or less covers games like Steins/Gate and Danganronpa. I guess that mainly just leaves JRPGs, although most of those that get anime adaptations are part of franchises themselves. Well, I'll leave it for now. Thanks for the feedback. Wonchop (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for being receptive to feedback. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

CoD 4 Naming Conventions

Is anybody able to aid in this discussion on Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare? When I read through the article, I noticed that the article uses three different conventions when addressing the game which I thought would be confusing to the non-gamer. CR4ZE (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"Translations" of Japanese titles

Instead of romanization, what about these translations? As always, titles are not about meaning, but about them existing and being different from other titles for the same work. Further, only the creator of the work has any freedom to name their work.

These extra translations (sometimes not even that) are usually completely fabricated and have nothing to do with the title from which they are "inspired by", therefore saying very little in exchange for a bloated lede. Why?

And what about things that are not translations? You can't "translate" words that have already been transliterated; "ポケモンスタジアム2" reads "Pokemon Stadium 2" and is supposed to read or otherwise match up with "Pocket Monsters' Stadium 2"... which is already there. That also applies to pretty much every Pokemon article versus that guideline... Japan doesn't use "Pocket Monsters" anymore outside of the katakana.

The romaji actually seems completely reasonable compared to these fake translations. Despatche (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? "ポケモン" is formed by joining Pocket Monsters, as I'm sure you know, in the same way パソコン means personal computer. How is translating Pokémon as Pocket Monsters not what it's supposed to be, if that's what you meant? DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 05:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Despatche, stop forum shopping. We are not switching to Bulbapedia's ass backwards way of providing the Anglicized Japanese language names of these items simpply because you've realized that The Pokémon Company no longer uses the English phrase "Pocket Monsters" to promote their product in Japan and several items now have mismatched Japanese language names. The {{nihongo}} template is set up to deal with this. It's set up as {{nihongo|English item|Japanese language text|romanized Japanese language text|extra information, usually used for literal translations or official translations}}. There is no need to turn everything on its head just because "ポケモンスタジアム" was written in English as "Pocket Monsters' Stadium" in Japan and "ポケットモンスター" is now solely written as "Pokémon" in English within Japan.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

After looking into it, I thought this may have been from some sort of dispute like this... But I have to put it out there that I fully support the structure of the Nihongo template, as described by Ryulong. DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 08:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

But... why? The romanization field already covers what you actually need; the main title or the romaji already covers them somehow. We don't need these unofficial translations that are completely removed from the actual titles we were given; at least romaji is somewhat close to the source. Despatche (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do people keep saying that? This isn't about the stupid Pokemon dispute unless you want it to be; you are the one "forum shopping", and I wish people would realize that. I brought it here because it's an issue with the basic standards themselves that I've encountered literally everywhere, and these articles were the last straw. And that's not even what Bulbapedia does--they do what you want--so please stop mentioning them; you are all doing this ass-backwards, and you need to fix your system.. I only linked there because I was trying to have the same discussion on three different sites, that's it! Ryulong, please stop lying. That's all I ask. Despatche (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It does not cover what you need if the title contains kanji and you cannot expect the lay person to understand the romanization field anyway. Literal translations are encouraged on Wikipedia, even if they may happen to differ greatly from the trademarked translation. And I am not forum shopping. I am not the person who opened up discussions on three separate pages on this website in order to change the same information. You are that person Despatche.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Literal translations are wrong. The layperson cannot understand them, because they don't fucking exist! The actual titles given are the only ones that matter, ever. All facts.

You're the one who turned a general discussion into a limited one in order to make it very clear what you're taking issue with. You're the one forum shopping, and you're the one lying all over the place. I'm sick of having to deal with your completely unhelpful and malicious character, I really am. Despatche (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, easy Despatche. I had a chat with Ryu a bit earlier, and I hope that'll ease the tone of the conversation. But I think you need to calm down too. Let's back up a little and see what needs to be addressed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's try this again

Okay, let's see if we can get this discussion back on track. I was trying to figure out who was arguing what above and feel like I'm missing several pieces of the argument. Here's what I've got - please correct me on your side of the dispute only, and please refrain from arguing with each other for the moment. I'd like to keep this civil, and I know from first-hand experience how these can spiral out of control very quickly.

Okay, so, if I understood correctly, Despatche says that "literal translations" of the romaji used in the nihongo template are unnecessary and unhelpful - they are frequently incorrect or outright made up, and often have little to do with the official title of the work. I'm not sure I see a strong argument against what he said here - it appears everyone involved in this discussion agrees that we should be avoiding incorrect translations, so what is the issue here? That literal romanizations of any sort are unhelpful? Or that the template is being abused by inserting translations that don't make sense?

If you want my opinion, I've been saying for some time now that I find only limited benefit from reading the romanization of Japanese characters - the vast majority of the time, it just reads like the original English title as though spoken by someone with an extremely heavy accent, and the "literal translation" usually ends up meaning even less. It also strikes me as a template that tries to pack in an awful lot of information into a tiny space, and I don't think it does that very well. My personal view is that the nihongo template should only spell out a romanization or translation of Japanese text when it's substantially different from the equivalent English (or is used in a context that doesn't have an English equivalent) - eg: "In the US release, the main character is called John, but in the Japanese release, he is [Japanese text) (Asato-san, lit. 'Monkey in the Clouds')." If I understood this dispute correctly, it would seem my opinion falls in line with Despatche's, but I don't actually understand the response from Ryulong or DarkToonLink well enough to say what their opinions are. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

From what I can gather, Despatche believes that the literal translations of the Japanese titles are "fake" because the creators of the work have decided on trademarked English language titles within Japan that differ greatly from the literal translations. This does not make them "fake" or "incorrect". They are just not used as the trademark in Japan. I believe that the official trademark and the literal translation should both be included because they differ so much and it is a harmless bit of information to tell the reader that "Pokemon Sutajiamu" does not literally translate as "Pocket Monsters' Stadium" but rather "Pokémon Stadium", even if the former is the trademark in Japan.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So, from a correctness standpoint, I posit that it's difficult for your average person to verify that a literal translation is correct - for instance, I don't know how to read Japanese script (I don't even know how to tell the difference between kanji and katakana most of the time), so short of copying and pasting the script into Google Translate (which we'd be foolish to trust), I can only trust that you folks who do understand it know what you're talking about. That generally doesn't meet the bar for verifiability.

From a "need-to-know" standpoint: I'm not sure I believe that literal translations necessarily meet the notability bar in most cases. The litmus test I use is: Is it relevant? Does it improve my understanding of the subject? It may be technically correct, but if it's not actually telling me something I really should know, I would still vote for excluding it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's another contrived example to explain my point: Let's just say that the "official" translation of the Japanese script for "Mega Drive" is "Mega Drive", but the literal translation came back as "Enormous Engine". While that could in fact be a perfectly correct literal, nobody ever refers to that console as the "Enormous Engine" in any of our sources, so adding it to the article seems both irrelevant and possibly stepping into the realm of original research. HOWEVER: If one of our sources mentioned that the Japanese script translated as "Enormous Engine" and Sega made a conscious decision to re-brand it as "Mega Drive" because that name would be better received, then the point would be relevant and would probably warrant its own line of prose in the Development section.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of translation services and dictionaries out there that would allow the average person, if they so wanted, to determine that "poketto" is "pocket" and "monsutaa" is "monster". And WP:N does not determine article content anyway. It determines what articles we can have but it does not prevent anyone from adding any information to articles so long as it can be verified per WP:V, and a literal translation can be easily verified, as I stated before. And if the Genesis was simply trademarked as the "Mega Drive" in Japan and its name was radically different when translated from Japanese to English, the article lede would appear like such:

The Sega Genesis, originally released in Japan as the Mega Drive (kanji, romaji, literally "Enormous Engine")...

—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:N was the wrong policy to quote, but WP:NOT and WP:MOS have a number of things to say about article content. I'm not up to doing an exhaustive review of them right now, but I know that in the past, there've been plenty of initiatives here and in other WikiProjects to follow the spirit of WP:NOT in terms of removing unnecessary content. I'm just saying I don't see how a literal translation of "Enormous Engine" is at all helpful in an article about a subject where the literal translation is never used, never referenced, and otherwise has no meaning. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the parts of WP:NOT that are likely most relevant here are "not a dictionary" and "not an indiscriminate collection of information" (though the latter is mainly geared toward such cruft as lyrics and statistics). The former links to WP:DICTIONARY, which goes into greater depth, but still doesn't specifically address translations. I'll open a discussion there to get clarity, since frankly this topic has a much broader scope than just video game articles. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Started up a topic at WT:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Literal translations from other languages, in case you're interested. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If we ignore the fact that the Japanese text has a meaning other than what the trademark states then that is providing a disservice to our reader who may believe that in this hypothetical situation that the Japanese text provided literally means "Mega Drive" rather than it simply being the trademarked name.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see how it's a disservice to readers to provide them with the relevant information. Is the fact that the Japanese may literally translate to something slightly different than the official title actually essential information? Is it something that's caused controversy? Does it have any significant coverage? Or is it simply a piece of trivia? Moreover, who cares about this discrepancy? Is the average reader who can only read English actually going to be affected in some way by reading what to them is undecipherable foreign characters and not seeing their literal translation? If they want to go see what the script means, they could go consult a translation service or dictionary and discover the literal meaning - we don't need to spell it out for them, methinks. (And if the difference between literal and official translation really is significant, I would expect it to be cited.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a disservice by not presenting information as posited. And all these questions are the same ones posed over the inclusion of Japanese language text in any of these pages or the Hepburn romanization which resulted in the drafting of WP:VG/JP when "Fainaru Fantajī" was previously also deemed irrelevant to the articles on Final Fantasy just as you are positing that "Pocket Monsters Platinum" is irrelevant on Pokémon Platinum simply because the English language trademarked title is the same in Japan as it is everywhere else. "It's not sourced," "Why does it benefit the page?" and the like. I'm not going through this bullshit again just because Despatche raised the question over the utility of a literal translation of a title when a trademarked English title exists in Japan.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see the issue that if the game was first released in Japan and later in the West under a different name. For example, Final Fantasy (as I understand it) doesn't need it as the game title is the same meaning and words in both languages - it should be implicit that if we don't mention the original Japanese name the title was the same. On the other hand, something like Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, which, after going through translation, is translated to "Turnabout Trial: Revived Turnabout", is different, and so both titles can be included. Note that I'm only saying this is good for retail titles; characters or other facets do not need this unless there's something said about the translation aspects (eg in the case of say Phoenix Wright (character) how the Japanese name is specifically punny, in a similar fashion as the English name.) --MASEM (t) 20:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

My reference to Final Fantasy was this project's intense abhorrence to including the Hepburn romanization for the exact same reasons that Despatche has been arguing that the literal translation of the title should also not be included simply because a trademarked title with a different translation exists. Including the Japanese language title (in the Japanese language scripts) is spelled out on some other manual of style and including the romanization is required per WP:ACCESS.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything in ACCESS that requires us to include translations. If we include them, the {{lang}} template or the like is required, but it is not necessary to include the foreign translation in the first place. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) describes how the foreign language version should be included along with a Latin alphabet transliteration. By association, WP:UE states something about translation. But these are not really the point of this. Despatche wants the complete omission of literal translations of video game titles from Japanese into English should the Japanese edition have at some point had an English language trademark that may or may not differ from the localized English language trademark and he is using the same arguments that opponents in these three lengthy debates from 3 years ago also used.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say what you think. If the only proper name for a game is in Japanese, then yes, UE absolutely applies. (for example, Gyakuten Kenji 2, of which there likely will be no Western version, and thus we need to give the UE name). But when we have an English name that is used in addition to the Japanese game, UE no longer applies. We still can include it, but UE does not require it as you think it does. --MASEM (t) 22:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I also don't see that this has to be an all-or-nothing thing. I'm not (in fact) arguing that we should delete ALL translations - I just want to be sure that we know when they're appropriate and when they're just trivia. There are most certainly cases where the literal translation actually adds real value to the article. I've just been saying that, as a more general rule, I find most of them to be useless, uninteresting and to have no apparent relevance to the subject, and so I would be in favor of removing them in favor of shortening the opening sentence of the lede. (Also note that just because *I* find it uninteresting or useless doesn't mean others will - people who are interested in the Japanese language, culture or business will likely find this more interesting. But we have to be careful - we already have guidelines about keeping game articles free of jargon, so I would imagine keeping them free from language elements that require special knowledge to understand would fall into a similar category.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The Japanese name should be included for Japanese topics, but since a lot of readers can't read Japanese, doesn't it make sense that a literal English translation should be provided on the English Wikipedia, of the Japanese, for those who cannot immediately understand the Japanese? DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 02:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Masem, you're just displaying more of this WikiProject's complete abbhorrence to having Japanese anything in the articles. For any video game originally released in Japan, the article very well should include the Japanese language title and its romanization. That's what a year's worth of debating in 2010 and 2011 ultimately decided was best. It does not matter if the game was subsequently released in English or not. But we are not debating this again. What Despatche believes is if there is a trademarked English language name within Japan (such as "Pocket Monsters' Stadium" for Japanese text that would normally be read as "Pokémon Stadium"), then no other translation of that title, should be used, even if the translation differs. He claims that listing "Pokémon Stadium" as the translation for a string of Japanese text when "Pocket Monsters' Stadium" is already found on the Japanese packaging is providing false information, simply because it was not the form that was trademarked by the company for use in Japan.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that if the game's english name from the Japanese release is, for all purposes, exactly the same (Final Fantasy as the prime example), its wasting space to remove the translation aspects in the lead sentence. If the Western name is different from the JP release, then by all means include it. A reader should be smart enough to understand that if the game is released in Japan but we don't make any mention of the original name that it should be taken as the same as the English name, and avoid unnecessary text in the lead that gets to that same conclusion. --MASEM (t) 03:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, that's not what consensus states. Articles on Final Fantasy will include "Final Fantasy", "ファイナルファンタジー", and "Fainaru Fantajī" at the beginning of the page. There is no way that "ファイナルファンタジー" or "Fainaru Fantajī" should be omitted.

And, again, this is going off track. Despatche, for example, wants the text "Pocket Monsters Platinum" removed from Pokémon Platinum because the English language trademark in Japan is "Pokémon Platinum" and not "Pocket Monsters Platinum", even though the Japanese text is clearly read as "Pocket Monsters Platinum".—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

See, again, I say that knowing the Japanese text literally translates as "Pocket Monsters Platinum" means absolutely nothing to me as a casual reader. It's trivia. It's not actually telling me anything other than what amounts to a quirk of translation. I don't see how it helps me understand the subject in any way that isn't covered by the rest of the article. And for "Fainaru Fantaji", I have a hard time believing that that is anything more than a pronunciation guide for the kanji (see my comment above about extremely heavy accents). While it may be interesting, I don't see how it helps. On the other hand, my hypothetical "Enormous Engine" example would be a case where there's enough of a difference between the official and literal names that it could be interesting to know, but I would still want to have a citation as to why that's significant.

Also, tone warning: Things are starting to get a little heated here again. Let's try to keep the frustration to a minimum. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Things are getting heated because I do not want to have to argue that this WikiProject should be required to follow the rules set out at WP:UE, WP:MOS-JA, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), and WP:ACCESS when it comes to including the title of the video game in Japanese, the romanization of that title, and any alternate translations thereof, again. It took a year to come to a consensus after Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/VGGL, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/VGGL2, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Video games developed in Japan and you are just rehashing all of the arguments in opposition from 3 years ago and it is getting annoying. Articles that feature text in any other language other than Japanese do not experience the problem that articles on Japanese video games seem to engender because of the mindset of a very small number of people within this WikiProject who espouse the same ideas you do.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Now you know how I feel about the ongoing dispute over Sega Genesis vs. Mega Drive. :P

Where was the consensus actually established? Do we have it codified somewhere? I was not aware that there was an existing consensus - perhaps a link to the guideline/policy page where the consensus has been firmly recorded would have helped us avoid all this. (The talk page discussions are interesting, but spread out, and it's often difficult to gauge how everyone's agreeing on a consensus in those discussions.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm sure you're aware that consensus can change - it seems my opinions on this topic certainly aren't unique. But I'll read through the prior discussions when I have time and see if I can determine if I really am in the minority on this - if so, I'll be happy to drop it. But if it looks like there's a strong contingent for changing the consensus, we should determine if there's a better place (and with better information) to discuss it. I'll note that the same thing has been going on at a much larger scale in Talk:Sega Genesis for years, and our current stance there is that there should be no further discussion on it without bringing new information to the table. I'll be mindful of that with this debate as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:VG/JP was created as a result, although in practice people have not really kept with the "it's okay to omit things sometimes" approach that was so much requested.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's compare it to other scripts, notably Russian which uses a modified Cyrillic script. Some articles use it like President of Russia and Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, but is it really necessary? An editor at anime tried to resolve a similiar issue with making part of it into a note; and perhaps the idea could work to resolve the issue without omission. For instance, the official name followed by the original languages script with a note pointing to a transliteration or other variants - including a literal reading for those that different like Neon Genesis Evangelion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, to point out to Ryulong, all those policies say is that if the Japanese name is included, we must include the translation. But that's not the issue here - the issue is whether to include the Japanese name (and subsequent the translation) in the first place. Nothing in the MOS requires this. MOS-JP does say for Japan-related articles it should be included, but its difficult to argue that a video game that includes major Western translation is a "Japan" related article. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If the video game was made in Japan then it's a Japan-related article. The fact it later got released internationally is irrelevant. And I am not going to argue this point, again. This project already came up with an extensive set of rules and regulations on the inclusion of Japanese text and undoing that is pointless. There's nothing that makes video games different from any other set of articles that may feature non-English text that warrants treating them differently.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Masem, I actually agree with Ryu on this one - I don't see a problem (either in principle or with our guidelines and policies) with including a Japanese title for context. And since there actually is consensus on including the translation (I'm sorry I didn't see or understand that earlier), I don't have any further arguments. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed link

I'd like to add a link to this WP:VG/RS subsection at the end of the "A 'Reception' section." line under Essential content. This would mirror the link added in the line below (i.e. "See Wikipedia:Categorization."). In case that wasn't clear, I would like the final version to look like this:

• A "Reception" section. This shows the impact that the subject had on the game industry: commercially, artistically, and technologically. For additional guidance see this guideline.

Are there any objections to this addition? Could it be better phrased? -Thibbs (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)