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

can some1 look at the wwe '12 and its sequels articles to see which covers they should be using? there was a different one there last month.

Citations in plot sections

I have some questions regarding the following policy: "Plot sections should also be sourced; again, the user's manual and reviews may help here, but one may also find sufficient information contained within strategy guides or FAQs." Is it possible to write a complete plot summary (for a game with a "complex" plot, as defined in this guideline) based on the information found in the user's manual and reviews, which have the purpose of enticing the readers to experience the game for themselves and which should therefore, by design, avoid spoiling any major plot points? Specifically, how should one find citations for the ending(s) of the game in such sources? User manuals and strategy guides are usually published by the developers of the game. Wouldn't that make them primary sources and thus something to avoid? And if a different kind of strategy guide is meant, what is it? On a related note, what kind of FAQs are meant here? Because the first (and only) source for that that comes to mind is GameFAQs, which WP:VG/RS lists as unreliable.

I also have questions about following: "Often, using quotes from within the game or transcript can help support statements via {{cite video game}}; however, take care to keep such quotes short and to the key points." A good plot summary (limited to 700 words, per this page) of a 50 hour-long RPG is pretty much guaranteed to consist only of key points, which implies that there should be at least as many game/transcript citations as sentences in the summary. So why is it that many video game articles, even Featured ones (like Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, for instance), seem to cherry-pick which points they back up with a quote and which they don't? If the editors can decide which "key points" to source and which not to, what is the guideline for that distinction? Yet other articles, like Journey (2012 video game), seem fine with ignoring the "plot sections should be sourced" policy completely and still pass the peer review and get the Featured status. How does that accord with the policy?

I guess my ultimate question is this: What is the point of a blanket requirement to "source plot sections", given that plot summaries are always ultimately based on the primary source (the game)? Or is it just something thrown into the guideline to conform with WP:CITE and can be waived at times, as the Journey example shows? Speaking of WP:CITE, it says that citations are a requirement for claims that are or are likely to be challenged, but a good plot summary merely retells the critical path through the game without any additional interpretation. What exactly can be challenged in such a synopsis? --Koveras ^☭ 17:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• You'll likely get more traction for this by posting at WT:VG czar ♔ 04:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! --Koveras ^☭ 10:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's talk more about multiple cover art.

Games such as Super Smash Bros. for 3DS and Wii U and many Pokemon games have been having editors trying to add a secondary or two cover art(s) along with the first one in each's articles. Choosing only one at a time isn't good. It's also a bias to choose one over others and we have no rule to end that. Can we do something with WP:VGBOX?

The user has given a good reason to have two boxarts in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U. They're actually developed with different installments in mind, and somehow they're in the same article on the Wikipedia. There's an edit warring going on in there and I'm sure WP:VGBOX isn't ready enforce a such thing like that yet. I think we should polish WP:VGBOX more and enforce whether to accept or deny having a secondary boxart for the rare cases like Super Smash Bros. Should we accept having secondary boxart or not at all?

Also I'm not sure why, so far Pokemon game articles on the Wikipedia, must only have one boxart at a time. What did I miss? Is there an old consensus regarding it? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 07:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• This is already up for discussion at WT:VG#Should Super Smash Bros. 3DS/Wii U somehow be exempt from article guidelines? so I recommend adding your piece there instead. czar ⨹ 15:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Now I can see there IS a reason against having multiple game covers. I have nothing to discuss anymore. :) thanks for giving me a link. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 17:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Addition re: italicizing news site titles

WT:VG#RFC:_Italics_for_websites – czar 05:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Player character pronouns

What is the official guideline for referring to customizable player characters who can be male or female, like in many RPGs? Assume one by default, use "they"/"them" instead, or something else entirely? I've looked at several FAs and found little consistency in this point, so there doesn't seem to be any definite rule... --Koveras ^☭ 06:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Factions in RTS games

A month ago User:Soetermans, amongst other edits, deleted the complete list of factions featured in Napoleon: Total War, calling it "WP:GAMEGUIDE material". That rule in itself is not very specific, and this page (that it refers to) does not mention 'factions' anywhere. I noticed that factions featured in similar RTS games like Total War: Rome II, Age of Empires III and Civilization are all described to varying degrees of detail, so I wonder why they would be unacceptable in NTW, especially because the storylines of the other playable factions besides the French Empire give an entirely different view of the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars. In my opinion, information on playable factions in RTS games is essential, because you can experience them as a player; this would comply to "avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right". Non-playable factions could be excluded from Wikipedia coverage, and that's what the articles of the other pages also seem to adhere to. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Other stuff exists which May Also Suck, so try to avoid looking at other pages as being exemplary (unless they are A, WP:GA or WP:FA e.g. Command & Conquer (1995 video game), since those are, well, exemplary ;) ).

For RTSs, factions exist, but knowing what the factions are and each of their specific attributes is not so useful to the general reader as understanding why the difference matter. Listing unit X as a NOD unit and unit Y as a GDI unit doesn't tell me much (as a generalist reader); saying NOD and GDI have certain themes which impact what their units look like or do does.

You're misreading "avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right"; when we say notable in that context we mean notable as in the WP:N sense, meaning that specific concept has its own page on Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the Other Stuff Exists rule, that's why I'm asking for a general guideline that seems not to exist on this matter at the moment. If the other games I cited are stating trivial information too, it may be removed as well; I'm simply making a comparison to show the apparent discrepancy between NTW and other RTSs. C & C was also one of the games I considered; the current article addresses the Nod and GDI factions at length, there is even a List of Command & Conquer factions article for a more elaborate description (apparently warranted due to C & C's notability). It's a bit difficult to draw the comparison with NTW and other Total War factions, because C & C is based on fiction rather than history. The four main playable factions in NTW, the "French Empire" (First French Republic/First French Empire), the British Empire (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland), the Austrian Empire and the Russian Empire, do have their own Wikipedia page, but (obviously) not because they feature in NTW. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That the historical empires and battles and military units of the day can be experienced might certainly be true, but that it doesn't give any substantial information gameplay-wise. The link you provided also listed non-playable factions, providing links to Venice. I think that the playable factions can certainly be described in an informative way, and hopefully in prose, not in a list. I don't see any problem with that, because that would give information about how the game is played in the end. Trouwens, leuk om 's een keer een andere Nederlandse video game editor hier tegen te komen! --Soetermans. T / C 10:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be okay with excluding the non-playable factions, and mentioning the playable factions in prose (even though I'd like putting up the flags there). Haha ja, normaal gesproken schrijf ik eigenlijk niet over games, maar ik was vorige week bij de reenactment van de Slag bij Waterloo en toen ben ik maar weer ns NTW gaan spelen. Heb onlangs ook Tiberium Wars gekregen van 'n vriend, nu pas snap ik het hele plot en de connectie met Red Alert (dat spelletje werd vroeger verboden door m'n ouders want 'te gewelddadig', maar Age of Empires mocht wél; gek). Ben niet van plan veel over games te schrijven, mijn interesse ligt meer bij geschiedenis en wetenschap. Mvg, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)