Jump to content

Talk:Glossary of video game terms/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wave

Is there a good target for "wave"? I was surprised to not find anything good on the disambig page, but maybe I missed something czar ♔ 23:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Seeding the glossary

I'm going to pack it in now, but we should compare against these two sources in the future, for completeness: Template:Game design, Category:Video game terminology. czar ♔ 03:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

In-app Purchases clarification

Throughout our wikipedia, the In-app_purchase concept is associated with microtransactions; this is outdated or either incorrect, it has become common for a single IAP to amount to hundreds of dollars. If anyone understands why this strange association came into being and persists, please do take the lead on its correction, else one of us will have to take on quite a bit of research - doable, but yet quite a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlequence (talk • contribs) 00:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Auto-aim is not an exclusive synonym for aimbot

Auto aim redirects to aimbot, but auto-aim/aim assist is also the name of a legitimate gameplay mechanic used as a difficulty control by game creators. As it stands at the moment the entry just describes the bad side of auto-aim. - X201 (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The source sourced the two synonymously, but if you have another source that describes it as more of a difficulty modifier than a cheat, by all means czar ♔ 15:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

MOBA image

@Czar, I moved the image of the "Vainglory Halcyon Fold map" down to MOBA for multiple reasons. Partly because it doesn't really add any kind of information to "Level" (I didn't even know it was intended for that), but also because I don't think it looks good where it is right now, so close to another image and cutting of the horizontal line for the M-section. It simply looked better in the next section, where there's room for it.

Lastly, the image is not made to be shown this small, so I made it a little bit larger (300px > 350px). However, it definitely shouldn't be made any larger in the L-section, where it is already a very large image for that short section... I don't think the image has any use whatsoever when it's so small...

Oh, and I added a period to the end of the sentence, which is now also reverted. Opinions? ~Mable (chat) 11:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about this. I only changed it back because the edit summary didn't appear to acknowledge that it was intended as an illustration of "level". At this resolution, I agree it's tough to make out many of its details, which is why I don't think it's best for MOBA (where the details would matter) in the glossary. Many of the items on this page don't have descriptions yet, but at this resolution, the image should be a good overview for a "map" ("map" redirects to "level") as an environment in which players interact. I think it's more important to have that visualized for a newcomer than MOBA, which can use the square diagram if necessary. The caption can be expanded or changed if need be when the definition of "level" is eventually filled in. In terms of aesthetics and hanging into the "M" section, I could perhaps agree but the glossary is in such a nascent stage right now, I'm not sure that matters. As for the caption, I prefer to think of the single sentence as a fragment, but I wouldn't quarrel over the period if you insist. Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. czar ⨹ 16:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
You make good points. I guess it's fine where it is then, though I still don't think it works well where it is. About the period, I'll just use whatever style is most common on this page and apply that style to what's left, for consistency. And of course, no one learns anything from an edit war ~Mable (chat) 18:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I added a period to the three images that didn't have one yet in its description. I'm fine with all of these periods to be removed, but we should at least be consistent. More importantly, I changed the description of the MOBA image to better indicate its purpose - instead of trying to explain a MOBA level layout in one sentence, it now simply says that it's a "typical MOBA level." ~Mable (chat) 18:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I found that a now-banned user Dstebbins compiled an impressive glossary of gaming terminology here: User:Dstebbins/List of video game slang. I propose that we merge that list with this one, along with links to terms found here: Video Game Vocabulary, Jargon, and Slang. They are only partial lists at best, but both reflect both industry terminology and the slang used by gamers. --Zhane Masaki (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of this list is too minor and unsuited for merge. The entries that can be backed up with verifiable references should be the place to start. czar ⨹ 22:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Either way its a good start on gaming shorthand. Abandonware can be verified for starters; I surf Abandonia on a fairly regular basis. Research only of course. :) --Zhane Masaki (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Page has since been deleted for copyright infringement. It was copy/pasted from another website. Anarchyte (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Digital vs Physical

The article needs entries on the terms "digital copy" (a version of a game released as a digital download) and "physical copy" (a version of a game released on readable media), and the differences between the two. I'd add it myself, but I'm not really sure how to word it or add sources. But those are the terms used by the gaming community to describe this phenomenon. 162.194.216.174 (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I add "zen mode"?

I am sure there is "Zen mode" in many video games. I would just want to ask if it is appropriate to add this to the list of video game terms. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Zen mode is a pretty common mode in games, though it may be difficult to define. I think its definition can vary from genre to genre, or even from game to game. I believe it's generally a kind of endless mode? Though I suppose a zen mode doesn't need to be endless...
Quickly Googling around, I wasn't able to find a good source that defines "zen mode" generally. How would you define it, Qwerty? ~Mable (chat) 09:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The answer to any question of this sort is whether you can find a reliable vg source that provides a definition of the term. czar 14:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Maplestrip, I am not so sure, but I think that it pretty consistantly is a mode where the player can play with freedom and have no "enemy" obstacles. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I was playing one of those "Destruct-o-match" games from Neopets, was playing Bejeweled and also was playing Fruit Ninja. The three games I talked about all have same thing in common, which in this case is having no form of obstacles to obstruct the player, with slight variation. The "Destruct-o-match" game's Zen Mode changes gameplay by letting the player never lose even if not enough bricks are destroyed. As for Bejeweled, Zen Mode will always produce a matching move and thus no game overs possible, plus the added peaceful effects that can be done. For Fruit Ninja, Zen Mode is a mode where the player cuts as many fruits as possible within a certain timeframe, with no bombs or penalties from missing fruits. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
That's not really what a reliable source is from Wikipedia's perspective. I know "zen mode" is a term that happens to appear in multiple video games, but stating that would just be original research. What is needed are websites like Game Informer, Eurogamer, magazines like Electronic Gaming Monthly, those kinds of professional media, talking about it. Generally, if there are no sources like those, the concept is not considered notable and we can't even verify the existence of it at some point.
So it's probably not a good idea to add "zen mode" to the list ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 14:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Doing a quick news search, while the term is not the specific subject of an article from an RS, it is definitely a mode in many games and discussed in reliable sources for those games, as well as tied to the notion from other activities unrelated to video gaming. (eg: Mini Metro's Zen Mode in Popular Mechanics) or The Verge on the new mode in the mobile game Dots). It's definitely a sourcable term. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Maplestrip, well it's just what I said. But you are right about this addition of reliable sources and not original research. Sorry for forgetting about those policies. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Replacing pseudo-headers

In accordance with WP:BADHEAD I have removed all pseudo-headers from the page and replaced them with proper level-two headings. This better facilitates URL jumping and navigation especially when supplying a raw URL pointing to a particular topic. If you feel this was a bad move please say so below and please explain why pseudo-headers better fit this use case. G752V (talk • contributions) 10:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Glossary pages on WP universally use definition markup , not headers. See Category:Glossaries. --MASEM (t) 11:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
But why? Using level-two headers has a clear advantage in that it makes Wikipedia more accessible to both people with screen readers and to users directing others to a specific item in a glossary. It is clear that this is something that is missing from the pseudo-headers.
Advantages aside just because it is in common practice does not make it correct. As I have pointed out there is a clear style guide for these things whereas you've only pointed out that it's used in other places.
G752V (talk • contributions) 18:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Is there a more public place to discuss this, as it would affect all glossary pages and not just this one? ~Mable (chat) 19:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Not that I know of but if you stumble upon a better place for such discussion I would love to bring it up to more people. G752V (talk • contributions) 20:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:GLOSSARIES, the reason to avoid headers is that it makes for an unwieldy TOC. Headers should only be used for sparse glossaries. --MASEM (t) 10:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
As a second note, there are templates described by the above to provide HTML link anchors without having to include header-level elements such as {{vanchor}}. We probably do need to make sure we're consistent about that on here, but that's still info described in GLOSSARIES. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

As for linking to specific items, we can use {{visible anchor}} for that, though you'd have to add it to every item. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, we can just use the templated form for that. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Replacing pseudo-headers

RESOLVED:

Glossary items should not use level-two headers as opposed to pseudo-headers (bolded text). This is a result from consensus among RfC participants. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should glossary items use level-two headers as opposed to pseudo-headers (bolded text)? G752V (talk • contributions) 08:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I assume that you mean level three headings, since level two headings (n.b. not headers, those are the boxes at the top of the page) are already in use for the 0-9, A, B etc. sections. Regardless, Oppose since this is a definition list, and is currently using appropriate markup for that, albeit with undesirable blank lines between the entries. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The markup is actually being used correctly here. Oppose change, per Redrose. --Izno (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose since that's what what definition lists are for, per above. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A glossary is a perfect example of the proper use of definition lists. The terms are not pseudo-headers in this case because a pseudo-header misuses the browser's normal bold display of the definition term to mimic a bold heading; whereas the lists here produce accurate html which correctly associates each term with its definition, and that works well with assistive technology. There's no problem with breaking up the glossary into smaller lists by first letter and marking each section with proper headers; screen readers don't want too many headings to pick from, and one heading per definition would certainly be far too many. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I understand that "pseudo-header" is the terminology, but they aren't even used as "headers" in this case (it's not like this is a 100-header article). I think of it as a list of entries without bullets and with each line split after the bolded term. I also share all of the organizational concerns mentioned above. czar 07:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Redrose64. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • No (it was a question after all) per description list etc. Fred Gandt (talk|contribs) 20:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Apparently this is an acceptable use of such headers. WP:BADHEAD, which allows some uses, is unfortunately silent on specifics and gives no examples. At the very least, such headers should have anchors (in this article they do). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More robust markup

See MOS:GLOSSARIES for template-structured glossary markup, which is much richer and much less brittle than the current ; and :-based markup (and see, e.g., Glossary of cue sports terms for a glossary using the more flexible markup).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Essentially this uses four templates, {{Glossary}}, {{Term}}, {{Defn}} and {{Glossary end}}. These emit <dl>, <dt>...</dt>, <dd>...</dd> and </dl> tags respectively. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Which is the exact-same end... --Izno (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Right. Just obviates people needing to learn HTML markup if the don't (and presumably they're already familiar with template markup, being editors here), and it does not barf up piles of redundant and semantics-breaking code if you introduce whitespace between things, which the ;-and-: markup does. The templates also do some CSS to improve the display, e.g. by grouping together multiple definitions of the same term.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Missing definitions

The html specification for a definition list insists that every list contains at least one definition. In wiki-markup terms, that means we can't use a leading ; without at least one corresponding : and there are still multiple instances of that problem in this glossary.

In addition, if an image is placed inside a definition list (e.g. between the line marked up with a leading ; and the line marked up with a leading :) then it breaks the list and we end up with another missing definition. It's best to place images before a definition term. This breaks the list into two smaller lists but doesn't introduce any errors. --RexxS (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS: Oh, see thread immediately below this; template-structured glossary markup resolves those and many other problems (which is why I bothered developing it :-).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Glossary of video game terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

GOCE reviewed - declined

There is still a lot of unsourced content and it is templated for OR, until those issues are resolved this article is not really suitable for copy editing. Seraphim System (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and do some copy edit on the article, and see if I can help with some of the other issues. @Dissident93: I agree with you that the maintenance tags should generally stay until the issue is resolved. However it's become practice at the GOCE to remove copy edit tags when starting a copy edit, particularly during our editing drives, so as to avoid edit conflicts with other copy editors. I've commented-out the tag so that, on the chance I'm unable to finish, it can be easily replaced. (If I should have an unexpected Wikivacation, other Guild copy editors will notice and replace the tag at the end of the month.) – Reidgreg (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
That's what {{inuse}} and {{underconstruction}} are for. The maintenance tags should stay. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I hear you. There's also {{GOCEinuse}}, maybe I should throw that up. But I've been at this for a couple days already (working offline) and I don't want to tell people they can't edit the article. The edit traffic is fairly low here, I'm not worried about that kind of day-to-day edit conflict. It's more about making it easier for the new copy editors on the editing drive, who don't always check page histories or talk pages. With the copy edit tag commented, the article doesn't show in the maintenance categories used for our editing drive and avoids that potential problem. The Guild Coordinators (myself included) have a lot of experience with this, and it's been demonstrated as the path of least grief. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018 copy edit

I did copy edit for clarity, conciseness, consistency, and tone, and a fair amount of cleanup. A few easy notes first and then into the nity-grity.

  • Prose:
    • I generalized the language of some entries. For example, I rephrased splash damage so it wasn't referring only to weapon-based combat.
    • When there was a multi-paragraph definition, I tried to provide a short and simple definition in the first paragraph before going into more detail and examples.
    • Added serial commas consistently.
  • MOS fixes:
    • Unlike regular lists, terms in glossaries get natural capitalization, which means lower-case unless proper nouns or acronyms. See MOS:GLOSSARIES. I kept capitals on Roguelike and Metroidvania which are derived from proper nouns, per MOS:GENRECAPS.
    • Expanded acronyms do not get special style. No capitals or bold capitals. See MOS:ACRO → Formation and usage → Emphasis.
  • Layout:
    • I used template formatting which made it easier to apply consistent styles and anchors. However, I kept the anchors at main terms where the definitions were rather than secondary "see xxx" terms. Those secondary terms are enclosed in HTML <dt></dt> markup to avoid duplicate anchors.
    • I tried to standardize the display of alternate terms, abbreviations, definition hatnotes and see-also, and numbered multiple definitions.
    • In most cases I put definitions under the expanded acronym. An exception was AFK which is its own slang and rarely appears in its expanded form.
    • Where possible, I tried to link to definitions on the glossary list rather than linking off-list.
    • I removed the intentionally misspelled entries from the glossary (eg: Rouge for Rogue.)
    • Alphabetized entries except in the 0–9 section which are in numeric order. This doesn't follow MOS but it looked stranger to me to have a haphazard progression of related terms.

I felt a small number of the definitions used terms which may not be understood by the average reader, but which weren't themselves in the glossary. Here are the ones I noted and a few others which had missing definitions:

  • video game ought to have a definition, and perhaps also computer game
  • design, game design and video game design linked to each other with no definition
  • frag linked to kill which had no entry
  • cheat could use a definition apart from the more-general cheating
  • spawn is used in spawn camping but could use its own definition
  • genres: hero shooter, fighting game, action game, adventure game, wargame, racing game, sports game, fan game, shoot 'em up, etc.
  • hardcore or hardcore gamer
  • levelling up
  • avatar

I don't expect anyone to jump and fill these in, just another to-do list.

I'll try to be available for any questions or comments regarding my edits. Thanks for giving me time to work on this. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The massive cleanup template

I suggest, as a general rule to clean up this article (and remove some some of the cleanup templates for the future):

  • If a bulleted item doesn't have a wikilink, it needs citations. If it doesn't have a wikilink, it doesn't need citations.
    • Addressing: {{Refimprove|date=May 2016}}
  • If a bulleted item doesn't have a wikilink, then it is ok for that bulleted item to be overly detailed.
    • Addressing: {{Overly detailed|date=September 2017}}

Then in the future if these things are done, and if no {{verify source}} and {{unreliable source?}} templates exist (or other similar inlines), then these tags can be removed:

  • {{Original research|date=May 2016}}
  • {{Unreliable sources|date=September 2017}}

This guideline doesn't have to be perfect, but it's just something that can generally be followed. Opinions? Feedback appreciated. WinterSpw (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Agreed 100%. The only issue is the page is pretty large and would require a fair bit of work to fully clean it up. I guess going through a letter or two a day could be done in a week though. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Head swap

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Head swap in which the input of this article's regulars would be appreciated.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Gaming terms expanded

We need it to make it formal and politically correct. I don't care for what you don't know or understand, more or less, to be complicated in gaming terms.

The list are as follows (nouns and verbs are separate in order):

  • Nerf, gimp, worse/worsening, deterioration/deteriorate, degenerate/degeneration, weaken/weakening, cripple/crippling, water down/watering down, decline...
  • Buff, revamp, renovation/renovate, amelioration/ameliorate, strengthen/strengtenting, intensify/intensification, improve/improvement, renew/renewal...
  • Balance/balanced, fair/unfair, rebalance/overhaul/tweak...
  • Overpowered/Power Creep, Underpowered...

124.106.137.171 (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not a dictionary page. Yes, we should avoid additional slang in terms, but we're not providing tons of synonyms here either. --Masem (t) 23:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
And how does this need to form to politically correctness? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I performed some cleanup:

  • Tidied the glossary templates, standardized the formatting, and linked to glossary terms where possible (rather than to other articles).
  • Added a few terms needed to understand some other terms
  • Removed some unreferenced terms which appear to be specific to the Final Fantasy franchise: Black Mage, Blue Mage, white Mage, Limit Break, guardian. I don't think it's practical or appropriate to include every character class from every game.
  • I removed Twitch as promotional (it is the name of a company/service).
  • Shortened some definitions which were a bit long or had too many examples.

I dropped a [citation needed] on some of the entries I thought were questionable or had parts of their definitions that looked contestable. Some of these might be removed. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding in List of Abbreviations?

I wasn't sure if we should add in a list of notable abbreviations. I'm primarily talking about video game, series, and console names, but it could also accommodate things like 'GG' and so on. I'll add my list here later (to be expanded on), since I'm running out of time, but I thought I'd ask beforehand. It should of course only include abbreviations where it would be either immediately obvious what the gamer was talking about (e.g. GTA = Grand Theft Auto; GCN = Gamecube) or it should bring to mind one of a very few options (e.g. MK = Mario Kart or Mortal Kombat) which would generally be obvious from context. It should not include abbreviations where it's likely that an avid game wouldn't know it (e.g. you'd have to be somewhat familiar with the series to know that FFT = Final Fantasy Tactics; so while FF would be fine, FFT might at most be listed under the heading of FF), except possibly if there's an abbreviation for two things, with one being extremely familiar and the other still being common. (e.g. SMS = Sega Master System, but also Super Mario Sunshine). Blanket P.I. (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  • The only ones we should have here are general terms such as AFK and GG; any game/series related ones should just redirect to their respective pages instead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The article already suffers from a massive amount of unsourced content and original research with continuous new additions. What we really need most is more reliable sources, rather than more entries. So if you have non-trivial reliable sources for these abbreviations, we can likely add them fine. But try not to add content because you merely think it's used/significant or known/familiar/common. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

Given the vast amounts of unsourced content and pretty much original research on some of the terms, I think there needs to be stricter inclusion criteria, probably having at least one reliable source discuss it. There are so many drive-by edits adding or changing content without citing any sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Not only that, but it should be a video game specific term. Something like "easter egg" is used in other media like films, so terms like that do not belong here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Wellll, what would you do with "experience level" which also exists in tabletop games? I know what you mean with easter egg, but I don't think VG exclusivity is required. --Masem (t) 22:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please add the definition of "Cosmetic"?

As in the sense "The hats are cosmetic items. They don't change the statistics of the character." Thank you. 2606:A000:4002:500:54BD:A8C6:64AD:1110 (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It's basically one of the big two microtransaction categories. Either an item only changes your looks (cosmetic), or it improves your stats as well. See here for example. --Kraligor (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

HTML taggery

As Beland highlighted, the article includes a lot of raw HTML tags - which are deemed to be A Bad Thing. There seem to be two uses:

P tag used to divide up a long definition or to present several definitions for the same term.

In this case, it is harmless to just use several {{Defn}} templates. This can also be cleaner as the template allows for definition numbers.

DT tag used instead of a {{term}} template to prevent the template from defining an ID.

For example: ARPG is an abbreviation for action role-playing game. The action role-playing game term has an extra anchor for ARPG so that the ARPG fragment targets the action role-playing game and not the ARPG term itself.
In this case, the DT tags should be unnecessary as it is not wrong for a URL with the fragment #ARPG to target the ARPG term — even if there is then an internal link to the expanded term.

I was offering to "fix" all of the above HTML taggery, but suspect that there will be comments / feedback / suggestions ... — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 08:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

FTR, these have now all been fixed. -- Beland (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please add "nice try" and NT?

Since these both are used a lot in multiplayer games. I could have added them myself, but my device is very old and can't handle editing a page this long. S-117M (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Forgot this, please also add the terms "rotate" and "fake". These terms are also used a lot in bomb planting FPSes like CS GO and Valorant S-117M (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice try is not video game specific expression, rotate and fake would imo be nice additions though. NinuKinuski (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
There's this source czar 04:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

"Jitter clicking" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jitter clicking. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 27#Jitter clicking until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Does Area of Effect belong in videogames?

I read its definition in this entry as pertaining mostly to TTRPGs, not videogames, and I can't find a discussion or rationale for the merge in the change history of this page, the change history of the original Area of effect entry], or either talk page. Was there a discussion elsewhere? Does someone (maybe PresN, since they made that change) remember why? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Definition of "Unit"

This is a common term in video games. It generally refers to an entity under your control, especially in strategy games. It is referenced on the main page but not defined, and I cannot find a source for a definition anywhere online. I mean, its definition is "an individual thing or person regarded as single and complete but which can also form an individual component of a larger or more complex whole." or "a subdivision of a larger military grouping." but its usage is more specific in video games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subspace engine (talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

minimap

can somebody add minimap as a term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.131.225 (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Frag + Suicide

Frag is also used as shorthand for grenade - “Throwing a frag!”

Also entry should be added for suicide/kill-bind/gamend, for the term of pressing a button or imputing a command to kill your character manually. 142.162.119.96 (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

avbuse is real 174.247.253.41 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

proc does not necessarily produce RANDOM outcomes

Randomized outcome refers to these scenarios:

- target outcome effecting a range of efficacy upon activation, e.g. damage range between two values when performing an attack

- target outcome is one of a set of possible effects upon activation, or the target outcome IS the set of possibilities, e.g. rolling six-sided dice (note that the probability should not be weighted in order to qualify as truly random, afaik)

- probability of target event occurring tbw, e.g. primary attack buff has a chance to generate lightning bolts on hit

A flat (constant quantity or constant percentage) from a straightforward ability/skill is not random, e.g. Le Monarque's exotic perk in Destiny 2 will cause extra poison damage if the arrow is fired after a perfect draw, and such poison arrows cause flat poison AoE on a headshot or critical-area hit; the only "chances" involved here is firing after performing a perfect draw and/or getting that headshot or hitting a critical spot (note that neither involve luck, just skill).

Destiny 2's exotic perks - all perks in that game - are usually always CONDITIONAL and some of them have randomization. As D2 draws inspiration from other games, including its own predecessor, this stands to reason for other games as well: proccing an effect has actually less to do with randomness, but everything to do with conditionality. These are NOT the same thing.

Please adjust the language. 99.229.43.127 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Potential addition of the term "Friendly"

I would like to suggest the idea of adding the term "Friendly" to the list of video game terms, here are some possible definitions that could be used for I am not sure which might be the best choice to use to describe the term of "Friendly" in the context on video games.

A player that despite what ever the current in game objective might be or what ever their team is trying to do will instead decide to be a player that is friendly with both teams including their own even if this player's own team is trying to kill everyone on the other team.


A player that even if their team is trying to fight against the opposing team in some form this player will try their best to be a friendly player to the other team as in a player that doesn't fight anyone but if they do it is someone who in this player's mind is trying to ruin the fun by killing them and any other player that is also being a friendly player.


A player that decides to ignore the current objective and instead opt to play in an entirely passive or social manner, refusing to fight or act in any hostile manner with the exception that some friendly players might decide to retaliate in self defence if another player chooses to harm them or another friendly player despite their friendly and harmless attitude. MrDanTheCreative10Z9 (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Well out of date

This article is well out of date. It doesn't even include the term "meme" as in "meme loadout" 2A00:23C8:8F9F:4801:CD44:5DC9:2B36:9A10 (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources that say that's a video game term? Masem (t) 03:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. QuietCicada (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I propose merging Nuke (video games) into Glossary of video game terms, as the former is more of a dictionary definition than an article, and I don't see a way to improve it, so it would do better to be included in our game glossary article. QuietCicada (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  • support as well. the only real thing i think could maybe probably keep it separate would be the 1.5 definitions
so something like "A high-damage skill capable of defeating one or more enemies in one use, or the act of using any such skill." could work cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 14:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Support, that article is indeed a definition with examples. I don't see immediate sigcov, but it's been a common term for decades, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone could dig something up someonday. Could leave {{r with possibilities}} on the redirect. —siroχo 04:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Support - The term nuke (video games) is already a definition article Justanotherinternetguy ε=ε=ε=ε=┌(;￣▽￣)┘ --> talk 22:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pushing

The term “pushing” as used in (but not limited to) battle royale games such as Fortnite, where a group of opposing enemies forces another group to fight in combat. E.g. “They’re pushing.” Any revision of my explanation worth adding to mine could be used in order to make the term more understood. 206.255.21.90 (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Addition to the term "t-bagging"

while t-bagging is typically used as a taunt, it is also sometimes used as a form of communication, the most common message being "I'm freindly, don't kill me" or, "yes" Metalclaw8045 (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glossary_of_video_game_terms/Archive_1&oldid=1242443928"