Talk:Glossary of video game terms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Launch game)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A member of the Guild of Copy Editors reviewed a version of this article for copy editing. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining!
 

Wave[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Throughout our wikipedia, the In-app_purchase concept is associated with microtransactions; this is outdated or either incorrect, it has become common for a single IAP to amount to hundreds of dollars.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 (talkcontribs) 00:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Auto-aim is not an exclusive synonym for aimbot[edit]

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[edit]

@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[edit]

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[edit]

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"?[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontributions) 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 (talkcontributions) 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 (talkcontributions) 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[edit]

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 (talkcontributions) 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 (talkcontribs) 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.

Missing definitions[edit]

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 ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

More robust markup[edit]

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 ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  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 ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

GOCE reviewed - declined[edit]

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)