Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.
WikiProject Video games (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

WPVG icon 2016.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
Manual of Style talk
  Article naming talk
Sources talk
  Search engine
Wikidata Guide
Reference library talk
  Online print archive
  Sales charts
  Website archive
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Article alerts
Deletion discussions
Essential articles
New articles
Popular pages
Recognized content
  Good article Good content
  Featured article Featured content
Requested articles


Plot concerns[edit]

On Talk:Final Fantasy XIV#Removing plot tag, Axem Titanium (talk · contribs) has raised some concerns about the current plot guidelines being too narrow of what forms a video game storyline can take. I'm thinking we might need to look into the plot guidelines. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I’ve never been one for hard limits for Wikipedia’s rules—either in plot, where trying to fit everything from a game with no plot to one with a 80 hour campaign into the same bucket rarely works, to images needing to be .1 megapixels no matter their contents, etc. With that said, the plot section of the article in question is, to me, a complete and utterly confusing mess. I went through it twice and still can’t tell you the broad strokes of the story. Starting from the setting, it dumps huge numbers of proper nouns for places that ultimately don’t play a major role in the story. It’s a textbook case of how longer plot sections often result in less comprehensible plot sections. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I have no illusions about the quality of the plot section in FFXIV. It absolutely needs a trim and I'm happy to work with someone who's not so close to the source material and the prose to reality check me. However, I think we should focus this discussion away from a specific article and more toward a general guideline for, let's say, MOS recommendations for writing about episodic games' plots. @Ferret: suggested incorporating elements of MOS:TVPLOT. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the 700 word limit is a fine guidance to follow for most video games, and it was lifted from MOS:FILM as most people know. It's been semi-enshrined here for years now (VG/GL), and was not commented on during the MOS:VG RFC (where it basically became MOS law). But while it works for many games, we missed provided any guidance or exceptions for episodic games, DLC or extended-maintenance games like MMOs. My recommendation is (with perhaps some tweaking) that we keep the 700 word recommendation but expand with a note for episodic/longform of 400 words per episodic/release/dlc. We'd then have the equivolent of MOS:FILMPLOT for single-player campaigns and most situations, with MOS:TVPLOT for the episodic/dlc/xpac sections. The exact language of the word count limits could maybe be softened just a tad, but plot sections do need to be kept shorter rather than longer in most cases. -- ferret (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I would definitely have no problem with a target of 700 words for most games, but common sense must be used - you're not going to write 700 worlds on SMB1 for example, while a story like RDR2 or a lengthy RPG may need 800 to 850 to be comfortable and hit key points (insert factors that we don't need to mention every level or missions or the like). With DLC and other additional content, where it is assumed it continues with the main story, that should be limited to 400 words like a TV episode, but again, common sense additions. --Masem (t) 18:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any examples of articles where the plot needs to be 400+ words per episode? In the abstract I’m really not seeing where there is a pressing need to change this guideline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm open to either number being different, say 900/400 or 900/300 instead of 700/400, or whatever. I just believe we should definitely have guidance. As for an episodic article in need of guidance, but MOS is silent on how to handle: Minecraft: Story Mode. There's no way you could meaningfully condense this to 700-1000 words. It can definitely be trimmed, but with 10+ episodes.... -- ferret (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm aligned with ferret and Masem here. I think a target "recommended" number is useful to have, just to point to as a guideline, but I would be in support of softening the language to account for the vast differences in the way video games approach story (SMB1 vs RDR2, as in Masem's example). Most games will not use the full 700/800/900/whatever but some especially story-focused games will need to go slightly over it and I would like it to be okay under the letter of the guideline without needing to get special dispensation to do that. My apprehension is that if the guideline is too limited, it'll just get ignored wholesale rather than editors consenting to abide by it. Across the project, I think it'll average out. I'm broadly in support of 400 words per episode to match MOSTV with the admonition to do your best to keep it short. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
So would this apply to the Sakura Wars series since the main storylines are in an episodic format? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd say it applies on an article basis. If Sakura Wars is a single article with multiple episodes covered, yes, keep it shorter. If the episodes are notable to be independent articles, larger. In essence, almost a SIZESPLIT view. -- ferret (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Got it. The main Sakura Wars games are single articles with several episodes covered. In this case, should we use the 400 word count or 700 word count for the episodes (for example: the first game has 10 episodes, the second has 13 episodes, the third has 11 episodes, the fourth has only four acts and the fifth has eight chapters)? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I've never played Sakura Wars so I have no idea about its specifics. Is it a single game that tells a story organized into chapters that happen to be called "episodes"? Or is it actually an "episodic" game? We may need to draw a distinction between these two uses of the word "episode" in the guideline itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The game consists of two modes for each episode: adventure and battle mode. During development, Oji Hiroi asked Satoru Akahori to write the script similar to that of an anime television series (that also includes eyecatches where players may save their game). Hope this helps. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd say MC Story Mode is another example of where there's too much detail. The minor differences due to player action make the plot excruciating to follow and should probably just be dropped, with the gameplay text giving an example or two of how player actions adjust the story. The subsections should definitely be condensed to story arcs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 01:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
ferret used MC Story Mode as an example of a failure of our current MOS to speak to different types of stories and I believe that a more detailed guideline that accounts for its needs can only help. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
In the end, the guideline is only meant to guide editors into writing the smallest plot section possible. If more than 700 words are needed to explain the basics and the basics only without any bloat and unnecessary info (which I argue that the FF14 example does not), then it should be allowed. My concern with this is that if we raise the arbitrary limit to let's say 1,000, then people will simply use that as a defense to add 300 extra words of bloat into these sections. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I've summarized this discussion into the proposals below, which are not mutually exclusive, and notified WT:VG. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


Should video game plot guidelines allow for longer plot descriptions than current guidance allows? Should they account for episodic game content? --Izno (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Line item 1: Change to main plot guideline[edit]

  • Plot sections should be no more than approximately 900 words to retain focus.

Recognizing that a minority of video games can have dense plots that cannot be reasonably summarized with the same 700 word guideline borrowed from MOSFILM, several editors have suggested a small increase to the recommended limit. This should not be taken as a blanket license to expand existing plot sections, but to accommodate the small number of cases where 700 words is simply too spare. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support as suggester. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Axem's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still waiting on an example of an intricately-plotted video game that is actually improved by a substantially longer summary versus condensing it down for summary style. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • How about Final Fantasy XII, which is currently at ~850 words, down from 1100 when it was promoted to FA? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
      • That plot summary would be greatly improved by stripping it of as many useless proper nouns and side characters as possible so you know which terms are actually important, so I don't see it as a good example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I think Until Dawn is a good example of a game that benefits from a longer plot summary. I mean, it's an interactive drama that's designed to be played dozens of times (with 100+ different endings!); there's no way it could be meaningfully condensed into 400-700 words. JOEBRO64 15:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I'd agree with you, but these rare-ish exceptions should not increase the default 700 word guideline, which is what is being argued by most of the supporters here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm also unconvinced per DF. If you need more room, make an exception and document it on the talk page. There should be very few articles where the main plot needs to be greater than even 700 words. --Izno (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Axem. Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Izno and DF. Our goal should be keeping the plot section as precise as possible. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Izno and DF. We can still make case by case exceptions if 700 isn't enough, but it should be in 95% of cases. If 700 can work with films, whose plots are more central to the entire experience than the vast majority of games, then there is no reason why they shouldn't work for games too. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, games like Assassin's Creed Odyssey, God of War (2018 video game), and Borderlands 2 I feel benefit from a longer plot that allows the writer to explain an intricate or perhaps longer plot. Few games of course require up to 900 words, but those who do I feel benefit from it greatly in not losing quality in having to trim story details. QueerFilmNerdtalk 17:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Borderlands 2 is another good example of an article that needs a shorter plot section, not a longer one; it's haphazardly written and repeats details constantly (why are you telling us the names of characters you already told us in the characters section?), goes into excessive detail (why do we need to know about a boss who is not relevant to the plot and is just a gameplay element?), and actually does a bad job actually explaining the plot (Vault Keys are never explained before being randomly dropped in without explanation in the plot section.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per obvious WP:Common sense. "This should not be taken as a blanket license to expand existing plot sections", except that's exactly what it is and how it would be misused. "I wish X didn't mean X" does not change the meaning of X. WP:Writing policy is hard.
    Alternative proposal: Do the same thing other MoS pages do, and have a footnote outlining this rare exception case.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Honestly, this makes sense to me, per Writing policy is hard. Just thought I'd give the proposal a fair shake. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose 700 is fine as a basic default, per SMcC add something about relevant exceptions. -- ferret (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Axem. JOEBRO64 01:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. As already noted, there is a wide variety in video games from "should not contain a plot section at all" (80s arcade games and the like, even if there's some fluff in the intro; most sports & racing games) to "60 hour+ epic" (Xenogears, etc.). The 700 word guideline was made for 2 hour movies & 30 minute TV episodes; I think the "median" video game has considerably more relevant plot than that if we restrict to games released since 2005 or so. SnowFire (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    Those 80 hour video games are mostly 60–70+ hours of gameplay loops, though. I can't think of a single video game that, once you cut out rote descriptions of gameplay and stuff to pad out runtimes, have longer stories than historical epics or miniseries. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    Final Fantasy XII was just mentioned above. I'd be in favor of restoring the 1100 word plot summary from the FAC, to be clear. And super-long historical epics & miniseries both deserve (in my personal opinion) and get (in Wikipedia practice) more than 700 words as well; Anna Karenina is not going to fit in 700 (for all that its existing plot section might be a bit long). To be clear here, I'm not talking about "30 minutes of plot 100 hours of gameplay" games, which would deserve even less than 700 words usually. SnowFire (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    For context, FF XII passed FAC around a decade ago--when there were lower standards both at a project level and at the FA level. So restoring the longer summary probably shouldn't be connected to whether it was of a certain quality then. --Izno (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    FF XII is an admin? :) -- ferret (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    Oof. --Izno (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    As an addendum, vaguely related to the below conversation. Simple word limits are difficult here, but DLC & expansions getting more text as per below is a ham-handed way of getting at the idea that more content to cover = more words required. There exist some games which are the equivalent of a single episode of Gilligan's Island where oh noes the princess has been kidnapped, Hero rescues her from Bad Guy, a mere two sentences is probably fine. There exist games that the closer equivalent would be an entire season of a TV show which would get 12x individual episode summaries, whether separated by DLC/expansions or not. I'm not contesting that for SOME games 700 words is fine, perhaps many games, but it's too low as a general limit, when even many action-y games these days have reasonably in-depth storylines; your Far Cries, GTAs, etc. SnowFire (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose (via FRS) Exceptions can be made per game. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support If Wikipedia's writers have managed to meaningfully condense the long and complicated story of Virtue's Last Reward (which is a featured article) in 700 words, other video game articles should be able to stay under the 900 word limit as well.--Megaman en m (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Line item 2: Adding guidance for episodic games[edit]

  • For episodic video games, plot summaries of no more than 300 words per episode should be presented either in the plot section as prose or in a table using {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}}. If appropriate, these articles could instead include a prose plot summary of no more than 900 words per season instead of an episode table, but an article should not have full plot summaries in both an episode table and a plot section. A brief one sentence plot synopsis is permitted in the table for articles with both, such as Tales of Monkey Island.

This is modeled after MOS:TVPLOT with a small concession on length. I also included a bit to accommodate Tales of Monkey Island (a GA) which follows a format I see a lot in Telltale games articles, which employs a regular plot section and a table summary of all aspects of the episodic release. I couldn't find an example of GA quality or higher for an article that uses the Episode Table format to deliver plot summary. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support as suggester. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Axem's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Axem. Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I do agree that episodic games probably need a longer plot summary. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for 300 per episode, but it should still be under 700 per season per the original guideline. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd rather we avoid per-episode summaries as that tends to lead to more words overall, when instead stepping back to determine the narrative flow if all the episodes were played back to back is a better way of presenting it. An episode table is fine for release with a one or two sentence summary. --Masem (t) 17:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Axem. QueerFilmNerdtalk 17:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, except retain the 700-word max, per my !vote in the previous section.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Axem, but with 700 limit, as per SMcC. -- ferret (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Axem. JOEBRO64 01:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (via FRS) This makes sense and I agree with how the limits have been set. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Line item 3: Adding guidance for DLC[edit]

  • For narrative downloadable content (DLC), plot summaries of no more than 300 words per content should be presented in the main plot section or as an additional sub-section (such as Final Fantasy XV). If appropriate, larger narrative DLC may be split into its own article if it receives significant independent development and reception coverage, such as The Last of Us: Left Behind. Split articles should follow the main plot guideline of 900 words.

Also modeled after MOS:TVPLOT. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support as suggester. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Axem's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Axem. Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support AdrianGamer (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 300, oppose 900 per above. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as per Axem. QueerFilmNerdtalk 17:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessary and redundant. Just modify the one above to say "episodic content, including DLCs". DLCs are a form of episodic content. And mentioning a max limit in that section but not in this one is an exploitable loophole. Again, WP:Writing policy is hard. Any time you propose changes like this you need to imagine every way someone will try to game it, then rewrite to prevent it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SmcC The episode guidance above (item 2) can easily accommodate "DLC" as well. -- ferret (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Axem. JOEBRO64 01:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (via FRS) I support this for the same reasons as part 2. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Character guidelines[edit]

The RFC seemed to be premature, given the recent comments and the suggestion towards a possible manual of style for all fictional characters. I'm now withdrawing this proposal. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:46, 11 June 2019 (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 we adopt the video game character guidelines to Manual of Style? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Are there multiple disputes about character articles? If not, the answer is no. If yes, what would be the proposed text? Shortly, this RFC is premature. If you have text of interest, you should propose that text. You should have rationale for necessary rules. --Izno (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I see. The proposed guidelines are here; I made those with Sergecross73 over six years ago in response to quite a few character article disputes over the years (the archives should provide more details) as well as this past discussion. However, if this RFC is premature and no one objects, I'm going to withdraw it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I'd agree, an RFC is to say "Should we adopt this?" with something to specifically discuss. We don't need an RFC for "Should we ponder drafting something we could then adopt?" -- ferret (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I generally oppose trying to treat VG characters separate from other types of fictional characters in absence of advice to apply to all types of fictional characters. Fine tuning a general MOS for characters to reflect VG elements is fine, but VG should not be leading this. --Masem (t) 19:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Sjones, is there another discussion that is antecedent to this one or a precipitating event? If so, please link it for reference. This proposal strikes me as out of the blue otherwise, in addition to being vague about what is being proposed as others have noted. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The scope of this seems to be more about fictional character articles more than video game articles (and yes I know there's overlap), so it makes sense to consult other WikiProjects such as WikiProject Fictional characters (unfortunately not too active), WikiProject Comics, WikiProject TV Series, etc. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 02:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Right, we shouldn't single out just video game characters if the same things can also apply to any fictional character regardless of their source medium. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for MOS:VG, support working towards some sort of MOS:Fictional Characters, but in a different venue. -- ferret (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2019 (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.

Adding Rules to Video game character infobox images[edit]

I've been in an ongoing discussion in Quiet (Metal Gear) talkpage about using a more appropriate image to help readers get a clear idea of what the character looks like. I found an offial image showing an in-game render of Quiet that accurately conveys readers what the character is intended to look like. User:SNAAAAKE!! was against this idea of using it because all the other Metal Gear character articles chose to use promotional illustrations in their infoboxes. This is possibly what led to multiple free images added in to compensate to give a better idea of what she looks like all to keep the same artwork of the character. I don't think this is solving the problem and more input would be greatly appreciated in that talkpage.

For now, After reviewing the rest of the Metal Gear character articles, I noticed they all have multiple non-free images doing similar things. Venom Snake article already uses two concept art and one in-game render. I looked in WP:VG/MOS to see if it could help me in the discussion but I noticed there are no guidelines for the infobox lead image in regards to character articles. Here's a test guideline that may help avoid OTHERSTUFFEXIST in the future.

Infoboxes for characters of video game origin should contain an image that best helps first time readers have an accurate understanding of what the character is intended to look like.

An official illustration can be used if it is more accurate in conveying to first time readers what the character was intended to look like as oppose to an in-game model of the character. Example of this is Yu Narukami from Persona 4 and Squall Leonhart from Final Fantasy VIII.

However if there is an in-game render or CGI/FMV render that conveys a more accurate portrayal than the official illustration, then the in-game or CGI/FMV render should be used for the infobox instead. Examples of this are Sora (Kingdom Hearts) and Jak (Jak and Daxter).

This proposed guideline is intended for what should be in infobox images only. Its not suggesting how many non-free images should be in the article and which ones should be removed from the article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

"For now, After reviewing the rest of the Metal Gear character articles, I noticed they all have multiple non-free images doing similar things." Not true, for example Gray Fox (Metal Gear) only has a singular sketch that shows him when he was a human, and Revolver Ocelot or Eva (Metal Gear) just have no pictures. Actually half of articles have no other pictures: Meryl Silverburgh, Otacon, The Boss (Metal Gear) as well. And they tend to be unfinished because I didn't finish writing them many years ago and then no one did it without me. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
(Indented above because Snake seems incapable of doing it) I agree with the proposed guideline. Wikipedia is not Wikia, in which editors can use as many pictures as they want. When dealing with non free media, Wikipedia has a harsher standard and as few images should be used as possible, and therefore the most accurate image should be used.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@SNAAAAKE!!: I found it true for Raiden (Metal Gear), Venom Snake, and Big Boss. Thats enough to make a mention in my humble opinion. But for now i only seaking comments about the proposed guideline.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. Talking about Yu Narukami, wouldn't his Persona 4 Arena illustration be more fitting since it shows his more common weapon? Also, I sometimes wonder about fighting game characters. I mean Ryu (Street Fighter)'s infobox image is not based on SFV while Kyo Kusanagi's most common look is not used in the infobox. I guess the same is with Ken Masters or Jin Kazama from Tekken among others who tend to change outfits in most Tekken games.Tintor2 (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Changes to MOS:VG should be proposed at it's talk page, not here. -- ferret (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Blue Pumpkin Pie: What is your brief and neutral statetent? As things stand, this RfC is too long for Legobot to list correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Redrose64: It would be "Request for opinions on a proposed guideline regarding Video game character lead images".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
      So why is there no brief and neutral statetent? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't know how to respond to that question other than i decided to add RfC last minute. Its my first time using it. But i really just want to focus on the topic at hand if possible. This is something that can be discussed further in my talkpage if you want to.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Your opening comment is too long and combining two separate parts that shouldn’t be together. For an RFC, there should be two parts. 1) A brief proposal with clearly laid out options. Let’s say we were doing a proposal about colors. You could frame it as “Should (x) be changes to green?”. Yes is support, no is oppose. Or maybe you give 4 set options. “What color should we use?” Option 1 - Green, Option 2 - Yellow, Option 3 - Blue, etc. 2) Then, separately, you should give your stance under it, as if you were any other participant. Make that as long as you want, though in general, you want to be may more concise starting off, or you’re going to scare away any casual passerby participants. People without any vested interest in the subject aren’t going to chime in if they need to read a giant wall of text. Anyways, I recommend starting over in the format I’ve outlined. This probably won’t go anywhere as is. Don’t feel bad, lots of people make this mistake initially. Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it better if i remove the RfC and just see how the discussion works?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It may be best to wait and see where the RFC for a MOS:Fictional Characters goes. -- ferret (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I'd support this proposal for better identifying infobox images. Also discussion at Quiet (Metal Gear) has died down so feel free to replace the image if you wish. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 00:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)