After working on filling in some of the missing covers over on the main project page, I noticed that it seemed like the MoS entry for Cover Art seems a little out of date (and a few other things but I'll work on them later if this goes through). With the increase in digital only games it seems like it would be a good time to move from "Cover art" to the broader "Identifying art" term. I've come up with the below draft and while I'm note sure it's a substantial edit to the MoS, I'd rather get consensus first.

Feedback is welcome. CrimsonFox ^talk 21:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• I feel like this is overexplaining things, especially since this hasn't been an issue with digital-only games before, but I don't disagree with anything here either. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't argue with that, I usually fall on the side of providing a bit more information and clarification. It's not a problem (and hopefully never will be) but I think for the sake of newcomers, having the information there is useful. I've just started working on covers and found myself looking for this information and having to piece it together a bit. Also, having a MoS you can fall back on to strengthen a point you may be making makes life easier in case it ever does crop up. Pro-active vs reactive and all that. Thanks for the feedback. CrimsonFox ^talk 20:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Right, I'm the same way. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• It's mostly sound. There are two things I think are missing, and maybe some people disagree:
  • The identifying art should be from the game's original release. If the game was released on other platforms generations later, the original artwork with its respective platform-related logos should still be used. Exceptions can be made when a later release was significantly more notable than an earlier release. TarkusAB^talk 20:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

    Possibly, we could note here that official covers that omit platform-specific logos (usually what is shown on the developer's or publisher's website) are also acceptable, or preferred had the game released on multiple platforms with identical cover-art? Lordtobi (✉) 07:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that's mentioned in Crimsonfox's original draft: "If the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover..." TarkusAB^talk 08:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Editors should not manually crop or otherwise edit covers themselves to omit any branding. Only official crops should be used. TarkusAB^talk 20:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, do you mean branding for the game itself or in counter-point to the editing out of platform specific information? CrimsonFox ^talk 21:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe there is a better word than branding. I mean platform specific logos, publisher logos, ESRB rating, etc. Basically, editors shouldn't be removing stuff like that by hand just to make a prettier picture. TarkusAB^talk 22:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm cool with this. Only thing I would mention (if it's not already in the MOS) is that this could also include Arcade machines, as sometimes they are the best illustration of the game played. Just a thought Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I've seen this somewhere. I believe it said that a photo of the arcade cabinet was recommended but I'll have to double check where I found it. CrimsonFox ^talk 21:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I found it, it was your comment I saw on a different talk page. Oops! CrimsonFox ^talk 16:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• +1 JOEBRO64 21:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Based on everyone's comments, here's a second draft:

CrimsonFox ^talk 16:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Late but I'm fine with this. Still a little more words than necessary (IMO), but it makes it clear at least what is and isn't wanted. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I added it since there was no real opposition for this, but a number of support comments. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm facing this dilemma and would like you guys' opinion: a fighting game has a microtransaction that enables an existing fighter to become playable. I know Steam does call this DLC, but should we? The D stands for "downloadable" after all, and we're not downloading anything; just paying to remove a restriction. --uKER (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The developers are the ones using the DLC functionality to enable microtransaction-like features. In other words, it's basically a WP:PRIMARY source to quote Steam, like quoting a game's Steam games. What do reliable sources call it? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, Steam calls YouTube VR a videogame, but I'd argue against that too. About your question, DLC has been popularized as the term for "content you pay for in a videogame", but it's not technically correct if you're not downloading anything. I'd propose calling it "paid content" in order to keep it brief. --uKER (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

RSes would still call this downloadable content, even if that content exists on disc. There's no other term I've ever heard for it, outside of it being a microtransaction. (I know what you mean with "paywall" but never heard that seriously discussed as a way to call this type of content). --Masem (t) 15:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

About the "paywall" term, I didn't make it up myself. It's been recently quite popular due to the controversy surrounding Destiny. That said, as I was saying to HELLKNOWZ, I propose just calling it paid content.

This was exactly how I was going to respond. Agreed on all points. Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Checking around, the term "on-disc DLC" is used to describe this eg the issue from ME3. You still pay to download a patch ("content") that updates the game to enable the existing content. --Masem (t) 15:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't always necessarily download something. My case in question is Mortal Kombat 11, and for these characters that are part of the base game but come initially locked, it doesn't download anything. Steam's API (which the game accesses to perform this check) has functions to get/set whether a piece of what they call DLC is active for a given account. --uKER (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Even if its a single bit to trip the flag that you own the DLC, you have downloaded something to change how you interact with the game. It's not what you'd concider a major download in the age of 1+ GB patches, but it is a download. --Masem (t) 16:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

By that reasoning, maybe logging in to the server is DLC too. Are we being serious? If we are, no, a call to a function (aka web service), such as a license check (be it for DLC or the game itself) does not constitute a download. --uKER (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

"Paywall" is usually exclusively reserved for talking about the game at large, not the individual DLC's that make up a part of it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Google doesn't seem to agree. --uKER (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Most of those are forum hits. There's one that talks about Destiny, but it's talking content that a user without the DLC can see, but cannot access because they can't get to the high enough level without buying the DLC - that's more a wall because you run up against it. --Masem (t) 16:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It's mostly forums because paywall is a pejorative term that journalists tend not to use. I used it here but as I've said, it's not the term I'm proposing we use. About your wall analogy, I didn't really get what you meant, but the term's origin isn't related to anything happening in videogames. See here. --uKER (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

To put this into other words and maybe give the discussion a fresh start, I know that the masses have come to call any paid content DLC; the question is whether we want to keep using the term to refer to content that is not downloaded as it is already in the base game, only locked behind a (paid) license check. I don't like calling stuff by a name that is not correct just because everyone else does, and I'd suggest calling it "paid content" instead, but if consensus is for continuing to use "DLC", guess I'll bite the bullet and live with it. --uKER (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

• I don't like any of the three proposals above. My suggestion would be to cover plot proportionate to its coverage in secondary sources, as that's all that a general audience needs to know about the plot. Meaning that video games rarely require dedicated plot sections. If the plot is covered as an element of gameplay, cover it as such. If reviews or dedicated game guides call out the plot details as noteworthy, expand plot into its own section and use the basic principle of due weight to determine the extent of its coverage. We need to return to basing plot in real-world context (its secondary source coverage), not just giving a word limit and telling editors to have at it because the game has some semblance of plot. Setting 700/900-word limits just encourages editors to make the plot even longer than it needs to be. czar 01:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  I think we have a duty to give a comprehensive view of the topic, and that includes some discussion of the plot, regardless of its coverage in real world sources. Your comment is in an entirely different direction to the above discussion. It might be an interesting question, but I'm pretty sure it's in the wrong forum given how many different topic areas have similar language today. --Izno (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  I also fail to see how we the "cover plot proportionate to its coverage in secondary sources" argument would be used to help prevent the issues raised by the OP. There's a reason most of the MOS uses clear and direct guidelines, because this sort of subjective and case-by-case stuff simply wants edit warring to happen anytime there is a dispute. I don't disagree with the concept, as we already have the WP:DUE guideline, but I can't see this as being better off than the current status quo. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'm going to second Dissident. Not setting a hard limit and treating it case-by-case may seem fashionable but will likely raise more problems than solutions. JOEBRO64 22:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  In a perfect world, sure, but that’s simply not realistically enforceable when dealing with so much of the difficult, obstinate editors of the Internet. Something more objective and concrete is necessary. Have you left the video games side of Wikipedia for so long that you’ve forgotten how difficult so many casual Wikipedia writers are? They’d twist a suggestion like this (wrongfully) in their favor over and over again. Sergecross73 msg me 02:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  The current guidelines (and proposals) encourage editors to trim around a word count cap instead of writing judiciously. WPVG has comparatively few articles (notwithstanding the Final Fantasy epics) that warrant full-length plots and now we're inviting reasons to bloat them even larger? VG plot sections are today's "In popular culture" sections: everywhere they collect trivia rather than comprehensive coverage. Our language should reflect what we encourage, so we should be first encouraging concision and proportionality before word ceilings. I suggested phrasing to this effect in 2015 and I think it still holds true but again open to workshopping:

  Add game plot in the Gameplay section in proportion to its coverage in reliable, secondary sources (i.e., do not create separate Plot sections unless secondary sources note the plot's importance to the game). When an elaborated Plot section is necessary for completeness, prioritize sources in this order: (1) reliable, secondary sources, (2) reliable video game strategy guides and overviews (e.g., Prima, Brady, not user-created guides), (3) the game manual or other primary source documentation, (4) as a last resort, the game itself. Plot sections should be concise, proportional in length to its amount of Reception section coverage, and limited to less than 700 words.

re: the above questions—For the OP's FFXIV situation, if the talk page editors think a word ceiling will resolve their issues, go for it, but I don't see how 900- and 300-word limits give that particular article the "trim" its talk page says it needs. (My advice on that thread would be to limit the episode summaries to what secondary sources are sourced to say, which means only one or two sentences of plot summary apiece in the table, and to limit the main plot summary—the whole section—to be proportionate in length to the other sections with added flexibility based on the quality of its sourced content. Plot length should be justified by being able to point to reliable, secondary sources that have already made the case for the plot's importance in an individual game.) Our plot coverage can be based in "real-world" (secondary) sources while its cracks are filled by primary sources. (Every other section works this way!) It is the smartest method I can conceive for stunting the hundreds of non-Final Fantasy articles now eligible to bloat, word-by-word, to 900-word plots. The best way to show an IP editor the exorbitance of a plot detail is to challenge for a source that asserts that VG plot detail's noteworthiness. czar 00:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I know I can offer both Portal 2, BioShock, and BioShock Infinite as cases that that the amount of sourcing on the plot elements themselves allow for some expansion beyond any hard limit. (And even then, these are not volumes of plot at the end of the day). I totally agree that, exception probably outside FF7, the other FFs simply don't have the sourcing for that much plot. --Masem (t) 00:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Although not required, it is helpful to include the number of reviews GameRankings or Metacritic uses to calculate their scores, since it gives context and can help the reader understand how the score is averaged. The number can either be listed after Metacritic's qualitative summary in prose or footnoted in {{Video game reviews}}. Examples: Team Sonic Racing's reception section
  — [1]

Revisiting this discussion, I think this is bad advice as phrased. Very few articles stand to gain any benefit from including the review count for each aggregated review, especially if encouraged as a rule. We already have issues with extremely clunky/monotonous prose in Reception sections... If the review count is low, e.g., five or fewer reviews (including unreliable sources), my suggestion would be to omit the aggregated opinion altogether. For any larger counts, e.g., between five and forty, the general reader gains little from being thrown this figure—10 reviews? 40 reviews? What is the reader practically expected to do with this information? (Likely the same that they'll do with lists of every reviewer name and quotefarms: let their eyes glaze over.) I think the point stands even when footnoted—there is rarely use for including these figures, and we don't need to codify a rule for the off-case that knowing the total reviews would make a significant impact on the prose. If any advice is needed, we should be encouraging otherwise and offering edge cases for the few times when it is useful. (I can't think of any offhand.) czar 22:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not it’s out of 10 or 40 reviews is of statistical significance, if nothing else. A aggregate means much more or less if it’s based out of a higher or lower number of reviewers. Contexts matters with aggregates. I prefer always allowing it to be included, but at the very least, it needs to be used in certain situations. One that comes to mind is digital releases. Not anymore, but years ago, something like Sonic 3 had like a 97% aggregate score or something. But if you looked closer, it was just from like 5 Nintendo fansites who reviewed the digital Wii version. That’s not exactly representative of the game’s reception. A note saying it’s out of a small number of reviews helps illustrate that. Sergecross73 msg me 01:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Another thing to keep in mind is that many general readers, and even editors, don't know what an aggregate is. (I often find reception sections with statements like "Gamerankings was more critical of the game, giving it a score of 62%..." or "In a retrospective review, Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 87%, praising it for...") Mentioning the number of reviews is a good way of cluing the reader in without resorting to providing a dictionary definition on every page.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above. It's useful to include sample sizes since we're not talking about hundreds of publications. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been beating this drum for years. The number of reviews is a mission critical piece of information that must not be casually omitted. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

If it were a descriptive quote about statistical distribution, yes, that could be useful to the reader (as I first proposed during the OpenCritic reliability discussions many moons ago) but I don't see what a general audience is meant to do with "out of 10 reviews" or "out of 40 reviews" in prose. I think it's safe to call myself an informed reader and I don't know what to do with that distinction. If anything, it's most useful to know if those 10 or 40 reviews were mostly reputable sources or second-rate hobbyist blogs, but we're not going to get that any time soon. But to the point, if the number of reviews must be noted, why wouldn't it be sufficient to leave it in the reviews template, i.e., what is the benefit of putting it in prime prose real estate? It's akin to putting "97%" and "62%" in prose—it means nothing without qualitative context. czar 21:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

If there was a 60 out of 100 aggregated score based on 4 reviewers, that means it barely met the criteria. That means that if another reviewer was included and gave a perfect score, it could affect the overall score by a lot. If there was 75 out of 100 based on 40 reviewers, readers can see that there were more opinions to create that average and an additional reviewer might not make an overall difference to the score.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that Super Mario All-Stars recently became a featured article with a MC footnote, not to mention that none of the reviewers (few of which are active around WPVG) had a problem with it. JOEBRO64 12:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Footnoting is my preferred formatting, as it has the info but keeps the prose readable. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 13:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

In terms of MoS, I think it's tolerable to offer that it can be helpful to footnote review count in extreme circumstances, but I came here because that's not how it's currently written. The rigorous WPVG FA reviewers are no longer active, but in the times of the nitpicking "brilliant prose" criterion, I think it would be reasonable for a reviewer to ask what clarity a footnote of "Score based on 29 reviews" brings to readers. But yes, "based on 4 reviews" is a totally reasonable footnote. I don't know when it changed, but we used to include stuff like that right within {{vg reviews}} (not the prose), though as I said, I'd almost certainly advocate for removing the aggregate number altogether at that point. czar 20:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh I agree. I think this should only be done in cases of fewer than 10 reviews or so. A game having 29 or 33 or 40 reviews doesn't really matter at that point, and the exact number still exists on Metacritic itself if somebody really wishes to know. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Why must PC games be stated as "Microsoft Windows" as opposed to just "PC" if the box art for a certain game shows "PC CD-ROM" or "'PC' DVD-ROM" instead of "Microsoft Windows CD-ROM" or "Microsoft Windows DVD-ROM"? I mean, I would like Wikipedia to differentiate between the actual platform ("PC") and the operating system ("Microsoft Windows") as the latter is used to refer to the OS's install media, as in when Windows 95 prompted users with "Please insert the disc labeled 'Windows 95 CD-ROM' and click OK". --Fandelasketchup (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

First, we'd have to spell out PC as "personal computer" everytime. and that gets to the second point is that "personal computer" includes macOS, OS X, and Linux OSes, which, if we just listed as "personal computer" would lead to a lot of complaints. Moreso that the architecture of mac computer is far different now compared to a generic personal computer. Yes, in marketing "PC" == Windows-based system in that mindset but even then, you'd have to check the back of the box for system compatibility to see if Mac was listed. So basically, for computer-based games we have to designate by the operating system, and not (directly) the hardware. --Masem (t) 13:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. "PC" has never meant "Windows PC" except to users of Windows PCs. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 15:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that may be, Masem, but you must also remember that the process of installing games on a Mac is much simpler than that on a Windows-based PC because in the latter case you always have to go Next-Accept-Next-Next-Install-Finish while with the former, in most cases, it's just a matter of dragging the game's icon into the Applications folder, which makes it much simpler. And it's even simpler to uninstall games on Mac than it is on Windows, because most Windows installers for games leave behind resisdues when the uninstaller completes, namely useless Windows Registry entries, empty desktop shortcuts and the like, while on Mac the uninstall process is as simple and intuitive as the install process, only the reverse: in most cases you drag the game's icon from the Applications folder to the Trash and that's that, while with Windows you have to manually delete all registry entries and folders not deleted by the uninstaller. The other difference is the destination folder: on Windows PCs it's generally the "Program Files" folder inside the C: drive, while on Mac it's always the Applications folder. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

None of this changes the fact that PC is simply too vague a term to be useful. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

And even "Microsoft Windows" sounds vague and you'd have to spell out the OS even more, as newer games such as Call of Duty: Advanced Warefare or even the newer one (Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare) will run on Windows 8, 8.1 and 10, but not on previous versions such as Windows 7 or earlier, and they would also require the 64-bit version of Windows to be installed rather than the 32-bit version. As an example, check out the operating system requirements for NBA 2K19:"Windows 7 64-bit, Windows 8.1 64-bit or Windows 10 64-bit". See? It WON'T run on Windows versions earlier than Windows 7 or on 32-bit versions. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

And this is the opposite as it's too detailed and highly likely to create confusion and other inaccessibility issues to the general reader. To avoid this, we list by the overall brand and not any specific OS version, at least in the lead and infobox. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

That, however, misses the point that a game for Windows will not run on MacOS unless the developer has specifically created a version for MacOS. Calling a Windows-only game a PC-game thus is confusing since it creates the impression that it works with any PC operating system. Regards SoWhy 14:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

i used CTRL+F to search Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Video_games for the word "free", then again to search for the word "online". i also searched for each word individually in the Talk page archive.

The Inappropriate content section includes Cost... unless the item's individual cost is particularly noteworthy. Does "free" count as noteworthy? Maybe as part of the release history? (Manual of Style lists Release dates as Essential content.)

What about if it used to be legally available for free online?

i'm specifically remembering that popcap.com used to have Bejeweled and some of their other games free to play online (no need to download/install the game software) and wondering if those games' articles should mention that.

71.121.143.99 (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It depends. Is the fact that the game is free to play covered by independent reliable sources? Then it might be notable. For example, when Team Fortress 2 went free to play it received a lot of coverage and commentary, so that's worth nothing noting.

I think readers typically assume games are not free, so it would probably be worth at least mentioning in the prose when a game isn't - for example something like Cool Game 2 was released free on 22 February 2019 for... etc. Popcornduff (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This is correct. The point our advice here is trying to avoid is people tagging the price tags of non-free games without any sourced justification. Free, and free-to-play, are generally not an issue under this. We can also note, if reported by sources, if a game was temporarily free if that might have affected sales. Also, I would stress, we only care about legitimately free games: I know some of our RSes go "You really want to play this vaporware game? Here's how you can...." once in a while, this we do not want to cover for obvious reasons. --Masem (t) 00:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Guess PopCap's formerly free games don't make the cut.

@Popcornduff, did you mean worth noting? That typo is worth nothing. ;-)

@Masem, what are RSes? If you're saying Wikipedia shouldn't link to pirated games (even, or especially, games never officially released [i had to look up what vaporware was]) being offered for free, i agree. -71.121.143.99 (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

RS= reliable sources. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I did indeed mean "noting", not "nothing", though I suppose if TF2 is free then it's "worth nothing" in a sense too... Popcornduff (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure we discussed this a year or two ago and came to the consensus to not include them in articles any more, but it seems like a number of them have continued to do just that (including GAs such as Watch Dogs 2). I found a small discussion from 2012 and a more recent one that references the original dicussion I'm talking about. So unless consensus has changed since then, does anybody oppose this being directly added into our GAMECRUFT policy? The wording could be: Release edition tables: Do not add tables featuring a game's many release editions, such as special, limited, collectors, into articles. If they are notable, write them and their contents into prose instead. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support adding them. Popcornduff (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Concise Edition tables can provide the reader with a wider context to the release and sale of a video game and should not out right be avoided. Although if they are added they should probably be collaspible as they can sometimes take up a lot of space.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  As a minor point, some of the editions in the table appear to be unsourced, as well as many of the check marks. This is a GA, everything needs to meet WP:V. -- ferret (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  Is that on the Watch Dogs 2 article?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  Yes. The last two editions in particular don't seem to be mentioned anywhere in prose, and I don't see any clear references for those columns. -- ferret (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  I have added to sources in the Table's title to make it WP:V. Of course in any occasion where an edition's table is found it should have approriate references.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Take the table out! No one needs it. Popcornduff (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support in most cases. I believe there may be exceptions in specific cases, but in most instances this is clear cruft. JOEBRO64 15:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support for the removal of them. they don't seem that necessary and just highlights unnecessary details. I especially don't see it necessary for Watch Dogs 2 to have it. it just makes the article more confusing, and making it collapsible is even more proof its unnecessary.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Dissident. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on a winding-down discussion from WT:VG I added a section about how to indicate platforms for a game in the lede and infobox, as to establish that Google Stadia (currently) should be the only streaming platform that is explicitly included. But I also added other practices that I know are true (eg avoid storefronts, etc.) to this. --Masem (t) 18:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The listed platforms should not include platforms where the game is playable due to emulation, as these are not considered official releases. Many old MS-DOS adventure games can be played on modern systems thanks to ScummVM, but that does not make these systems platforms the game was officially released on.

This suggests that Steam DOSBox releases, Virtual Console, and PlayStation 2 Classics are all valid, as they are official emulated releases. I'd be in favor of this, generally, but status quo is to exclude these, I believe. Lordtobi (✉) 20:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that wasn't mention to allow re-releases that used emulation. Let me rework that a bit. --Masem (t) 14:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I boldly added some advice on spelling out genres in lede/infobox/gameplay sections based on generally what we advice, see [2] though Izno (talk · contribs) reverted on a few concerns [3] which is fine, that's why we now go to talk pages :)

I have seen "genre kudzo" of trying to stuff tons of genres in the lede, particularly with sticking "open world" or "first person" or "third person" in there. So that would be part of the reason for these. But I understand there are other factors here. I do feel we need a section here but need more input. --Masem (t) 01:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• I support adding some sort of caution against excess genres to the MoS. I too am often removing genre clutter from the lead, and it occasionally leads to conflict -- such as this recent discussion at The Last of Us, or this discussion last year at God of War (franchise).

I go further than many when it comes to decluttering the lead. I don't think we even ought to specify "video game" in most cases (for example, platform games are always video games, so "platform video game" is not only unnatural -- a term no one but Wikipedia uses -- but tautological). I suspect the urge to cram information into lead sentences comes not from a conscientious desire to accommodate a broader range of readers, but a nerdish urge to catalog beyond sense or necessity. That's a slightly bigger debate though. Popcornduff (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I also do the same thing. "platform video game" can simply be shortened to "platform game" or even simply "platformer". These are linked for a reason; we don't say novel book or documentary film, do we? As for the original post, we should only include the game's primary genre for generalization reasons, and almost never its narrative setting, such as "science-fiction" or "noir". ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we should not have to separate link to video game on a article about a video game as long as one or more genres are linked. We do need to keep aware of if there is any possible confusion with a physical tabletop/other game however: "Hearthstone is a card game..." is not sufficient, but "Hearthstone is a digital card game..." is. That part, we need to keep in mind that our genres are abstract to anyone not into video games so we need to be very clear here. So I would strongly caution aginst simplifying "platform game" to "platformer" at the first sentence - we need to describe this as a "game" of some type. --Masem (t) 20:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "platform game" is the clearer term (and it has plain English appeal). I also agree on the distinction between card game and digital card game. (I would say, btw, that there is no need to say "role-playing video game" even RPGs exist in many non-video game forms - it should be clear from context and readers will not wonder if it's a tabletop RPG or larp or something. But I think some editors might think that's going a little far.) Popcornduff (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• I generally oppose this since often it can be neccessary to have multiple genres in the lead sentence. Also, on a related note as others have been saying above I do not think there is anything wrong with stating "platform video game" in the lead sentence it may be obvious to us that using "platform game" would obviously refer to a video game stating "video game" in the lead helps non-specialist readers (who those who do not understand VGs at all) understand the article better especially if they are not familiar with video games.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Articles about individual video games aren't the place to teach readers what video games are. Anyone who doesn't know what a platform game is can follow the wikilink to the platform game article, which explains that it's a type of video game. See also the Roland TR-808, which is introduced as a drum machine and not a "drum machine musical instrument"; the beagle, a breed of hound and not a "hound dog"; and the electron, a subatomic particle and not a "subatomic particle physical body". Nor, as Dissident points out, do write "novel book". This also avoids WP:SEAOFBLUE problems. Popcornduff (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I do defintely see your point about not needing to state video games in lead. But at the moment I still think having a fixed limit of genres in the lead for video games is entirely unnessary since some games may need multiple genres and thus can be decided on a game by game basis not through MoS.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course games can involve elements of multiple genres. But this is no different from, for example, films, and WP:FILM has a policy of including the main genre described by sources. The point is not to be as comprehensive as possible but to help keep lead sentences concise and focused. Popcornduff (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Whilst I would generally agree in having something like "try not to have too many genres in the lead sentence" having a set arbitrary limit of genres set out by MoS is entirely unnessary.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually I think it would be very useful, as it has been in resolving countless edit wars in film articles. The point is to define what "too many" is - which editors will otherwise obviously argue about. Your "too many" is higher number than mine. Popcornduff (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: From my experience we do not tend to have big edit wars over genres in the lede on VG. But anyway, if we were to have a set limit of two genres in the lede for VG articles in circumstances where it maybe neccessary to have 3 genres in the lede in order for it to be comprehensive and representative of the article there will likely automatically removed by users due to it failing to meet MoS. This is becuase those who follow MoS often forget about exceptions even when it may be neccessary and instead follow it to the letter. Perhaps it could say something like: "In general try to keep the genres in the lede sentence to a minimum. Note: In general, two genres is usually enough but exceptions will apply."  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I urge you to think again about what the lead sentence is supposed to cover in an article. It should give a very basic introduction covering only the most fundamental information. I know it may seem to you that games spanning multiple genres is fundamental, but there are very few games for which a single genre (usually action-adventure, which is already two genres in one) cannot cover most bases. The temptation is to be as comprehensive as possible, but this comes at a cost. We have an entire article to explain what the game is. Popcornduff (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You mean one genre is enough, two should be considered the exception, with almost no reason to ever put more than that in the lead. If a game can't be grouped into a single genre, then it should be explained in detail in the gameplay section. A lead is only supposed to summarize the article, not include every single bit of detail, which is something people seem to not understand. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Popcornduff Dissident93 Upon further consideration Popcornduff is correct the lede sentence should only be a very basic introduction covering only the most fundamental information. I happily strike my vote and would support this being added to MoS.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Do we have something close to consensus to add this to the MoS? Popcornduff (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

We should only be using the primary genre for generalization reasons. Any more than two seems excessive, and is better explained outside the lead. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Since this was only started four days ago I think we should wait longer for more comments before deciding whether to add it or not.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

We don't need to write Microsoft Windows in articles and infoboxes.

• Windows is perfectly clear, no one is going to confuse this for holes in buildings
• "Windows" is the WP:COMMONNAME, hardly anyone (including sources) says or writes "Microsoft Windows" in full
• We don't typically include manufacturer names for platforms anyway (we don't write Microsoft Xbox, etc).

Can we change "Microsoft Windows" to "Windows" in the MoS please? Popcornduff (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Would support this. JOEBRO64 11:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support as said before. I think the main reason this still happens is because editors link the current article title ("Microsoft Windows") out of habit rather than understanding that "Microsoft" is only included in the title as a natural disambiguator. (Related yet separate issue: The article should also be moved to "Windows" if [[Windows]] is going to continue to redirect there as the primary topic.) czar 13:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I forgot we already discussed this. Thanks.

I did once propose moving the article to Windows, but the proposal went down in flames. In fact I think I managed to piss off more people in that discussion than anything else in my editing history. Popcornduff (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Why don't we try again? I think it might go a bit differently. JOEBRO64 14:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

If someone else wants to propose it, be my guest. I'll support it, naturally. Popcornduff (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

This discussion has been around less than a day. I think you should hold off mass-editing articles before a sufficient time has passed, especially since you are the initiator of the discussion and a strong proponent of this change. And a change like this shouldn't be exclusive to video game articles either. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, if you're referring to the edit summary I left just now in a few Valve articles, that's my bad. I should have linked to the discussion at User talk:Lordtobi, not the discussion on this page.

I believe there is basically consensus to make this minor change across a handful of articles related to a specific subject (Valve). Popcornduff (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• a change like this shouldn't be exclusive to video game articles either Yes, but WP:VG specifically says "Microsoft Windows" (under Platforms). Popcornduff (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Hellknowz, there should be wider discussion. Also, seems like this project page with the style guidelines should be updated (after a decision is made) before changing articles. Popcornduff, could you link to where you proposed moving Microsoft Windows to Windows? I can't find that discussion Schazjmd (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Here: Talk:Microsoft_Windows/Archive_5#Request_for_comment:_should_we_rename_the_article_Windows? Popcornduff (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Schazjmd (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose We should either make this consistent across all articles Wikipedia-wide or leave Microsoft Windows as it is. There is no valid reason to have halway mix of inconsistency across VG articles and non-VG articles. I also do not see any good reason for Popcornduff who started this discussion to already start removing Microsoft from VG articles when it has been less than 1 day since it the discussion has started and there is not been any Consensus (as seen here: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Because I've been regularly making this change for years without opposition, and when I have discussed it, it's received support here and in other discussions. What I am proposing in this debate is changing the mention of "Microsoft Windows" to "Windows" in the MOS to support it. The MOS does not currently explicitly recommend any particular wording. Popcornduff (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly MOS states to use "Microsoft Windows" not Windows. Secondly in all the recent occasions you removed Microsoft you cited this very discussion as the sole reason for the change as if there was a clear cut Consensus - you stated "remove Microsoft as per discussion on WP:VGMOS". There very clearly is no clear cut Consensus on the issue at hand. The default is currently "Microsoft Windows" there is not point it changing that in articles now since there is no Consensus to change it.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, linking here was a major screwup on my part, unfortunately copy-pasted. As I said above, I meant to link to the conversation on Lordtobi's page, where they said they supported changing it on Valve pages (and they were the only person who had opposed the idea until now). The reason I did a sweep of Valve articles is because Lordtobi felt whatever we did we should be consistent across all of them, so I went and did that. The confusion is my fault.

MOS states to use "Microsoft Windows" not Windows" It doesn't though. It just gives "Microsoft Windows" as an example platform. Contrary to what Sergecross says here, I believe that when this has been discussed on video game articles before, the consensus has been to change it, so I'm proposing changing it in the MOS too. Popcornduff (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I think people here are just afraid that people will get confused with "Windows" and "Windows", but people don't realize that with context it's better to say Windows than Microsoft Windows. TurboSonic (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you’re trying to express about context. Please elaborate. Sergecross73 msg me 00:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's say for example somebody says "Have you heard of the new Windows OS?" then you're going to know that it's Windows, but if he says "Have you cleaned your windows at home?" then he means the Windows at your house. That's what I mean about context. TurboSonic (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, yes, I understand the concept of “context” in a general sense. But you haven’t advanced an argument about how anything is better. You just kind of said the word “better” and stopped writing without explaining anything about why anything is better. Sergecross73 msg me 00:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean better, I just mean it's more efficient and everybody knows that everybody knows about Windows. TurboSonic (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I see. We’ll surely you can understand my confusion when you say things like “people don't realize that with context it's better to say Windows”, don’t explain why at all, and the go on to say you didn’t mean to use the word “better”... Sergecross73 msg me 01:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Support, I think changing it from "Microsoft Windows" to "Windows" is great since we already know that it's Microsoft Windows since it's a platform. I've already started converting 50+ articles from "Microsoft Windows" to "Windows" TurboSonic (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Support, its the same as the Wii.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments and others one of the prior times. Really wish we could stop wasting time on this. Again. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  But Sergecross73, that discussion was about renaming the Microsoft Windows article. That's a very different debate. Do you oppose writing Windows instead of Microsoft Windows in video game infoboxes? Popcornduff (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  Yes. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRECISION. Schazjmd (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and FYI TurboSonic is making mass changes and using this discussion, started today, as warrant to do so. Hope no one ever tells them to jump off a bridge because they'll be in the water before the sentence is finished. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake First of all a bit rude at the end but I can get behind that, second the reason I'm doing these changes is that with context such as the OS it's compatible with or how it runs on "Windows" doesn't need the additional "Microsoft" at the end of the sentence. Nobody will confuse Windows and Windows, at least not without context of course. Yes I feel like a majority of people are going to be against and I will promise that if this fails to have any agreement and eventually gets archive I will revert the problematic edits. TurboSonic (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

TurboSonic, pardon? What have I said that was rude? Schazjmd (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd I'm hope I'm not misunderstanding you but you said Hope no one ever tells them to jump off a bridge because they'll be in the water before the sentence is finished" TurboSonic (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

TurboSonic, that comment was made by Darkwarriorblake. Schazjmd (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd Sorry about that, I was making that comment while talking to someone else and didn't proofread it. TurboSonic (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Anyways, do not start implementing changes unless/until there is WP:CONSENSUS to do so. You should not be making edits in regards to something that is actively being debated and discussed. Sergecross73 msg me 01:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd and I do look very alike. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This type of move would need to be in concert with all other articles about computer software; we're not fighting anyone on home consoles but with desktop systems we should be running parallel, and best I can tell, software projects still use "Microsoft Windows". --Masem (t) 02:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: While Windows is the common name of the OS, this change should be also reflected in other non-VG articles and thus should be directed towards changing the article itself. Until then, I think it's best if we keep it Microsoft Windows for consistency reasons. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it should be acceptable, Nintendo Switch is commonly abbreviated to Switch and the same for WiiBlue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 21:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm aware and no issue with that. However, I meant consistency with other, non-gaming articles and topics. The usage of Switch/Wii is kept entirely within gaming topics/articles here, so if we start to use Windows while other software projects prefer Microsoft Windows, it just creates inconsistencies for no reason other than personal preference. Like I said above, this discussion should be aimed at changing the name of the Windows article itself, although it failed pretty strongly the last time we tried. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I think it is worth noting there is difference between the namings of the Wii and Nintendo Switch. Nintendo Switch is the offical name of the console and is often abbreviated to Switch. Wii is the offical name of the console is sometimes has the Nintendo disambiguator along with it forming: Nintendo Wii. In this case the offical name is Windows and the disambiguator is Microsoft. As Dissident93 said above, we do not want to create inconsistency between "Windows" usage within VG articles and "Microsoft Windows" within non-VG articles.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

When should "stylized as" actually be added? Is it how the game title is displayed on Steam etc (e.g. Watch Dogs 2 → WATCH_DOGS 2)? What about in promotional material (e.g. Half-Life 2 → HλLF-LIFE²)? Capitalisation (e.g. Boneworks → BONEWORKS)?  Nixinova  T C   03:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(MOS:TMSTYLE) Like all other info, when the stylized trademark is mentioned (or used) in reliable, secondary sources. czar 05:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it says, but that's vague. The game's steam page and official title etc may be "WATCH_DOGS 2" but sources aren't going to spam that all over them. I'm wanting a more precise guideline.  Nixinova  T C   19:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Unless it's so stylized that it becomes hard to recognize its proper English form (I can't think of an example right now), this stuff should be noted instead. Allcaps like WATCH_DOGS 2 just bloats the lead and doesn't help anything by being there. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I’d like to cut that back as much as possible. It’s used excessively in music and video game articles. We don’t need to use this to point out that titles on box art are written in all-caps or with an underscore somewhere or something. We don’t need to point out the obvious to readers. Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The MOS says the following: Release dates should be discussed in the body of the article (typically, as a section within "Development" or "Release"), and should include citations published after the game or content has been released to verify that the product came out as expected. Game reviews may be suitable for this, but not pre-release reviews. Am I supposed to interpret this as:

1. One source published after the game's release, that mentions the game's release date ("It was released on December 11")
2. One source mentioning the release date + one source published after release that mentions it has been released

It is unclear to me, and it is not very common to see articles or reviews mentioning the specific date after that date has already passed unless they have some "quick facts box" attached to them - normally you see wordings like "which is available now" or "which came out in 2004".--Alexandra^IDV 21:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I interept it as the first example you used ("One source published after the game's release, that mentions the game's release date ("It was released on December 11")") although you are somewhat right it is often harder to find a solid release date (Including Date and month) once it has been released. I have found that IGN is quite good at including those "quick facts boxes" in their reviews.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

We'd prefer the first case, but the second case is fine if you lack that explicit source. If you are using the second case, you often can use a review of a game as affirmation it was released, as long as the review is close to the expected date of release from a different source. Also, in this second case, this is where one can use store catalog pages as a valid source, as long as the catalog page validates the expected release date. --Masem (t) 21:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Spy-cicle, how does this revert improve upon what I wrote? Is "prefer post-release citations that confirm release dates" insufficiently explicit? Because it certainly resolves the ambiguity that caused this thread. czar 20:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Czar, I found your revision explicit enough.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: I think we needed something more specific and explict so this will not come up again. So essentially it reads we should use a ciation after its release as a priority and only when this cannot be found we use the second way. Something along these lines: Release dates should be discussed in the body of the article (typically, as a section within "Development" or "Release"), and should include citations published after the game or content has been released to verify that the product came out as expected. This citation should state the exact release date (dmy). Game reviews may be suitable for this, but not pre-release reviews. However, if absolutely no such citation (a citaiton stating the release date after its release) can be found One ciation stating its release date prior to its release and one citation published after release that mentions it has been released on time can be used as a last resort.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, that just seems like a much wordier way of saying the exact same thing Czar's version says. The only difference I see is the part about a citation saying it's been released on time, which doesn't make sense to me. If the source doesn't state the release date, how can we possibly know that by "on time" it means on the date mentioned in the pre-release source, and not on a date that was announced later?--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) That's much wordier for an already long and niche MoS. The point is that the citation should confirm the date whenever possible. The dual citation proposal reads to me as extremely convoluted. We're not going to tag thousands of articles for simply citing pre-release news stories. It's fine to use the single-most fitting source and if the release date is wrong, someone will provide a new source that asserts as much. czar 14:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I do see it can be a bit wordy (it was only a first draft) but I wanted to emphasise that we should only be using option 1 unless it cannot be found in reliable sources. Option 2 can be used in the older games when publications were unlikely to retrospectively state the release date after release. The reason I want this to be as verifable as possible is becuase: 1. Release date is a important part to the article and 2. We have had problems in older games of having an incorrect release date take for instance: Diablo.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's not pretend that this sentence's phrasing would have resolved the Diablo issue. We still rely on editor vigilance to pick the most apt source for the date, which means that some date discrepancies will warrant discussions/investigation. For our purposes, it is completely sufficient to "prefer post-release citations that confirm release dates (e.g., reviews) over citations that merely announce a date". czar 01:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I just added some notes on the MOS about awards documenting in the reception section. I was going to add that when one uses such tables, they should not include gaming website awards like GOTW from IGN/etc. However, in poking for examples to include, I find that pages like List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-Man and List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V include those website awards. I feel they should be handled differently, ideally in prose. My concern is 1) the normal awards like the Game Awards, etc. are either selected by a broad body within the VG space, or they are selected by people not normally with video games and as such those aren't playing to anyone's favorites, whereas website awards, done primarily by the site's staff, are much more prone to that. and 2) that whereas the number of game awards from associations/etc. is more limited, we have an endless supply of gaming websites, not all that notable, that can lead to excessively long accolade lists that may make the game seem more important than it is, especially with the wide variety of categories these can have.

Documenting the website awards via prose is fine, it's just the mingling with the more "practical" awards seems wrong. But before firming that in the MOS, I want to check on opinions on that. --Masem (t) 16:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I do see your point although as long as the website is a notable one like IGN where the Games are picked by a variety of staff I see that as worth noting. However, in situations where it is a less notable website and is chosen by one writer we should not include them in an awards tables.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

My criteria for adding an award to an article (regardless if to a table or prose) is if that award has an article. If it passed the notability needed for an article, then it's notable, regardless if a specific user likes that award or not. --Gonnym (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

We technically have three levels of notability of concern here: 1) that the award itself is notable (Seumas McNally Grand Prize), the awards as a whole are notable (The Game Awards) but no specific award in that is, or the agency giving the awards is notable (IGN) but the awards - collectively or individually - are not. I feel there's a line that should be drawn here to avoid flooding any given table with many many entries that are coming from the 3rd case (notable site, but awards not notable), but I'm not sure. --Masem (t) 17:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I would just go off what FILM and TV do and that's if it has an article it's notable enough to be mentioned. I feel like that would be fair to apply to video games? It just stops every award every from being listed. QueerFilmNerd^talk 23:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Per Masem's numbering, my understanding is that common practice is to include #1 and #2 and not #3, which is a logical place to draw the line as #3 brings in all kinds of non-notable cruft. czar 01:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Include 1 and 2, but exclude 3. Websites and other non-awards should be limited to prose only, assuming they are from a reliable source in the first place. These standalone accolade lists are bloated with this stuff, and should probably be merged back if they aren't large enough after removing them (just like we did for the Undertale one recently). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I've gone through every one of the standalone game accolade lists and removed the publication/website awards from them. Some of them are probably eligible for re-merging with the main article now, but I'll leave that to others. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• I made the change on the MOS page. Please let me know if I've captured the consensus here accurately. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think we want to explicitly address website awards too as stuff NOT to include in the table but which can be documented in prose (eg IGN's, Gamespot's, etc.) - Otherwise good. --Masem (t) 18:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think they are worth mentioning in the prose, but not in the tables. It's still in some form reception.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 18:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• I took another stab at it, including some reasoning from my experience for why individual publication awards are still worth including in prose if not in the table. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

With regards to the section on release dates, it states that "If the release period spreads across a year boundary, this can be summarized as "released in 2008 and 2009"". However, it does not mention the possibility of an (albeit rare) occurrence where a video game is initially released as a bundle with another game, and is then sold standalone the following year. I refer to the notable example where Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered was bundled with Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare in 2016, and was then released as a standalone product six months later in 2017 on the same gaming platforms. Should both years be included in Remastered's lede (the 2017 release was even advertised with an official trailer as if it were treated like a new game), or is this unnecessary as the platforms were the same used during both years? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I would treat a second release of a game as either within a new bundle, or as a debundled version, as a separate statement from grouping all of the original release. The fact that it was bundled/debundled is significant on its own, and shouldn't be hidden away like that. Your example text is appropriate to this point. --Masem (t) 14:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Template talk:Infobox character#Removing parameters regarding WP:WAF. This involves both the question of whether in-universe parameters should be used in such infoboxes, and if so which ones (with perhaps some conflicting expectations between TV, movies, video games, comics, anime/manga, novels, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much consistency with Japanese titles across articles when it comes to the Manual of Style guidelines. In the main body, it describes methods of keeping the Japanese name in a footnote, but there's an exception "for stand-alone titles, names of franchises, and first titles in franchises". There's also an exception for exact transliterations, like Katamari, which ironically doesn't necessarily follow the guideline because it includes the Hepburn translation, which is nearly identical to the English spelling and pronunciation to the point of superfluousness (the guideline's example only has the Kanji with the title). On the stand-alone titles exception, several series, standalones, and first titles don't follow this like Revelations: Persona (or Digital Devil Story: Megami Tensei, which would be the first Megami Tensei game overall), Demon's Souls, and Dragon Quest as examples.

The question is whether it makes more sense to just footnote all Japanese titles, or in the case of the Katamari example (which in my opinion is the only valid use of Japanese titles in the lede) we retain that exception while placing any additional context in a footnote (so the Katamari one would read Katamari Damacy (Japanese: 塊魂)^[a] with the footnote containing a longer version i.e. (Japanese: 塊魂, Hepburn: Katamari Damashī, lit. "clump of souls"). I definitely think for consistency, the "stand-alone" and "first title in a series" exceptions should be changed to footnotes while I'm on the fence about series and franchise names. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [海倍君ジェイ]} 16:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we should footnote it as much as possible. For the vast majority of readers, the Japanese is unreadable, and the content just aren’t really helpful. (Sonic is known as Sonic or Sonikku or whatever in Japan, which is just essentially Sonic. So Sonic is Sonic in Japan. Who cares.) When, on rare occasion, it’s actually helpful, like with Katamari, I really feel like an entire sentence could be written out about it. That Katamari means something like “clump” actually provides new context and helpful content not readily understood otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I didn't think about the contextual part of Katamari (which I agree is absolutely a valid reason for an exception), but I'm right there with you about the uselessness of having something like Sonikku right next to Sonic. Funny enough this came from looking through the Armored Core pages, since the Japanese version of Armored Core is... "Āmādo Koa". I actually went through and footnoted all of the Armored Core Japanese titles with the exception of the first game and the series page until I can get a general idea on how people would feel about it.

Also, we'd probably need to standardize exactly how the footnote appears, since there's little consensus on that too. On my Armored Core footnotes, I used the {{nihongo foot}} template which appears as "Japanese: アーマード・コア プロジェクトファンタズマ Hepburn: Āmādo Koa Purojekuto Fantazuma", while on the Persona 5 page, it was rendered with the {{efn}} template as "Perusona Faibu (ペルソナ5) in Japanese". Personally, I'm all about standardizing this stuff to make sure it's clear and consistent. The style guide just kind of says "use one of them", which is not helpful. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [海倍君ジェイ]} 20:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This page labels any articles assessing a game as a "review", however other articles exist that are not written as a review of the game overall, but instead highlight and critique certain aspects, such as a summary of what they dislike in particular. As an example, several of these exist in the Red Dead Redemption 2 page which criticize its controls and realism. Are any such articles (provided they are from reliable, third party-sources) eligible to be sourced as they are still technically contributing towards the overall reception of a game? Would they all come under what is determined as a "review" anyway? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. And if you have several from different sources, it probably starts to become a matter of WP:DUE to make sure to call that issue out if these sources all have the same point of criticism. Sources in a reception section do not have to be strictly "reviews", only that the articles are providing commentary on the game product. --Masem (t) 15:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

See Teamfight Tactics. TFT is a game mode for League of Legends (available on Win/Mac) and also set to be released as a standalone game for Android and iOS. However, the article for TFT lists all four platforms side by side, with no clear distinction. This edge case does not seem to be covered by our guides on platform listings, so how should it be handled? IceWelder [✉] 15:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Because I just installed the LoL games on my computer only the other day, I think the way to explain this is that the PC client consists of a top level launcher which includes the player management aspects, and then when you are ready to actually play LoL or TFT you are launching a second standalone executable. That is, while layman's terms its a gamemode of LoL, TFT is really a standalone client, so as it is presented is just fine, though you should explain a bit more in prose about the TFT being part of the LoL package. --Masem (t) 16:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

So basically LoL and TFT share a Riot launcher, much like Hearthstone and Overwatch share a Blizzard launcher, right? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

So with news this week of a few 2K series coming to the Switch, we end up with some interesting situations, but let's take an easy example where we have BioShock 2, which was originally released on PC/Mac, Xbox 360, and PS3. Then the BioShock Collection came out where a remastered version for the PS4 and Xbox One was released, but only as part of BioShock: The Collection Then with this news this week, the Switch is getting both the standalone BioShock 2 as well as BioShock: The Collection.

At minimum, the list of platforms for the infobox on BioShock 2 should clearly be PC/Mac, PS3, Xbox 360, and Switch, but now would we consider this game released for the PS4 and Xbox One to be listed there? I had added language to the MOS but have since taken it out that suggests "no we shouldn't" on the same basis we shouldn't do that if this was a released based on emulation and that it gives the false impression that the game is available as a standalone title for the PS4/Xbox One from the Infobox alone. (The lede and body can mention the collection of course). But on challenge of this, technically the game is available in a non-emulated mode for the PS4/Xbox One.

This is not the only case, but as we move forward with the next-gen consoles coming, we may see more of these case, so it might be good to get a consensus what we should do here. --Masem (t) 00:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any why infobox should not include, in this example, PS4 and Xbox One becuase fundamentally it is the same game give released as a part of a collection. Furthermore, when readers look at the infobox they likely just want to see what platforms it is avaliable on regardless of it is a part of the collection. In this case (or others like it), it could simply be listed with an efn as seen below:

Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• If it's a full port and not a remake or emulation, I think it's fine to list the compilation release in the infobox. For instance, the versions of Sonic CD, Sonic the Fighters, and Sonic R included in Sonic Gems Collection for the GameCube and PS2 are native ports of previous versions, so GameCube and PS2 are listed as platforms in the infobox. It's different when it comes to things like Super Mario All-Stars and Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy, which are remakes, and Mega Man Legacy Collection and Sega Genesis Colleciton, which are just emulation. JOEBRO64 17:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  Hmm. A related thought occurs. Why do we make a distinction between native ports and emulations? If the end result is you're playing the same game, perhaps with only minor perceptible differences, is this a technical distinction worth reflecting in our infoboxes? Popcornfud (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  Popcornfud, I think the primary reason against emulated releases is because many of them would just include every platform imaginable due to how widespread their emulated ports are (think of Sonic 1). A native port also shows more effort from the developer in putting the game on the platform than just including a ROM within an emulator, if that matters. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, basically once you have "emulation" that means that a game can run on a virtual machine, and thus just a material of which platforms support that virtual machine which could be endless. Ports typically do not have that factor, they are written directly to the platform (generally, there are exceptions, like Digital Eclipse's work but those are commercial packages). --Masem (t) 22:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Under Inappropriate content#Exceptions, what about adding something along the lines of "It's usually inappropriate to list specific multiplayer servers / worlds for a game, unless they have individual notability and coverage in secondary sources, such as Hypixel" Leijurv (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I assumed this was common sense enough to not bother mentioning, but it doesn't hurt anything to be as clear as possible. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I have added this. Leijurv (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

SimRefinery was a "game" that we knew of from an offshoot of Maxis. It was never released in the public and no known copies of it were known to exist, so, (until now) it was referred to as past tense. "SimRefinery was a game..." However, a single copy of the game was found in the last month and now uploaded and "playable" in an emulated form on the Internet Archive.

Does this make this game now a present tense game? My gut says no - we can talk about the find and upload to IA, but the game still was never publicly released and a single floppy is not the equivalent of a wide-scale release. --Masem (t) 15:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It might make sense if the sentence was "SimRefinery was a game in development at Maxis Business Simulations", so that the past-tense does not pertain to the game's existence but rather its development. I might be wrong, though. IceWelder [✉] 16:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)