Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Notability/MOS precedent of Development of individual games

Hi. A discussion has emerged at the Video Games WikiProject following the creation of Development of Cyberpunk 2077 (link to discussion here). There are enough articles of this type that it has its own category (Category:Development of specific video games), but the discussion around the Cyberpunk 2077 article has extended into when individual articles for game development, and by extension items such as a game or game series' DLC and music and such should be created.

Taking in those wider questions might open a can of worms, so I'd like to bring the discussion here in case there's some MOS or guideline that can be implemented as to when a game's development is significant enough without excessive verbiage and quotes to justify its own article. I don't speak here as an unbiased judge as I created an article on the Development of Final Fantasy XV along with several music articles, but I do understand the arguments against. Pinging @Maplestrip, Zxcvbnm, Sergecross73, Axem Titanium, David Fuchs, Salvidrim!, OceanHok, Masem, Shooterwalker, and DecafPotato: as they've taken part in the discussion thus far. ProtoDrake (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @TheJoebro64—they also commented in the discussion. DecafPotato (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm generally against the breakout of these "development of" type articles, except for in specific instances - generally games that were stuck in some sort of well documented development hell. So I'm not opposed to one's for games like Final Fantasy XV or Duke Nukem Forever. But not for a vast majority of games. Or even games like Tears of the Kingdom, which has had a protracted development period, but little documented about it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• Thanks for starting this discussion ProtoDrake. My general thoughts on the matter are that we should set the bar "high" for breaking out this type of article. As noted by many in the WTVG discussion, the "extra room" so-to-speak that a separate article affords tends to attract proseline documentation of marketing minutia and overall weaker quality control over including what would ordinarily be considered trivial detail in the main article. I would proceed with caution with respect to existing articles, which should be considered for remerging on a case-by-case basis, but certainly I think there should be a moratorium on all new articles of this type with an eye toward developing a clear and consistent rule for the MOS going forward.

In terms of concrete suggestions, I think one useful dimension to consider is if the development itself is the subject of substantial coverage, and not merely in the context of the game. As Serge points out, FF15 and DNF have coverage remarking on the development itself as its own entity. Basically, does the development itself meet general notability criteria, independent of the game? Length should be a secondary determinant for a split, if considered at all, and length alone should never be sufficient to qualify a split. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• With respect to "Music of" articles, I think they're a different situation that should be considered separately, if at all. "Music of" articles often contain track lists and lists of albums which would otherwise be strewn across multiple album articles. I don't have a problem with them personally. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 01:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think there are potentially the same issues with "Music" of and the other sub articles, but at least theoretically a standalone music article could have chartings and reception info for the soundtrack and its release itself that would mean it would clearly be notable on its own. And for franchises it could make sense to just not replicate some of the information and centralize it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Echoing what I said at WT:VG—the Development has to be notable outside of the context of the game. DecafPotato (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• I'm generally against these spinouts too. There might be a few good exceptions. But in most cases, a game article with a long development section just needs a better summary. I am open to discussing the exceptions, but I think "notability outside the game" is going to be too common. Most big games have pre-release coverage where they hype up the making of the game, but it would be unworkable if every game big game gets split into two articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• There should be a simple, crystal-clear rule: the development must be proven to be a subject that, beyond a doubt, can stand independently from its parent game. I think the best example is Development of Duke Nukem Forever, where the development's just as, if not even more notable than the game itself. The main problems I have with "Development of" articles is that they're falling afoul of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and hitting issues with summary style. A lot of them go too far into technical minutiae that's unimportant to a general audience, or feel like they were written while the game was in development and include every update, announcement, and trade show appearance without refactoring them for importance after the game came out. Shooterwalker's observation that it's rooted in a need for summarizing is on point. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with everyone here that the development itself needs to be more notable than a normal development cycle. I dunno how we really establish that, though, especially given that you probably won't really know that until years down the line (if they're writing beefy retrospectives or interviews or post mortems.) I do think that if we're more proactive about summary style, this might not really even need to be an issue that comes up often, though: while we all seem to agree Duke Nukem Forever is a game with a notable development period, Development of Duke Nukem Forever and the parent article are each just around 21KB prose, so article size concerns don't suggest a separate article itself is really necessary from a brevity standpoint (you'd end up south of 35KB once you discount the redundant material.)

Looking at most of the other examples, I think they fall into similar situations, even before we try and split hairs about how they demonstrate notability. Development of BioShock Infinite is definitely big on its own (54KB prose) and the parent article is 46KB, but the parent has already been cut down (I think reasonably, though as I'm the person doing it I leave it to others to decide) from 58KB and I'm fairly confident once I've reworked the main article it'll be south of 55ishKB and definitely cover the development adequately, without spending two paragraphs on a tie-in mobile game or every showing and award it got prerelease. A lot of these feel like following summary style better obviates the need for separate articles on size entirely; Red Dead Redemption 2 is 50KB, but that's with an (IMO) too-heavy 1200-word synopsis section, 1600-word reception section, and 1400-word gameplay section that at first read feel way too detailed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with you and Joebro. A sincere effort to trim and cut down should be attempted before spinning out a separate article. Spun out articles tend to become WP:COATRACKs for every single time a developer gave an interview. Ordinarily, we're starved for dev info so our instinct is to desperately cling to and bloviate over a dearth of sources. But for the mega-popular AAAA games that seem to commonly get spun out Dev articles have the opposite problem---too many sources without any filter for which are good/important. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• Development of BioShock Infinite is such a detailed and in-depth article that it makes my mouth water, while the BioShock Infinite somehow feels both bare and overwhelming. If the Development section in the main article had some more subheaders, it might be more comfortable to read. Moreover, half of a "Development of .." article being dedicated to marketing (even covering pre-orders) feels very odd. I'm seeing a lot of content and formatting issues caused by this split, in part because it's unclear why the "Development" article is a stand-alone subject. I both love this article and I hate it. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  It seems very broken focusing on development in a non-open-source game project not documenting a blog that actually follows a reporting standard such as Star Citizen ^.^ Nira gliro (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• As the one who started this talk here, I'd best give an opinion. I'm in broad agreement with most of the opinions and have my own take. I think notability of the development itself as its own entity is important, but trimming down (something I was getting bad at recently) should be done first. If the article's still uncomfortably long after trimming, then plus notability a separate article's probably justified. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• I love an article with an in-depth development section and release section. One of my favorite articles is Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, which is an article that could've easily been split up into with a separate development article and separate legacy article, but the whole picture is much more impressive. 100KB is not too long for an article, it doesn't require a split unless there's a clear undue weight problem! There is a specific situation where such separate article does feel particularly useful to me, but my reasoning may touch on WP:INTERESTING. The Duke Nukem Forever development is separately notable because it is separately interesting. The development itself had its own cultural impact, somewhat distinct from the final product. Of course, if the main article is 100KB and the development article is also 100KB, then that's definitely a reasonable thing to have split (These are not hard numbers). ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think in that case it helps to get away from the subject and look at it critically. 86KB prose is definitely big and I'd look for places you could do minor trims, but it's also one of the most important rock albums of all time, and absolutely has the mainstream, big sources (with whole chapters in books to books themselves written about it) over the span of decades to justify it. Video games have only "just" in the historical sense become big pop cultural touchstones, most are very early in their lives to determine their historical importance, and frankly the gaming press isn't altogether great at sober, in-depth reporting. "Is this game as important to the world as Sgt. Peppers might be a reasonable way of considering the total size of its elements.
• Another more stylistic thing is that generally, especially for a game that came out recently, you can have a ton of sources but not many that let you write an effective narrative of the game's history, and from a practical standpoint that's going to make it harder to write a longer article that actually engages readers.
• So, wrapping around to actionable things: Would adding a line to WP:VG/CONTENT along the lines of "Before splitting out parts of a game article, consider whether summary style is observed and whether the split article (for example, Development of Duke Nukem Forever) would be independently notable of the game"? or similar cover what we're saying above and offer enough guidance? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that wording is strong enough to have the discouraging effect we're looking for. I would also hesitate to give an example because right now, it seems like all extant examples are up in the air. Even DNF seems to have some support for remerging based on length, despite notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• We're going to need some merge discussions playing out before it is useful to propose guidelines, I think. I will note that per WP:NOTPAPER, there's not necessarily a limit to how much detail we may want to go into for videogames. If we look at WP:SIZERULE, every article on a video game has a somewhat similar scope; their unimportance doesn't make their scope smaller, and we could write about them in just as much detail if we have the sources. This might be an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fallacy implementation of SIZERULE though, haha. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• NOTPAPER runs up against WP:TLDR pretty quickly, though, as the more general mission of Wikipedia as a general-purpose encyclopedia. NOTPAPER means we don't have to decide whether or not a topic will be included in a finite print collection, but it doesn't mean you can run on and on about a topic even if it's notable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• At the risk of repeating myself, I think one other important thing to consider is whether or not slicing out a large section and leaving a summary style paragraph in its place will harm reader understanding. I've found myself making the same argument over and over that splitting information across multiple pages makes articles measurably worse in terms of readability and understandability. When a reader needs to click to another article to find out a key piece of information or context, that disrupts their reading flow through the articles we've meticulously written. I'd take a single well-written article over one with the same (or more) information strewn across three articles any day. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with everything Axem said above. Please keep everything in one article per WP:CONCISE. DNF development may be notable, but the parent article itself is not long enough to justify a split. In addition to development information, I think articles in this category (Category:Gameplay of specific video games) should also be merged as well. OceanHok (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with merging things like WoW and Hearthstone (and maybe Overwatch), but for things like Pokémon and Dragon Quest, they're series with similar gameplay between entries—it makes sense to explain their gameplay in a separate article rather than put the explanation in every article about the series or one of its games. DecafPotato (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this too. Just because we can split, doesn't mean we should split. The WP:GNG standard is actually pretty low, once you have a game with any amount of publicity. I would argue that there are dozens more games that could be split, just based on the standard of a few third-party sources that talk about their development. WP:SIZE isn't always workable either, since a high profile game will have enough coverage to write a 10 page article, if we wanted to. None of this makes the article better. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Once we've decided on a conclusion for the MOS, it'll worth going through all 18 (or 17 once Cyberpunk is merged, which I'm almost certain will happen) standalone development articles to see which were warranted splits. From just a quick glance, Fez and Spore strike me as obvious cases of "these really didn't need to be split". JOEBRO⁶⁴ 12:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  Wikpipedia policy usually follows practice. It might help if we try to merge a few of the obvious cases. See what we learn, then try to summarize it in a guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with Shooter that this might be the best path forward at present, then. (For my part I'm trying to work on BioShock Infinite and will be looking at merging the development back in, but it's on the back burner for later this year at best.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed as well. This can be a project for WPVG to chip away at over the next while. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oops. Guess I'll axe Draft:Development of Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon while I'm ahead, then. Panini! • 🥪 15:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  It is a beautiful writeup on the history of its development. I see that a lot of it has been incorporated into the main article, making it looks very good :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Guidance on layout for game series articles

Hello! I'm trying to improve the article Panzer Dragoon, and it would be great to have some best practices in the "Layout" section of this page for game series articles, just as there are already the (much appreciated) guidelines for games, characters, and settings. I'm currently planning to imitate what I see in existing FA/GA series articles, but it would be nice to centralize some advice here. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this helpful reference page! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, it looks to me as thought the typical structure is Lead, (Story/Concept), List of Games, Development history, Music, Adaptations to other media, Critical reception. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Gamerankings removed in favor of Metacritic

Noticed editors removing Gamerankings from articles because the MOS apparently states it is redundant to Metacritic. Considering a 2021 discussion on OpenCritic_Percentage_Recommended_Score had concerns on over-reliance on MC and outlets like Eurogamer protesting the Metascore in 2015, I am concerned about the retroactive removal of its historic competitor.

With current state of virtually every game article linking solely to MC, keeping a sentence stating the score there should not be too lengthy. Even if one has to follow the archived link to see how the score was composed. (Unfortunately no quotable language on GR?) If we are really removing this one, why not the Metascore as well? IgelRM (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The consensus there was to not use Opencritic. There were separate discussions over the years more specific to GameRankings use. The consensus was that GR aggregate scores were almost always the same value as Metacritic scores, give or take a couple percentage points. Additionally, GR is no longer actively tracking new games for quite some time. I believe the actual consensus is that it's okay to use GR if it has a meaningfully different aggregate score...it's just rare that this ever happens. So, with that in mind: if we have 2 aggregators that almost always give the same value, why list both? And if we're not listing both, why wouldn't we use the one that is active, farther reaching, and generally more relevant in the industry? Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Just adding +1 that we should stick with MC, and that was the consensus. There might be exceptional cases where we want both, but that would be on a case-by-case basis. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, the discussion concluded that there was numerical support for the proposal but it was close enough that there was "no consensus". That's different from "there was consensus against" using it. 'No consensus' and 'consensus to reject' are not the same. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is technically correct. I did not mean to misrepresent that discussion. I was really just pointing out that there were separate discussions from that OC discussion they linked to, specific to GR, that dictated how we handle GR. I apologize for the mischaractication there, though I don't think it really affected the flow of the discussion at hand either. Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

No I don't think it did either. I have no particular opinion on GR beyond what's already been stated by others. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the MC over GR consensus is partially based on the fact that GR and MC were owned by the same publication. They were very duplicative at the time that consensus was derived. Since that consensus, GR was shutdown entirely and merged into MC. -- ferret (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair points made but those do not resolve my concerns of Gamerankings being seen as retroactively redundant. The purpose of a review aggregator is not solely displaying some kind of score or conclusion itself. Its gives readers the ability to compare multiple publications, GR had online cultural relevance for that during its time.

• GR launched in 1999 covering video games (says copyright eFront Media Inc.). And was acquired by CNET Networks in 2003 according to Scott Bedard.
• MC launched in 2001 covering media such as film, music, games (even tried books at one point). And was acquired by CNET Networks in 2005. Both under CNET Networks, itself acquired by CBS in 2008.

A brief comparison of The Sims (PC) appears to show different publications as well as overlap. PC Zone UK, HonestGamers, PC Format UK, Games Master UK, Independent Gamer and AceGamez all do not appear on MC. Even if near identical scores are seen as redundant, there is reader value in referencing another aggregator that had notability. Other things like Overall Rank, Platform Rank, Yearly Games Rank, Yearly Platform Rank and amount of reviews could theoretically be quoted as alternatives. SIMS-GR, SIMS-MC

The fate of GR being later owned by the same company and similar scores do not remove its relevance. The argument of relevance to the industry is questionable given WP serves a general encyclopedia reader and what I mentioned above. I argue we could write something like "On review aggregator Metacritic, the PC version of The Sims received "universal acclaim" based on 16 reviews, while on Gamerankings, it received an overall rank of 906 based on 24 reviews."

@Sergecross73 @Ferret IgelRM (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

We're not talking about MC and GR as external links though, we're talking about their use as a source for prose and review boxes. In that context, their only use was their aggregate scores. What reviews they used to get that score isn't covered on Wikipedia, just the scores themselves. And those number values were rarely significantly different from one another. And when they were very different, it was fair game to mention. I get what you're saying, but that's irrelevant to their actual use as a source in an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 01:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Understood, did not consider that GR was not in prose to begin with. But then for The Sims we may want to retain GR instead given it had more and different publications. I believe more older 2000s games exist were that is the case, while the MOS does not even mention exceptional cases.

• "On review aggregator Gamerankings, the PC version of The Sims received a score of 89.75% based on 46 reviews."

The only reason why MC was favored to GR I can presume is the lack of easily quotable language for prose or later industry attention. But looking at MOS:FILMCRITICS or TV sections, numeric scores of Rotten Tomato and MC are permitted for use in prose. The language on MC appears to be a basic mathematical characterization of score ranges, like "50-72 equals Mixed or Average Reviews". I argue we should at least retain GR for aforementioned games but also add prose to reduce template predominant article style. IgelRM (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Online-only" in first sentence of lead paragraph

There are an increasingly number of games that cannot be played offline (e.g. Destiny 2, the upcoming Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League), but is that something that should be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead paragraph? I have seen users adding "online-only" to articles about these types of games, but is the game being unplayable without an Internet connection really a defining characteristic, or important enough to put it before other essential information such as its genre or developer/publisher? OceanHok (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it can be mentioned in the lead, but probably not sentence 1, unless one can argue that a given game is a rare exception where it being online-only is one of the most important things about it.--Alexandra^IDV 15:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly my stance too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You could just say "online", e.g. "is an online role-playing game", as I think it gives the same notion. I think it's worth mentioning up front. Destiny 2 has a different problem with too many descriptors up front though. "Free-to-play" can probably be left out, and "multiplayer" can probably be left out as "online" indicates it's multiplayer. ...so "Destiny 2 is an online first-person shooter...". TarkusAB^talk/contrib 16:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I would not include "online-only" as a descriptor of games that require online connectivity but no multiplayer, eg, the Suicide Squad game. That's a negative phrasing used by gamers as resentment for online checks like for DRM, and plenty of past examples like SimCity 2013 show what happens when you do require online connectivity just to play. Its far different from a term like "online" to describe where online connectivity seems necessary for the game (eg MMOs) --Masem (t) 16:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Why no cast lists

Articles about Films and TV series feature cast lists.It seems pretty nonsensical to don't do the same with video games (if they are not excessively long)? UnkreativeFrog (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Because for so many games, it's a much smaller aspect of the game compared to something like film. For every triple A high budget GTA game with lots of voice acting, there's infinite more Mario Party type games that nothing but catchphrases and grunts by nobodies. It's easier to just list notable performers in story/plot sections in more story heavy games. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Its still kind of nonsensical to prohibit cast lists entirely and not just for "non-story" games (like Mario). You could also say that you simply decide for each game/genre individually. UnkreativeFrog (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Why? You still haven't given any reason. You've only assumed we need parity among mediums so far, which we don't. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

because now role playing games and other story driven games can't have cast lists. UnkreativeFrog (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Which isn't a problem, because you can integrate notable voice actors in the plot section. Not seeing the problem here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

A cast list is easier if someone wants to find out who voiced smb. And its not that it would bother or anything UnkreativeFrog (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Cast lists are also horribly biased towards "performers" rather than all people who worked on the project. Video games have so many more disciplines - design, programming, art, modelling, sound design, testing, marketing, etc. Just because film and series celebrate certain roles over others doesn't mean video games should too. And, as Serge says, anything important enough covered by sources should be in the prose anyway, so a cast list would add nothing to the article beyond random names without context. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 17:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

cast lists make it easier to see information. Bold idea, but maybe make small crew lists too? UnkreativeFrog (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It took over 1000 people to make GTA V, it took over 1,600 to make Red Dead Redemption 2. The crew lists won't be small. - X201 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Then you're getting into lists of dozens of people. But the reality is that casts in video games, and frankly most of the creatives behind it, are simply not notable aspects of the games. Even in the current era, beyond major people like creative directors on the games, there's next to no non-primary/non-interview sourcing about voice actors, programmers, and the like. Including lists is just a massive article bloat beyond due weight. Video games ≠ movies, and trying to write a game article like a film is going to result in a bad article.

Wikipedia is already a terrible place to find out cast information versus something like IMDB. There's no point using that as a reason to change article standards. We've already got too much bloat in infoboxes with this stuff, we don't need to encourage more in the body. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably a WP:STICK situation, but I'd say I don't think a "cast list", which we should read as a "voice actor list" in this context is not suitable. TV Shows and other media articles have a cast list because third party sources also talk about those pieces of the subject, which doesn't happen on video game articles (or at least not to the same degree). Maybe a straight interactive media such as Erica might warrant an actor's cast list; but we aren't a font of all the information that exists about a subject. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. There's no shortage of places to find VA information online. I'm blanking on the name of it, but there's a website that is entirely focused around being the IMDB of voice acting, not to mention usually countless fan wikia/fandom type websites to find this sort of information. Readers should search there instead. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Averaging Review scores in Review infobox

I feel there has been adequate discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Averaging_Reviews about the reviews infobox not allowing an average of reviews for some things unless it has been published as an average. (From such things as early issues of Nintendo Power, etc.). Is there more discussion needed or could this be implemented into the MOS here? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't need to be in the MOS. It's a violation of WP:V and WP:SYNTH. Nothing needs to explicitly be codified here. -- ferret (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It's really not an obvious violation of V and SYNTH. It would be reasonable for an editor to assume that WP:CALC would apply. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 16:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, when I brought it up before with an editor he said it was consensus previously on WP:VG to do it, which sounded wrong to me per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. That's why I figured we should make it stated somewhere as a new way to move forward as many articles do average out reviews currently. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's been a bit and there hasn't been further discussion. I feel through the previous conversation linked to above that there has not been any real serious arguments against it in the long run and the above conversation seems to make it clear that just notes of specific rules aren't making it clear enough. If there are no further comments/discussion, I will try to include it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

We should not be creating a mean score by calculating other scores together. We should only put down what sources say. If GameRankings/Metacritic comment that there is an overall score, along with prose, then we quote that. Otherwise, we just include info on what actual sources say. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

That's basically what has been agreed upon, but should we include that now into the MOS @Lee Vilenski:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

why would we add something to the MOS to say "don't do something" that is both not being done, and also against other policies? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding it i guess. I'll just refer to the latest discussion and the rules you mentioned next time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Video_games#Lead_section CSGO example should be removed

@Soetermans just made this edit over at the CS:GO page, as that abbreviation is used as an example of what not to do in the Lead section of this MOS page. That example in turn was added by @Dissident93 back in 2018. Dissident may have been right at the time--and Soetermans was completely fair to rely on this page in his edit today--but "CS:GO" is now an abbreviation made by a preponderance of reliable, independent, secondary sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Unless there's objection, I'm going to remove that example. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why we'd use actively played games in examples like this, but indeed, it does seem like a very common acronym Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Both of those (GTA V and CS:GO) are bad examples for this part of the MOS. -- ferret (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe there was some discussion on a talk page somewhere that led me to put CS:GO there at the time. I don't oppose the use of it in prose, assuming there is consensus for it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Verb Tense

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games § Verb tense section is contradictory to the main Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Verb tense section.

The main MOS states that present tense should be used in articles, even when the product or work has been discontinued. It provides the example of the following:

Flappy Bird is a mobile game developed by ... (not Flappy Bird was a mobile game)

However the MOS/Video Games states that past test should be used for cancelled and discontinued video games, or 'subjects that no longer exist'. I'll illustrate why this is not correct in my opinion through some examples:

Sonic X-treme was a platform game in development for the Sega Saturn, but was canceled before release.

In my opinion this is incorrect use of past tense, as the name "Sonic X-treme" still refers to a game that had work started on it, i.e. there is a prototype or some pseudo-code of a game which exists and is referred to by the name "Sonic X-treme". The game doesn't stop being a game or stop existing purely because it wasn't released. My opinion is that the correct use of tense is:

Sonic X-treme is a platform game that was in development for the Sega Saturn, but was canceled before release.

A further example is:

Glitch was a browser-based massively multiplayer online game launched in 2011 and discontinued the next year.

The concept of "Glitch" still exists and "Glitch" still refers to a video game, the only difference is that people can no longer play the game. Therefore I suggest that the correct tense is:

Glitch is a browser-based massively multiplayer online game launched in 2011 that was discontinued the next year.

What are people's opinions on this? Geordannik (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with cancelled games like Sonic Xtreme. With online games that can't be played at all I'm not so sure. What's the policy used for stuff like lost films and tv episodes? --Ringtail Raider (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Stars

So this guide and the Video games reviews template imply not to use the stars/Ratings template and to just write out numbers instead (3/5 instead of ). However, a large amount of game articles I've sen with the VGR template use star ratings somewhere in them. Should I be going through and removing these from any articles I see them in? Or am I misunderstanding? --Ringtail Raider (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

If no one has any objections or comments I'll go ahead and start changing it on any articles I see I guess... just wanted to make sure because it seemed strange the rules say not to do that but so many articles do. Ringtail Raider (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I've never understood why anyone cares. 3/5 is the same as three out of five stars or 6 out of ten stars. It literally doesn't matter. Sergecross73 msg me 23:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't care either, just trying to follow the guidelines. When and why was this change to the guidelines made? Ringtail Raider (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, my frustration is more that the community keeps arguing about this to begin with. I'll let someone else answer your question. I haven't committed the current consensus to memory. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC: OpenCritic

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RFC discussed whether OpenCritic, a review aggregator, should be embraced in Wikipedia articles and incorporated into Template:Video game reviews. The RFC separately considered OpenCritic's "top-critic average" and its "critics recommended" scores. (The former is the average score assigned to a game by selected critics; the latter is the percentage of critics who recommended a game.)

Context

Per the discussion, OpenCritic is a review aggregator quite similar to Metacritic. As Axem Titanium noted, one (and perhaps "the") key distinction between the two aggregators is that OpenCritic's methodology (as to weighing various reviews) is transparent, while Metacritic's methodology is not publicly visible. A prior RFC on adding OpenCritic to the template resulted in "no consensus": per the closer, arguments against inclusion focused on the potential due-weight issues given OpenCritic's relative obscurity. A 2021 discussion on the percentage-recommended score (which was closed using the RFC archiver but which did not appear to have been an RFC) also resulted in no consensus.

Arguments

As to the top-critic average, many users discussed concerns about redundancy. TheJoebro64, who started the RFC, noted that the top-critic average is "usually only a few (1-3) points different from Metacritic", and MetaCritic "remains the industry standard". Virtually every edit opposing inclusion cited redundancy as the chief reason for their opposition, and, consistent with that justification, almost all of these users indicated that they would support the inclusion of OpenCritic's top-critic average if no MetaCritic score was available (ferret specified how this could be achieved through modifications to WP:VGAGG and MOS:VG). Users supporting inclusion expressed a preference for OpenCritic's approach relative to Metacritic. Axem Titanium noted that OpenCritic "draws from a wider and more diverse array of publications" and suggested that Metacritic scores were inferior given their opaque weighting system and "susceptib[ility] to dark money". Similarly, Merko called the OpenCritic's policies "fairer". As to the percentage-recommended score, almost every user either unconditionally supported inclusion or supported inclusion only if the top-critic average would not be included. TheJoebro64 noted that this score's approach would be "distinct from what Metacritic offers" and added that such a score would add useful information to various articles. Xanarki expressed concerns regarding the use of the percentage-recommended score without the top-critic average, noting a potential for confusion if the MetaCritic score was placed alongside the OpenCritic percentage-recommended score. But other users doubted that such confusion would emerge; Axem Titanium said it would be akin to the common practice of featuring a MetaCritic score alongside a Rotten Tomatoes score on film articles.

Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Consensus is not a vote, but it is worth noting that, as to both issues, an overwhelming majority of users came to the same conclusion, and, from my perspective, there is no policy-based reason to discount the reasons they offered for each conclusion. As such:

1. There is a consensus that an OpenCritic top-critic average should only be included in articles on video games that do not have a MetaCritic score.
2. There is also a consensus that OpenCritic's critics-recommended score should be adopted and included, even on articles that do have a MetaCritic score.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

---

This RfC seeks to address whether the review aggregator OpenCritic should be adopted alongside Metacritic, our current standard. The last RfC from 2017 concluded that, at the time, OpenCritic was not cited by enough reliable sources to justify its inclusion, in addition to concerns that its average scores were too similar to Metacritic's (creating a redundancy problem). The issue has cropped up again from time to time and there seems to be agreement amongst editors that the situation has changed enough to warrant another RfC.

One point of contention is that OpenCritic has become far more mainstream. Video Games Chronicle regularly cites OpenCritic (examples: [10][11][12]), its ranking of a certain game attracted considerable attention in sources considered reliable at WP:VG/S recently (examples: [13], [14], [15], [16]), and both Epic Games Store ([17]) and GOG.com ([18]) have integrated it into game listings. It is safe to say that the situation regarding OpenCritic's presence in reliable sources is not the same as it was in 2017.

Another common point of contention concerns the site's Critics Recommend metric, which is a different form of measurement from the averages that Metacritic and OpenCritic itself provide. Rather than averaging review scores, Critics Recommend designates reviews as positive or negative and uses them to provide a percentage, similar to Rotten Tomatoes' Tomatometer. A 2021 discussion regarding incorporating this metric specifically ended in no consensus, although by headcount a narrow majority of editors supported the proposal. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Question A: Should OpenCritic's Top Critic Average metric be adopted?

• No, unless a Metascore does not exist. I think the redundancy problem still exists in this case. While OpenCritic is certainly more mainstream than it was in 2017, I don't think the Top Critic Average adds enough to be worth including. It's usually only a few (1-3) points different from Metacritic, which still remains the industry standard. I feel like I'd need to see OpenCritic overtaking Metacritic before considering this again. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• No as it's redundant to MC's score and adds nothing to a games over reception. I guess I don't technically oppose JoeBro's stance, I just rarely if ever notice games being covered by OC and not MC. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• No, unless a Metascore does not exist Essentially, add OC next to GR in the existing instructions of WP:VGAGG, which is the only include it if Metacritic is missing or substantially different. Adjust the language of this to reflect the redundancy argument more clearly, and also move (or rather, copy) WP:VGAGG from template documentation into MOS:VG. WP:VGAGG will require substantial updating if either A or B (or Both) of this RFC passes. -- ferret (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• No, unless a Metascore does not exist I don't believe it adds anything if a Metascore already does exist, but will be helpful for niche areas where it doesn't. -- DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• No, unless it's the only aggregate score available. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, there is no reason for Wikipedia to play kingmaker in the aggregator wars. OC draws from a wider and more diverse array of publications. Its calculation is simple and open, whereas MC's weights are concealed and susceptible to dark money. OC's philosophy is more compatible with Wikipedia's. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Maybe, see comment under Discussion section. Xanarki (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. I generally agree with Axem Titanium's position, but also agree that having both would be redundant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• No, unless a Metascore does not exist I concur with ferret's suggestion's regarding adding this to WP:VGAGG next to GameRankings. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• No, unless a Metascore does not exist per others. It'd just be needless bloat in the prose. Aggregations don't need to be "perfect" anyway - there really is no significant difference between a 73 and a 78 aggregated score, so no need to encourage spending prose to focus on trivial differences. It's much more important to discuss the actual reviews. SnowFire (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• No, only in absence of a MetaScore per Ferret, Axem --Masem (t) 15:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• No and Metacritic has been more reliable overall. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• No, unless a Metascore does not exist. This has also been my opposition to adopting OpenCritic. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, ditch MetaCritic altogether and fully adopt OpenCritic per their (in my opinion) fairer policies. Merko (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• No, unless a Metascore does not exist. As stated previously, there are duplication issues otherwise. JoseJan89 (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Maybe, if there's a substantial difference in scores and there's proven merit in its usage. Also if there's no Metacritic page. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Question B: Should OpenCritic's Critics Recommend metric be adopted?

• Yes. It's a vastly different form of measurement that's distinct from what Metacritic offers, and adds a lot by showing the percentage of critics who liked the game rather than an overall average. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't include it; there's no redundancy problem. Some in the 2021 RfC were concerned by OpenCritic lumping all platforms together for the scores but I don't think that is really much of an issue for a pretty simple reason. OpenCritic, which started in 2015, only covers consoles from the eighth generation onward, long after sites stopped scoring games differently per platform. So in most cases this would only be a problem for older games, which wouldn't be listed on OpenCritic owing to its starting date. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Only if A is decided as "No" I absolutely do not want to see games listing MC Score + OC Score + OC Recommended. If there is no MC available, then OC Score + OC Recommended would be ok, but to list 3 metrics, 2 of them from OC, is overloading to me. -- ferret (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes For the same reasons as JoeBro above primarily, but also to allow for inclusion on pages for niche games where no MetaCritic reviews exist. -- DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, but only this metric. Unique from Metacritic's metric and would provide value. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, this is OC's differentiator and it is substantially different from metascore. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Maybe, see comment under Discussion section. Xanarki (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Only if A is decided as "No", per Ferret.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, if it's both cited by reliable sources and different from what more established websites offer, than I see no reason to not include it in the relevant articles. Most film articles have both a Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic score listed, and this is a similar situation to that. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, as long as OC is not used as an aggregator (eg "No" to Question A), per ferret. --Masem (t) 16:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Lean no as I think this adds clutter, and nothing in the way of reliable information. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Only if A is decided as "No". Any sort of redundancy here should be avoided. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, regardless of the outcome of A. Recommendation ratio would be beneficial in articles, as averages do not take into account unscored reviews. Merko (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• Yes It's a unique, useful metric distinct from MC. Toa Nidhiki05 18:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Yes It's unique enough from MC that including it shouldn't be an issue. JoseJan89 (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, this is a separate metric that can have merit as part of the critical discussion of a game. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Since OpenCritic has two different metrics, I believe they warrant being assessed separately, so I have divided the RfC into two questions. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Pinging participants of the 2021 discussion [19] who have not already commented:
• @Dennis Brown, Rhain, Masem, Dissident93, ImaginesTigers, Devonian Wombat, Abryn, David Fuchs, Izno, TarkusAB, Haleth, Shooterwalker, Axem Titanium, Jontesta, Xanarki, IgelRM, Satellizer, and SMcCandlish:  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• I like the Critics Recommend metric, and I think it has a great purpose. But I'm trying to envision an article which applies it, so bare with me. If the Critics Recommend metric is implemented alongside the Metascore, wouldn't that create some confusion without context? By implementing one directly adjacent/near to the other, it implies that both scores are somehow related in concept, when in fact they are not, since OpenCritic pulls from its own system and it's based on thresholds instead. Eventually, we are going to wind up with a bunch of deviations. As an example, I compared what it would look like across a variety of games...

M is for Meta and C is for Open

After Us: 68 M (PS5) - 70 M (PC) - 47 C

LEGO 2K Drive: 74 M (PS5) - 72 M (PC) - 72 M (XBSX) - 48 C

Lord of the Rings Gollum: 36 M (PS5) - 41 M (PC) - 4 C

Pirates Outlaws: 75 M (PS4) - 79 M (PC) - 80 M (XONE) - 76 M (SWI) - 64 C

Star Trek Resurgance: 72 M (PC) - 69 M (XBSX) - 27 C

House of the Dead Remake: 63 M (PS4) - 64 M (XONE) - 57 M (SWI) - 22 C

Hogwarts Legacy: 84 M (PS5) - 83 M (PC) - 87 M (XBSX) - 89 C

WWE 2K23: 82 M (PS5) - 79 M (PC) - 81 M (XBSX) - 82 C

Carmageddon Max Damage: 51 M (PS4) - 52 M (XONE) - 5 C

Resident Evil 4: 93 M (PS5) - 98 C

Doom Eternal: 87 M (PS4) - 88 M (PC) - 88 M (XONE) - 96 C

Tekken 7: 82 M (PS4) - 82 M (PC) - 81 M (XONE) - 83 C

Crash Team Racing Nitro-Fueled: 83 M (PS4) - 84 M (XONE) - 80 M (SWI) - 90 C

• Simply put, it's not a clear picture. I think the Critics Recommend score, however, could maybe be used in the main article itself...but if we did that, would we have to include the aforementioned Top Critic Average? -- "22% of the reviews on OpenCritic had recommended The Game overall" OR "The Game scored 61% on OpenCritic's Top Critic Average, and overall 22% of the reviews had recommended it"? Xanarki (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think this concern is any different from listing publications side by side that vary between letters grades, 5 stars, 10 stars, 10 out of 10, 5 out of 5, and anything in between. -- ferret (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  • I think it's quite different, because MetaCritic is at the header, at the very top in its own section. It resides over all of the normal publications. And having the Critics Recommend score in the same vicinity just seems odd to me due to its different purpose. But maybe that's just a personal slant of how I personally view it, I don't know. Xanarki (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

    Broadly I do not think people get confused when they see a metascore and a Rotten Tomatoes score right next to each other on a film article and this is exactly analogous. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

    Seconding Ferret and Axem. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• If this goes through on some matter of OC inclusion, my only request is that we make it clear this isn't retroactive? (Or at least up to local consensus on pages.) We already have Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic boilerplate spammers, and I don't think we need someone dumping critic averages into every game ever. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  What do you mean "this isn't retroactive"? As in "all games released after XX date may have OC metrics included"? I'm not planning to run a bot or anything like that to include it but if someone is doing it, I don't see why they should be explicitly disallowed? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think David is referring to the fact that WP:FILM has a subset of editors who try to force {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} into every film article. I don't think that will be an issue here, however, since we use review boxes to avoid all the numbers in prose, and the adoption of OC will only affect c. 2014 games onward. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  We certainly have a set of users who robotically edit and maintain receptions. However, it's pointless to try to set a rule that they can't. It'll happen regardless once the basic practice is allowed. -- ferret (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I recall a time we notified a semi-regular that Gamefaqs was unreliable, and then they proceeded to systematically delete Gamefaqs release dates from 100s of articles. Which isn't great either, because many weren't wrong per se, just poorly sourced. So I get where David is coming from, though I align more with ferret in a "I don't know how we'd police that even if we wanted to" type way. Sergecross73 msg me 21:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Implementing

I have completed implementation and documentation update at {{Video game reviews}}. However, I believe the text here at the MOS needs updated to be clear on when to use each Aggregator. The instructions being at the template is unclear to many. Tangentially, there is also a discussion at WT:VG about the same template, in regards to its advice that only reviews that are used in prose should be in the table be formalized into the MOS as well. -- ferret (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I've updated WP:VG/S to reflect this RfC's result, fwiw JOEBRO⁶⁴ 21:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

As no one else had taken a swing, I have finally made a text update in the MOS's Reception section to cover the key guidelines of the template and integrate OpenCritic. -- ferret (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Why are age/content ratings declared as inappropriate?

What's the justification for guideline number 16 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Video_games#Inappropriate_content "Age and content ratings"? Where was this discussed? I can see that past users have wanted this info, current users want this info (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_video_game/Archive_16#e.g._PEGI_age_ratings_are_missing_from_this_info_box), and I want this info too. It seems ridiculous that it isn't included. The only discussion I see is from 2012, here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_video_game/Archive_11#Propose_removal_of_ratings_section), for less than 2 weeks, there was not a lot of participating editors, and it was not a unanimous conclusion -- Jason C.K. (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Its the same rationale that film nor television articles include ratings...there are multiple ratings systems across the world, and if we include one, we would need to inude them all which is excessive. If the issues around a rating is part of a discussion, then they can included, but otherwise we avoid them. Masem (t) 22:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Just 2 organizations cover 43 countries, and most of the video game market. Add in a few more and you've covered 95% of the market -- Jason C.K. (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

There are at least 25 rating systems worldwide. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Not all games are released in all countries. Some of the countries in the article you link don't have their own system, they use the system of other countries. The infobox template contains tags for programmer, artist, writer, composer with explicit guidance to not list them all, list no more than 3, etc. Somehow for that info it's "okay" to include some but not all. Including 5 ratings would cover most of the world -- Jason C.K. (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

All of the countries in the article have their own system. That's the point of the article. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

We would have to include them all? Yet somehow it's okay that the infobox template explicitly says to NOT include all programmers, artist, writer, composers. So "some" is ok for some data, but "all" is required for other data? No logic or consistency there -- Jason C.K. (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Because we're not a catalogue or a buyers guide. It's not like it's outright banned - we can cover it if it's something of note or controversial. (Conker's Bad Fur Day) But we don't need to list off how every routine Mario game is E for Everyone, no. Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Where in your link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTCATALOGUE) is there something relevant to this discussion? I don't see anything relevant there. And declaring "we don't need" isn't a reason, more of a declared tautology..."we don't need it because we don't need it" -- Jason C.K. (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention. Content ratings, while not explicitly called out, concern availability and so would fall under this. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 00:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little perplexed - I only wrote 3 sentences, and yet you still seemed to fail to connect the ideas. I did not say "we don't need it because we don't need it" - I was saying that "we don't need it" because that's not the sort of thing an encyclopedia documents, that's more of the type of thing a sales catalogue/buyers guide documents. We also don't document other things on the same grounds - routine pricing, download size, etc. You go to the eShop/PSN/Steam/etc databases for that sort of readily available data, not an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This can still be documented on Wikidata if deemed important enough. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Contradiction

§ Plot: Straightforward plot summary is assumed to be sourced to the game itself and thus does not require sources.

§ Sources: Similarly, plot sections should also be sourced

This is contradictory. BlackShadowG (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Kinda. "Sources" should say that plot sections should be sourced "if possible". While it's widely acknowledged that plot can be "sourceless" and considered to be primary sourced, if we can include sourcing we should. Secondary sources can help verify plot points without having to literally play a 20+ hour game. -- ferret (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

"Straightforward" is a key point too. We don't need a source for something straightforward line saying Cloud Strife meets Aerith Gainsborough in Final Fantasy 7. It's part of the game's core premise. But you do need a source if you wanted to add that a certain event foreshadow's a character's death, because that may not be readily apparent. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)