This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
This page may fall under the contentious topics procedure and be given additional attention, as it may be closely associated to the article titles policy and capitalisation. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
Can there be a guideline about the mentions of video game companies in the lead sentence? A majority of WP:VG articles' lead sentence document the game's primary developer and publisher, so a more detailed rationale on their inclusion, such as whenever either should included, would be welcome. Go D. Usopp(talk)12:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How various companies with development divisions, like Nintendo and their division EPD (with its predecessors), are mentioned at the lead sentence of articles is one thing that should be covered. Another point of discussion is how it should appear on pages like Spider-Man 2 where the only credit all versions have in common is the publisher Activision due to licensed games being outsourced to a large number of developers. Go D. Usopp(talk)13:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From that guideline question I asked earlier, the companies involved are the only part of the lead sentence to not be explained thoroughly with a guideline. I propose a common name precedent where how companies' divisions are mentioned is based on common names in significant coverage, including but not limited to news outside of reporting specific developmental news. Go D. Usopp(talk)16:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why "include whatever reliable reliable sources can verify" isn't good enough. I've been writing video game articles for 15+ years, and this is the first time I can recall there being so much contention over using a dev team that's verifiable. Usually debates are more whether or not a dev team created the game, not whether or not we should mention it. Sergecross73msg me19:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For context, Go D. Usopp has been disputing the opening sentence of Donkey Kong Bananza, which reads that it is "developed by Nintendo EPD for the Nintendo Switch 2" rather than "developed and published by Nintendo" or "developed by Nintendo EPD and published by Nintendo". My argument is that it's the most concise way to introduce EPD, which is widely credited for developing the game and is going to be discussed later in the lede regardless, and that it's unnecessary to say "published by Nintendo" because the reader is obviously going to understand that a game developed by a Nintendo division for a Nintendo console is a Nintendo game. JOEBRO6413:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above, I'd like to adjust the phrase "Convert star ratings and other number-based scores to the equivalent numerals without changing the scale or the score itself (e.g. use "3/5" for a score printed as , but do not convert it to a ten-point scale such as "6/10")." to "Convert star ratings to the equivalent numerals without changing the scale or the score itself (e.g. use "3/5" for a score printed as , but do not convert it to a ten-point scale such as "6/10")." losing the "and other number-based scores" to not cause any confusion. Any thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you've been changing the star ratings into numerical ratings. I tried to glance at past discussions, and it seemed to be widely agreed upon that the 10-star ratings should be converted to numbers due to fact that 10 stars widens the infobox, and thus it's a formatting problem.
But, I can't find a widespread agreement on not using the 5-star images. I do notice in the guidelines, that it suggests to convert ALL star ratings (and not just the 10-star ones); however, I can't find the discussions that came to this conclusion.
Personally, I don't see the big deal tbh. 5 stars conveys the same message as 5/5, without it messing up the infobox. And, having the 5-star images accurately reflects the review scores (we are still using percentage scores, point-based scores, and numerical scores after all). Unless I'm overlooking some sort of formatting-based issue? Xanarki (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that many many games no longer are released with packaging and digitally instead, and particularly with cross platform games on consoles, a common cover image provided from the devs or publishiers are more squarish than portrait or landscape, even if other versions are offered. I would suggest that if there are multiple cover options for games released primarily in a digital format, square-ish aspect ratio art is preferred over other formats (though editors shouldnt crop to bring art to square, it needs to be offered directly). Eg: a good comparison is the various different covers offered for Keeper here, and the square one appears visually hte best to fit into infoboxes without pushing them down too far on the page, as well as the most details at reduced size. Masem (t) 16:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but 4:3 portrait should still be preferred first if available. It's the aspect ratio used by most older games, as well as biographies, films, books, etc. In the case of Keeper, square seems most appropriate. TarkusABtalk/contrib17:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mostly talking games that will lack a physical release, or that may get a physical release far down the road. Games that still release to physical media (like most console games), yes, the printed cover art should be used that includes the console branding if exclusive. But most games don't have physical releases any more or aren't exclusive, so there's no branding to worry about, and instead we can go with an image that is better suited to page layouts. Masem (t) 22:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that no matter the release format, digital or not, 4:3 portrait key art (when available) should be preferred first over square. Square would be second best. TarkusABtalk/contrib19:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced square/smaller images with the portaited library ones from SteamDB (fantastic resource for cover art BTW) in the past as they tended to match older games better. But I see the logic in making them square/4:3/landscaped, as less scrolling improves readability on mobile devices. — Dissident93(talk)00:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
