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 falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. 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
In the lead section of video game articles, if an individual or team is both the developer and publisher, do you write "created by" instead of "developed and published by"? Article for Pizza Tower has this. 1isall (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would still separate the two, as on LoL, because it's clearer. The breadth of publishing activities isn't signified by "created"—i.e., marketing, distribution to retailers, etc. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then should I change the instance of "created" to "developed and published by" in the lead section of the Pizza Tower article to reflect this? 1isall (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer "is a video game by Riot Games" if they both developed and published it, but seems like that view is in the minority despite MOS:VGLEAD saying to avoid bloat in the first sentence. ~ Dissident93(talk)02:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
‘Created’ describes creation and connotes creativity. It doesn’t, from my perspective, adequately describe the back-end industrial processes involved in releasing a game that I described above; it’s way too casual and less encyclopaedic. “Bloat” in the context of VGLEAD would be League of Legends is a 2009 multiplayer online battle arena game developed by Riot Games and published by Riot Games.
Concisely and clearly attributing both activities is also clearer; no one would support Grand Theft Auto 5 is a video game created by Take-Two Interactive to reduce “bloat”. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only arguing in favor of trimming "developed and published by" if they are the same; I.E. League of Legends is a 2009 multiplayer online battle arena game by Riot Games. It can reasonably be inferred that the same studio did both without explicitly saying so. ~ Dissident93(talk)00:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Dissident93 – didn't see this until now. After thinking about it, I can see your point. I won't make this change myself (I like the specificity) but wouldn't revert you if you felt passionately about it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most readers tend to skim articles, so generally it's best to keep prose as concise as possible while avoiding any potential ambiguity. I'd like to hear other's opinions on it though. ~ Dissident93(talk)01:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Created" is absolutely fine in this instance. I'm going to be blunt and say all these discussions you're opening over minor stylistic subjects are pretty pointless. The MOS is for general guidance, not the nitty gritty (which is up to the article maintainers). JOEBRO6416:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it is pretty clear that I've gotten broad advice from other users through some of these discussions. How could they be pointless in that way? 1isall (talk/contribs) 19:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that asking questions about specific articles should be done at those articles' talk pages. As I said, the MOS is a general guideline, not for specific wording and topics, which can vary significantly depending on the article. If you have questions or issues with how a specific article does something, you should be bringing it up at that article's talk page, not the MOS. JOEBRO6413:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point that I should bring up concerns about how certain things that are in some articles but not in others should be brought up in the respective articles' talk pages and not this talk page. @TarkusAB told me this same thing in this comment. I will try to do that moving forward. 1isall (talk/contribs) 13:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think MOS guidance is needed here. I can see instances where "created by", or "by", or "developed and published by" may each be the most appropriate in a given context. TarkusABtalk/contrib21:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's two instances that I think "created" is more suited than "developed". First would be on game series articles where it is well known that one or a few individuals actually created the core gameplay, like the use at Tetris. The other would be for hobbyist and other indies with only 1-3 principal developers that have self distributed their game, like with Pizza Tower. (in contrast, not like Balatro since PlayStack published that) Masem (t) 21:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The specific article where this is happening: ENA: Dream BBQ.
Should a video game article's plot summary cross reference another one of the article's sections in its prose, in this case, the alternate routes section?
Upon crossing the river, she enters the Bathroom to find Theodora, the Genie of the Lonely Door. (see § Alternate routes).
it should be fairly obvious though that the alternate endings exist. If a game clearly says you have to pick route a or b, that's fine. If you have to do twenty quest steps to unlock a secret ending, that would be considered beyond plainly obvious, and would require a source to affirm that it exists. This is what is done for Undertale (the pacifist and genocide paths, both having been documented in reliable sources). Masem (t) 16:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be rewritten, particularly in that it doesn't follow MOS:VGPLOT or its guidance on plot length for episodic video games. I'm not familiar with the game at all though, so I probably wouldn't be an ideal person for the job. Sergecross73msg me18:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@1isall: I would discuss this on the article page. I've noticed you are suggesting a lot of changes to MOS in a short amount of time of being here on Wikipedia. It's great that you are passionate about improving the site, and I don't want you to lose that passion, but I would like to give you some advice. The Manual of Style is intended to ensure articles are mostly structured and formatted the same way for the reader. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that while there are policies and guidelines like the Manual of Style to keep things relatively in check, editors have agency to build pages how they want. Many editors have never even read the MOS, and I've made my fair share of edits that go against MOS if it's something I believe is an improvement in a specific context (WP:IGNORE). Something like a circular link in a plot section may improve a reader's experience in some cases, but could be detrimental in others. Unless there is a wide-spread, systemic issue needing addressing, it's better to discuss on the article in question, than proposing sweeping policy changes. TarkusABtalk/contrib21:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that I should go directly to the article's talk page and not here. I've been here since February 9, 2025 (or 9 February 2025), which isn't that long, and it does make no sense that I'm doing stuff like this already.
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.
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]
