Europa Universalis 4 Wiki talk:Style

A game mechanic should always be capitalized to emphasize that it is a mechanic and not text. For example:

• trade power -> Trade Power
• military tactics - Military Tactics
• union -> Personal Union

--unsigned comment

There is no need to capitalize mechanics unless they're proper nouns. There's no precedence for it, and it should be clear from context regardless of capitalization. ~ Meneth (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2013 (CEST)

Perhaps state this on the main style page? I was always confused on when to capitalize (e.g. tax), which isn't helped by the inconsistent in-game capitalization. --Evil4Zerggin (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2013 (CET)

Added a point about it. ~ Meneth (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2013 (CET)

>Paradox games allow for limitless possibilities.

I understand that writing "[you] can do [this]" makes more sense since it's an open sandbox game, but when "[this]" is something you need to describe then do so without being vague, I'm mostly referring to guides/strategies right now. "This should not be attempted for twenty-thirty years..." doesn't really seem like part a guide, that's more like a general hint or a lucid guess. It should be "Do not attempt this for twenty-thirty years unless any of the following happens: Denmark loses a war, you get an event which gives you a 100 army tradition general etc.". There should be a page for how to write strategies/guides specifically, since a guide and an overview of a country/mechanic are two completely different things, both in content and layout. You should also have to mention in strategies/guides what difficulty you played on and if you had lucky nations turned on, since I assume that not everyone plays no bonus/normal/historical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowVoid& (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2013‎

EU4 vs. EUIV

Both are proper abbreviations but I tend to prefer the former (EU4) since it's clear and concise, whereas the roman numerals aren't as apparent with "EUIV." I'd like to go through with AWB across all pages for consistency if we reach some consensus here. -- Bovell (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2014 (CEST)

I personally prefer EU4 (though for CKII I prefer CKII. Probably due to the topic being kings, and them always using Roman numerals). So I wouldn't be opposed to you AWBing it to consistency. Won't get you any tickets though ;) ~ Meneth (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2014 (CEST)

Second person

As I mentioned previously on HOI4 wiki, "The rule 'Use a third person narrative when possible' makes for a very strange style. It's like we write in a dialect of English that lacks the word "you" and we say 'the player' instead. It can be painful to read and even more painful to write like that. Sometimes this is mixed with imperative sentences, especially when taking about the interface - 'press this button, go here, do that'. This is still second person but no one seems to pick up on this and attempt to correct it. I think the objection to second person is not so much a stylistic choice as that 'you' is less general than it could be, e.g. when the AI could also do something we could say 'the country' instead."

As such, I propose the style guide be changed from

Use third person narrative when posssible. Country strategy guides are exempt from this rule, but it is still preferred.

Correct: The player can build temples in order to increase their base tax.

Incorrect: You can build temples in order to increase your base tax.

to

Only use the second person ("you", or "the player" which really means the same thing) when it can only refer to the player, e.g. in strategy guides and when referring to the game interface. If the sentence can apply to AI, or is properly talking about a country or something else, then generalize or specify appropriately.

Correct: A country can build temples in order to increase its base tax.

Incorrect: The player can build temples in order to increase their base tax.

Incorrect: You can build temples in order to increase your base tax.

Hairy Dude (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2018 (CEST)

I personally disagree, it may be a regional thing though. In the UK it comes across as quite normal - however I am aware that when I've had American lecturers they have hated our writing style for this sort of formal context where we completely outlaw both first and second person, they would tell us to write things in active voice using the appropriate person - but for us, in a formal context, that is basically sacrilege and honestly sounds really bad - granted that an EU4 wiki isn't at that level of formality either so first and second person wouldn't be entirely out of place, but I do think that using passive voice or otherwise impersonal / third person constructions is appropriate where possible. Valldelxeno (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Duplication of information

There are numerous instances of duplicate information on the wiki. For example, some game mechanics have been described in detail on their own main article, and then identically described on other pages as well.

Aside from making individual articles more verbose than necessary, such duplication makes the wiki harder to maintain, since any later updates to duplicated information must be individually made for all duplicates if the wiki is to remain consistent.

I suggest that we add a new guideline to the style guide, which advises wiki editors to avoid duplicating content where possible. Instead, a link to the relevant main article could be given.

I would be happy to make the edit myself, but wanted to see if others approve first.

Thoughts? Exsertis (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It is the wikis policy to avoid duplication of info when possible not via transclusion or a a short and concise summary. It really should have been added in writing long ago rather than being a general rule. ~ SolSys (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

style for modifiers and conditions with icons

Is there some preferred style if the number should be before or after the icon or the icon at the start of the line (for conditions) or if the number should be bold? I'm always unsure about it and I think it would be useful to specify it in the style guide. For example for province_trade_power/province_trade_power_value/province_trade_power_modifier I found:

• Has at least 15 Trade Power (from Institutions#Global_Trade)
• has at least 5 province trade power (from Estates_events#Growth_of_the_Economy)
• Has at least 5 provincial trade power (from Estates_events#Social Banditry)
• Trade poweris at least 5 (from Estates_events#Anticlericalism)
• +15% Local trade power (from British missions#Inland_India)
• +15 local trade power. (from Lübeckian_missions#End_the_Sound_Toll)

--Grotaclas (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)