→Alternative to flags: Removing flags reference - decided by consensus ages ago that flags wouldn't be used |
Requirements: Minimum or Recommended? |
||
Line 347: | Line 347: | ||
I still think that it would be a good idea to have a liscence category. -[[User:Gohst|Gohst]] 04:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC) |
I still think that it would be a good idea to have a liscence category. -[[User:Gohst|Gohst]] 04:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
:<s>To serve what purpose?</s> Per [[#Licence]], I presume. That sounds reasonable to me, but it would be good to get a couple more supportive comments. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC) |
:<s>To serve what purpose?</s> Per [[#Licence]], I presume. That sounds reasonable to me, but it would be good to get a couple more supportive comments. [[User:GDallimore|GDallimore]] ([[User talk:GDallimore|Talk]]) 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Requirements: Minimum or Recommended? == |
|||
I don't see this explicitly answered, but trying to work out what to put in an info box for [[Shadowrun (2007 video game)]]. Most other PC games I see contain only one requirement set, and thus I believe the answer to be "minimum", but I'm trying to see if there's a consensus if both should be used. --[[User:Masem|Masem]] 13:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:34, 26 June 2007
![]() | Video games Template‑class | |||||||||||
|
![]() Infobox CVG Talk Archives | |
Usage
Chrono Trigger | |
---|---|
File:DSC02502 modified.jpg Chrono Trigger's North American cover art shows the party casting the triple tech "Arc Impulse." | |
Developer(s) | Square Co., Ltd. |
Publisher(s) | Square Co., Ltd. Square EA (Final Fantasy Chronicles) |
Designer(s) | Hironobu Sakaguchi Yuji Horii |
Series | Chrono series |
Platform(s) | Super Famicom / Super Nintendo PlayStation |
Release | JPN March 11, 1995 (SNES) NA August 22, 1995 (SNES) |
Genre(s) | Role-playing |
Mode(s) | Single player |
At right is an infobox which can be used for articles on games that have been released or will be released for single or multiple platforms.
For console games, the fields, engine, media, input and requirements can and in some cases should be omitted. For games with a version developed for the computer it is preferable that you fill in fields for input, engine, and requirements.
The infobox was created and modified by Mrwojo and K1Bond007 and is based on a previous infobox initially modified by ŵŞ, which was based on one created by Frecklefoot, which was based on one developed with input from many members of the project.
The use of the infobox is not compulsory, it is strictly voluntary and provided here for convenience. Many variations on this archetype are in use in various articles. See the other sections below for a history of the infobox development and for ideas on other infoboxes for games released on multiple platforms.
See also: Infobox discussion, Project template discussion, Template project and Template project discussion.
Syntax
Copy and paste the following code into an article and simply fill out the fields.
{{Infobox CVG |width = |align = (left|right) |title = |image = |caption = |developer = |publisher = |distributor = |designer = |series = |engine = |version = |released = |genre = |modes = |ratings = |platforms = |media = |requirements = |input = |cabinet = |arcade system = |cpu = |sound = |display = |picture format = |footnotes = }} |
Syntax Guide
See: /Syntax Guide
Release dates
UseTemplate:Vgrelease for indicating release dates.
North America
{{vgrelease|North America|NA|September 16, 2006}}
- NA: September 16, 2006
Australasia
{{vgrelease|Australasia|AU|September 29, 2006}}
- AU: September 29, 2006
PAL region (should normally be used instead of Europe, unless an Australasian date is supplied)
{{vgrelease|PAL region|PAL|September 28, 2006}}
- PAL: September 28, 2006
Discussion
Reviews
Could we add a reviews section similar to template:Infobox Album? --Pinkkeith 16:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Seconded.Fistful of Questions 00:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Seems like overkill, as we already have elaborate reception sections. Andre (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- It would be overkill for the infobox. Much better to have a reception section in the main article. - X201 07:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm in favor of a reviews section. Think about what's usually included on a download site that has a game up for download. Usually, what's included is always a review (number of stars). Music Album info boxes already have these and I think it would make sense if video game boxes have them too. It's a lot cleaner way of seeing ratings than if you were to talk about them in the article . Besides, reviews are more important than a lot of crap that's already included in the box. When's the last time anyone ever used the "series" tag anyway?SmartSped 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- It would be overkill for the infobox. Much better to have a reception section in the main article. - X201 07:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Licence
I would have thought a licence field would be here already. It my opinion it wouldn't be useful in most situations, such as games released by Sony. However I feel that in a many number of articles it would come in very handy, especially in older games or games emerging from the independent gaming movement coming through these days (through Game Maker and SGDK for example). A licence field would let the reader casually assess whether the game is freeware, abandonware, shareware, etc. etc. -Gohst 06:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Resolution?
maybe there should be a section to display the game's resolution.Cloud668 19:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- For PC games, that's frequently variable, so I'm not sure what you'd put there. For console games, it's usually consistent depending on the system, with only the very newest HD-capable systems as the obvious exception. It seems like it'd be useful for only a very few games, and so it's probably not worth adding to the template. IMO, of course. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
i don't know, but i just think it might provide a bit more information, it's just kinda like Picture Format of Template:Infobox Television, maybe it can be an optional field. Cloud668 05:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, I was thinking of such a field when I came to this discussion page... Playstation 3 games in particular would benefit from this, as each PS3 title's HD resolutions are highly variable. --Shadowlink1014 04:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This isn't useful information for most video game consoles, only for a small subset of articles on certain consoles. Just explain it in the main article body. Andre (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think it would be weird to suddenly meniton the resloution --Cloud668 03:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- This should really be added, due to that currently seven consoles, which are all of the seven generation consoles, and the sixth generation consoles, are capable of displaying games different resloution, or in progressive scan. If PC is inculded this will become eight. --Cloud668 03:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, however it should be called "Picture format". It would be a great addition, and I am sure that a high percentage of video game articles could make use of it. Stickeylabel 06:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am fine with "Picture Format" Cloud668 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Andre. It's not needed and an irrelevance to a vast number of articles. It's the technical version of adding info about the different types of Chicken in the Zelda series. - X201 08:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I previously stated I support an introduction of a section to display a game's resolution. And I do not agree with X201's analogy. All video games have native resolutions, and especially with seventh generation console games these are in 720p or 1080p. Even a game such a Mario 64 has a native resolution of 480i, of which is cross-converted to 576i in PAL regions. Nevertheless, Mario 64 is natively 480i, or 480p if played via virtual console on the Wii. Games such as Gears of War are 720p natively and can be upconverted by a console to 1080i or 1080p. I propose the section be called "Picture format", however only main native resolutions should be listed. For example the Mario 64 article should only state "480i (SDTV), 480p (EDTV). Stickeylabel 09:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well then I added it. Cloud668 04:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Removal of the preceded by/ followed by parameters?
I noticed in this this edit that these parameters were removed. Why? They were very useful. Fistful of Questions 23:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Align-left
It's been requested that a parameter be added that would allow this infobox to be right-aligned. Could someone please add the following code to the top of the table: align="{{{align|right}}}" Thanks in advance. --MZMcBride 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Where? "The top" isn't all too specific. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. Changing
{| class="infobox bordered" style="width: {{#if:{{{width|}}}|{{{width|}}}|23em}}; font-size: 90%; text-align: left;" cellpadding="3"
to this
{| class="infobox bordered" align="{{{align|right}}}" style="width: {{#if:{{{width|}}}|{{{width|}}}|23em}}; font-size: 90%; text-align: left;" cellpadding="3"
--MZMcBride 04:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I made a change to allow left alignment with an 'align=left' parameter setting. --CBD 12:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm actually not sure what you are trying to align... the text above says the box, but that would use a 'float' statement. The 'align' should impact image display relative to text, but I'm not sure where that would come into play with this template since there is a line break below the image before the caption. Anyway, I put it in as specified since I couldn't figure out what you were aiming for. --CBD 12:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- So what's the syntax now? "|align = left" as parameter doesn't do much.~~MaxGrin 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm actually not sure what you are trying to align... the text above says the box, but that would use a 'float' statement. The 'align' should impact image display relative to text, but I'm not sure where that would come into play with this template since there is a line break below the image before the caption. Anyway, I put it in as specified since I couldn't figure out what you were aiming for. --CBD 12:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, I promise I'm really not trying to confuse everyone. I wrote the header for this section incorrectly (fixed), and the code is also wrong.
- The current code is
{| class="infobox bordered" align="{{{align|right}}}" style="width: {{#if:{{{width|}}}|{{{width|}}}|23em}}; font-size: 90%; text-align: left;" cellpadding="3"
- The code should be
{| class="infobox bordered" style="float: {{{align|right}}}; width: {{#if:{{{width|}}}|{{{width|}}}|23em}}; font-size: 90%; text-align: left;" cellpadding="3"
I apologize again for mistyping. Thanks. --MZMcBride 00:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Right, this one seems to work. Thanks. Please update.~~MaxGrin 09:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Done. --CBD 11:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Right, this one seems to work. Thanks. Please update.~~MaxGrin 09:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Great, it's working. Thanks everybody! There is however another problem. We've still got a left side margin, which is not very helpful for a left aligned InfoBox. Example of the problem: aquanox. Anyway we can adjust those by desire?~~MaxGrin 23:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Boxart Width
Most boxarts on wikipedia displayed in a CVG Infobox are 250px in width. However, I have found using 260px is more appropriate, as the spacing around all four sides of the boxart are equal and smaller. For example this is an infobox with 260px width, and this is an infobox with 250px width. As can be seen 260px width makes more sense, and is neater. Do you think that all video games should use 260px for their width? Stickeylabel 03:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- To be a prat now, I actually quite like the little borders on the sides. I think the 260px one looks a little bit stretched out. Pure subjectivity though.(Might be the examples)~~MaxGrin 12:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I must be a prat as well then, because I prefer 250. It's not so in your face, it has a touch of style about it and above all, I think it just looks better. - X201 12:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, I think we should reconsider the examples though. Viva Pignatia, whatever the spelling of that word is, and DOD covers are not very good for the sake of comparing the width of the infobox.~~MaxGrin 09:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- 250px is better IMO, the CVG Infobox could be changed to make it better. I would do it, but the page has been fully protected since September (so only admins can edit it). TJ Spyke 07:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, I think we should reconsider the examples though. Viva Pignatia, whatever the spelling of that word is, and DOD covers are not very good for the sake of comparing the width of the infobox.~~MaxGrin 09:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Here are two different examples. The first, Banjo-Kazooie is 250px, and the second, Banjo-Tooie is 260px. The 260px Banjo-Tooie boxart looks far more tidy when compared to 250px. However, if TJ Spyke can modify the now semi-protected template to make 250px boxarts fit better, then I would support that. If that however is not possible, I would support that all game boxarts in the Infobox CVG's be changed to 260px. Also, to save time and confusion a pre-set size of 260px could be placed within the actual template, so all current and future boxarts are then automatically changed to 260px. Stickeylabel 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I must be a prat as well then, because I prefer 250. It's not so in your face, it has a touch of style about it and above all, I think it just looks better. - X201 12:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think mention of this discussion should be made on the CVG project discussion page so that others can add to it if they wish. The only problem is that the discussion will probably carry on there, which is wrong. Comments about the Template and decisions about it should be made on this page so that there's a permanent record in the page history. - X201 09:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have updated the template, so that it is able to use 250px boxart properly. Stickeylabel 09:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have found the issue that was causing the 250px problem, and I have fixed it. The issue was that the width was set to 23em, which inturn was too great of a width, which created the thick white side borders. I have now changed it to 22em, and the problem seems to have been resolved. Stickeylabel 08:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not revert 22em back to 23em in future. 23em causes many issues that 22em resolves. Please discuss in future before reverting. Thanks. Stickeylabel 08:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have found the issue that was causing the 250px problem, and I have fixed it. The issue was that the width was set to 23em, which inturn was too great of a width, which created the thick white side borders. I have now changed it to 22em, and the problem seems to have been resolved. Stickeylabel 08:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have updated the template, so that it is able to use 250px boxart properly. Stickeylabel 09:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The slight gap is by design. Images aren't supposed to reach edge-to-edge; there's an intentional gutter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can you please expand how it is "by design"? The "gutter" is not symmetrical, and reduces consistancy between various boxart sizes. Consistancy and functionality is more important than your taste of aesthetics. Please reach consensus from amoungst others on this issue in this section of the talk page, before reverting in future. Stickeylabel 09:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Images aren't supposed to reach edge-to-edge" - where did you pull this from? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with A Man In Black. There is no reason using 22em instead of 23em. Original design has 23em, so until consensus has been reached to change 23em to 22em, 23em should be kept. --MrStalker 10:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Fix the color
I think it's been about a year since my last attempt to persuade someone to fix the color of this infobox, so here's a new attempt. The blue and grey still look awful together. In fact, the blue looks bad in Monobook, period. How about copying the elegant {{Infobox CVG system}}? Fredrik Johansson 23:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Protection
This page has been fully protected since September. Why has it been protected this long, and why can't it be unprotected? TJ Spyke 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think so anon's don't mess with it, since its linked to thousands of pages. Thunderbrand 22:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Anons could be blocked from it with a semi-protect. A full protect seems overkill especially seeing as it was done without any reason being posted to this discussion page and without the "Locked" templates being added to the project page. - X201 23:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I changed it to semi, I think. Thunderbrand 23:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Anons could be blocked from it with a semi-protect. A full protect seems overkill especially seeing as it was done without any reason being posted to this discussion page and without the "Locked" templates being added to the project page. - X201 23:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Something's not right here
When I try to access certain articles using this template, I see that the page is messed up. See Shuffle! and Onikakushi-hen for examples. How can this be corrected?--(十八) 15:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- How are they messed up? Not on my browser. What browser and/or extensions are you using? ---Majestic- 15:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm using MSN, but I also tried it in Firefox and the same thing persisted. Here's what I see: http://img444.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picnn4.png --(十八) 15:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Something is wrong with your broser, because that exact article shows correctly on my Firefox: http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/7418/capturerj3.jpg . Try to reload your page by pressing Ctrl+F5 (Firefox). ---Majestic- 15:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well that didn't work, but I did find another solution, albeit a strange one. I cut out the infobox in the articles that were doing this to me (3 in all; was also occuring with Watanagashi-hen) and then I previewed the page. I then pasted the infobox back into the page and saved the edit, but then of course the history didn't record a change because I only cut and pasted the same thing. In any case, that solved the problem and it doesn't seem to have affected any other pages with the infobox that I can see. Weird though since it only affected 3 pages and even stranger how I solved it. o.o Thanks for your help though.--(十八) 15:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Something is wrong with your broser, because that exact article shows correctly on my Firefox: http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/7418/capturerj3.jpg . Try to reload your page by pressing Ctrl+F5 (Firefox). ---Majestic- 15:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm using MSN, but I also tried it in Firefox and the same thing persisted. Here's what I see: http://img444.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picnn4.png --(十八) 15:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Modified CVG Infobox
I have recently updated the infobox, to remove colors and modify cellspacing. Also, with the updated infobox, 250px boxart's now fit properly. The result is an infobox that is similar to Template:Infobox Television. Please respond with your thoughts. Stickeylabel 09:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have again updated the infobox using modified code. I appologise if the code is incorrect, and if the modifications I have performed are not functional. Please revert to an earlier version, if found neccassary. Thanks. Stickeylabel 11:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- It seems there's something wrong with the Publisher line, it doesn't show in articles. By the way, what is the difference between "Publisher" and "Distributor"? Kariteh 11:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not too sure about the differences between "Publisher" and "Distributor", however I have fixed the Publisher line, and it now seems to work. Stickeylabel 13:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- It seems there's something wrong with the Publisher line, it doesn't show in articles. By the way, what is the difference between "Publisher" and "Distributor"? Kariteh 11:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think the template looked much better before your edits. I think the cells with the headlines, i.e. Developer, Publisher etc should be colored, and that the box should be 300+ px wide. --MrStalker 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree too. Without the background colors, it starts to read a bit confusing Leileilol 19:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- The Ratings line seems to have a typo somewhere too, it doesn't appear in articles. Kariteh 20:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can't we keep the lines in? It makes the infobox look more organized. Thunderbrand 21:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- My main goal for the modifications was to achieve a level of consistancy between; Television Programs, Films, and Video Games. An added feature is colored headers, as can be seen here; Half-Life 2: Episode One, also I changed it from 23em to 20em, however MrStalker, has reverted that. 20em allows for 250px boxarts to look best in the infobox, to reduce the need for 260px and 300px boxarts, and to achieve some more consistancy. If the previous version is better, please revert the template, as I personally do not really have a preference over which one is better. I do agree that lines make it easier to read, however there seems to be a massive shift with infoboxes recently to remove lines, I'm not sure why, one example is Template:Infobox CVG system, where instead they use colored boxes. I hope to hear your opinions on this. Thanks. Stickeylabel 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I guess that if most are without lines, then all of them should be. Thunderbrand 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- The lines should go back in. The lines make it more organized. easier to read, and look better. TJ Spyke 23:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Seconding TJ Spyke here. As noted below, all the changes today have caused some bugs to crop up in certain articles. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- The lines should go back in. The lines make it more organized. easier to read, and look better. TJ Spyke 23:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I guess that if most are without lines, then all of them should be. Thunderbrand 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Bug?
I think there's something with the template as it is right now. On some pages I see two paranthesis (}}) at the beginning of the article (for example on rRootage) and I think it's from this template but I may be wrong. Does anybody else see something similar? --analoguedragon 23:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Same here on Naruto: Gekitou Ninja Taisen EX. I have no bloody clue what's causing it; it works fine in Rival Schools: United By Fate. Should we revert all the changes from today? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I've figured out the problem: If there are any blank fields in the infobox on an article, remove them. Placing in any blank fields will cause the two brackets to show up. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Or perhaps they were just fixed by removing the extra set of brackets I saw in the template. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Reverted
Um. We discussed what this infobox should look like to death on WT:CVG, and the cited infoboxes being used as an example are fairly ugly. Let's stick to this design, and propose that the TV episode box convert to look like this one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
colour
What happened to the colour?. The box looks plain and sad looking template. Do add some colour.--SkyWalker 07:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- You can add whatever colors you want by modifying your monobook.css file. That's what it's for. Kariteh 08:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
"modes" is not sufficient
I suggest instead of "modes" to denote whether the game has single or multi player, to just use "player(s)" and write a number, like 1 or 1-2 or 1-4 etc for how many players it supports. writing "single player" and/or "multi player" is not enough to tell users specifically how many players a game supports at-a-glance. Or perhaps both should be used. please weigh in. Tehw1k1 02:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- With "player(s)" you would put "2". With "modes" you can specify whether multiplayer is cooperative, simultaneous, alternating turns, etc. Pagrashtak 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Audio field?
How about a field to indicate what kind of audio the game can output, i.e. Dolby Digital, Pro Logic II, etc.? --Shadowlink1014 06:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Improvement
I think that we could use the code from here to add the ratings section e.g ESRB, it would be very helpful I think. I am an editor there and have checked with the administration and it's ok as long as we keep the histories but I am probably biased towards this site, what do you think?--User:Rock2e Talk - Contribs 14:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC) P.S The code for one of the rating templates is here--User:Rock2e Talk - Contribs 14:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Footnotes
Footnotes are now possible. Taric25 17:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do not support Combination removing footnotes, because it is not an unused field. Taric25 19:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Kindly explain the purpose of this field and why it is necessary. Combination 10:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Articles such as Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars use footnotes in their infobox. Taric25 09:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Other infoboxes use footnotes, such as {{Infobox Country or territory}}. (See United Kingdom for an example.) They are not redundant, and they do not belong at the end of an article. Cease and desist until you have consensus to revert! Taric25 19:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Combination, talk about this. Taric25 01:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Stop edit warring over this. Discuss it here, and only add footnotes if there is consensus. Pagrashtak 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I want Combination to talk about this. I have given my reason for adding footnotes, and video game articles, such as Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars use them. We have come to a consensus to move the information from a different section in the article to the footnotes of the infobox, just like {{Infobox Country or territory}} does with United Kingdom, on the talk page. Combination continues to revert without discussing it here. When I go to edit videogame articles that use Infobox footnotes, I see they are gone, and the information is lost and reduces the quality of the article. In addition, the footnotes have citations, and removing the footnotes deletes the linkback to them. In essence, the reader wonders something like, "Um, I see reference 4 in the References section, but it doesn't exist in the article? Why is it here?" Taric25 20:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Kindly explain the purpose of this field and why it is necessary. Combination 10:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're just re asserting your position, there is no evidence of thorough discussion or concensus on WP:VG. Each template is treated as its own, guidelines for other infoboxes do not apply. Combination 08:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is giving any reason for the footnotes to not be in the template. Objecting on the grounds of not discussing is not a reasonable objection. Is there a reason for the footnotes to not be in the template? --- RockMFR 04:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- The only objection to footnotes being in the template is that is is an unused field, which it’s not, because Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games articles such as Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars use it. Also, other Wikiprojects such as WikiProject Countries use footnotes in Template:Infobox Country in their articles such as United Kingdom. The only other objection is that there is no consensus, and that each template is treated as its own; guidelines for other infoboxes do not apply, however, Template:Infobox supports footnotes. Are there any other objections? I really don’t see why we can’t have footnotes like other Wikiprojects have with their Infobox templates. Taric25 04:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just curious. What other CVG articles use footnotes in the infobox? - X201 10:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- CVG articles can’t use footnotes in their infobox. For example, if you go to the article Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, you’ll see no footnotes in the Infobox, but if you edit the page, you'll see they're there. Another thing that’ll tip you off is seeing reference 6 and 7 at the bottom of the page, but if you click on the ^, nothing happens, because they’re in the Infobox footnotes, which this template’s current version does not support. I enabled the footnotes in another version, so they were visable at that time. They only way I know to see if other CVG articles use footnotes in their infobox is to search the source code of their older versions, since it’s most likely that they’ve been taken out and moved to another section by now. Taric25 15:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just curious. What other CVG articles use footnotes in the infobox? - X201 10:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment
- No one has given proof of consensus for it to be there or to be removed. It appears to me that no party involved in this dispute cares about consensus and solving the dispute like adults, the impression given is of people who think 'their' version of the template is the correct one and all other versions are wrong. I am now going to put a request on the main project talk page to ask all members of the project to get involved with the project's infobox. - X201 08:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Revert back to original state and discuss. Let's be clear whether footnotes are needed, and if so, determine what they're to be used for. Squabbling over this for the last 2 months has got us nowhere. Have reverted template back to original state and protected it for now, while we come to some concensus here. No point continually going through the edit/revert cycle for another 2 months. --Oscarthecat 08:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why does your Infobox, Template:Infobox Country, use footnotes? What are their purpose? Should other Infoboxes support footnotes? We request your comments at Template talk:Infobox CVG. Taric25 04:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably, I'd say, to avoid the information presented in the main body of the template being cluttered by (<small>) clarifications, annotations, etc. I suppose <ref>-style footnotes could be used, but, if I recall correctly, it was not favored as the infobox footnotes tended to be of a different kind (i.e. clarifications rather than providing reference information).
Whether or not other infoboxes should support footnotes depends, I guess, on whether or not they (could) include similar clarifications, annotations, etc.
Hope that helps. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. The footnotes of the infobox are for clarification, annotation, or both. If they were references, we would use the <ref> element, as we currently do for other parts of the infobox and the rest of the article. Since the only user who opposed the change no longer exists (see the red links), I have made the change. Taric25 20:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Reviews
Has any type of professional reviewing ever been discussed for the Infobox. Example: I would like to add professional IGN game ratings (such as Grand Theft Auto III having a rating of 9.6/10). Thoughts? Thricecube 23:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's been discussed (at the top of this page) but the discussion did not really get anywhere... I would suggest you raise this on WT:CVG since you're more likely to get a response there. I think you'll find a lot of opposition to this idea, though. JACOPLANE • 2007-04-2 23:21
- How about a Metacritic score? They average alot of reviews together, so it would be better than using a specific publisher such as IGN or Gamespot. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 13:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Engine expansion
I'm of the opinion that with current games using more than one engine for different tasks, maybe it would make sense to give the option to use more than one engine type. For instance:
Make Believe Game | |
Engine (Graphics) | Unreal Engine 3 |
---|---|
Engine (Physics) | Havok 4.5 |
Engine (Animation) | Euphoria 2.7 |
Make Believe Game | |
Graphics Engine | Unreal Engine 3 |
---|---|
Physics Engine | Havok 4.5 |
Animation Engine | Euphoria 2.7 |
And of course these would just be optional. But I think it would be helpful for certain games. Any opinions? —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 13:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead and made the change. Checked a few articles, nothing broke. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 13:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've reverted some of your edits, not on the template, but on specific articles. Unreal Engine 3 is not just a graphics engine, the physics and animation system is built in. For example, the Source engine is an entire package which includes facial animation software and physics simulation, it is more than just a graphics engine. Sure there are special cases, for example, one may wish to use a separate physics engine over the default, but I would actually prefer to specify that within a singular engine field. Using a value such as "Source Engine (with Novodex support)". - hahnchen 16:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Revert
I reverted the template to include image format because: Sorry, but I don't see any objections not to include this field. And it's an optional one, so if you don't use it, it won't show any difference. And third, the field is used in several articles. --MrStalker 21:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Which you've implemented solely by yourself. You haven't followed the procedure at the top of this page which is necessary to avoid the template becoming overly large. I'm contesting this right now as the picture format is not a defining characteristic, it's more along the lines of trivia.
- Seek consensus before implementation. Combination 12:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- That is incorrect. It wasn't I who implemented this change in the first place. --MrStalker 15:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you guys have noticed, but there IS a consensus on this talk page... scroll up to the section "Resolution". --Shadowlink1014 20:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
preceded_by and followed_by fields?
Are there any objections to the addition of these fields, similar to those used on {{Infobox Book}} and {{Infobox Film}}? There are a large number of game series where this could be useful (Doom/Quake/Halo etc) QmunkE 11:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Those articles already have navboxes at the bottom with the entire series. I don't see the need to clutter the already large infobox with these fields. Pagrashtak 17:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- As Pagra said, most games that are part of a series have got their own navbox on the article page as is. Also the Infobox is supposed to be a quick reference, it's getting harder and harder to pick out the info from it as more and more fields of a non-vital nature are added. - X201 09:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do think, however, that with the rise of episodic games this could be a welcome addition and welcome for quick navigation. You have a point about clutering, but I do think that Half Life²: Episode Two is very well linked with episodes one and three. It is not merely just in a series, it is almost continuous gameplay between episodes. Same for games like the new Sam&Max series. I just see it the same as tv-series here. It could still be optional.Jeroen Stout 23:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- As Pagra said, most games that are part of a series have got their own navbox on the article page as is. Also the Infobox is supposed to be a quick reference, it's getting harder and harder to pick out the info from it as more and more fields of a non-vital nature are added. - X201 09:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Sound?
Does sound have to be only for arcade? Some cartridge games use different sound chips as well. Also, what about a field for the music artist, or would that open the door to the rest of the game's artists? --blm07 09:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think, If the cartridge contained a different (or supplemental) sound chip that overrides or becomes a companion to the on-board chip in the console then I think it would be OK to use the sound field. But it should not be used to show the console sound chip if that is all that is used by the game.
- Music Artist - The Infobox is becoming bloated as is and in my opinion is becoming a glorified list.Write it as prose in the article. - X201 09:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Request for Comment
This is a dispute about what should or should not be included in the used template. 22:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hello. I know a bit about template syntax, but am not an avid follower of CVG articles so come to this request with useful knowledge but without prior bias, I hope. Would people be happy for me to try to mediate on this request? If so, tell me about it... GDallimore (Talk) 16:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, no-one's said anything, but assuming it's the footnote thing, here's my comment anyway:
- I tested the template to see what happened when footnotes were added and see why it has been used in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars. However, I think the question that needs answering is whether the clarification in the footnote for that article wouldn't actually be better contained in the body of the article or in a properly defined footnote area such as has been used to excellent effect in the featured article, The Four Stages of Cruelty#Notes.
- According to Help:Infobox, which while not official policy sounds quite sensible to me, Infoboxes are intended to "provide summary information". In summary, the release date was 1996 for that game. The fact that the title screen originall had the wrong year on it does not alter that fact although it might be an interesting point of trivia.
- I guess what I'm saying is that the case for having a footnote in the infobox for this Mario game sounds dubious at best, so I suggest editing that particular article to find a better way to present the information.
- But is there a case to have a footnote field in general, even if it probably shouldn't be used in this particular article? I think the case for adding a new field would have to be pretty good since this infobx contains a lot of fields already and it's important that it remain easily usable by all classes of editor. I can't think of a good reason to include a footnotes field, so suggest that one not be introduced.
- Just my 2c. Thanks for listening GDallimore (Talk) 21:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
License2
I still think that it would be a good idea to have a liscence category. -Gohst 04:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
To serve what purpose?Per #Licence, I presume. That sounds reasonable to me, but it would be good to get a couple more supportive comments. GDallimore (Talk) 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Requirements: Minimum or Recommended?
I don't see this explicitly answered, but trying to work out what to put in an info box for Shadowrun (2007 video game). Most other PC games I see contain only one requirement set, and thus I believe the answer to be "minimum", but I'm trying to see if there's a consensus if both should be used. --Masem 13:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)