Unused000702 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
As per this discussion - please re-add the engine parameter. A partial revert of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_video_game&action=historysubmit&diff=378927911&oldid=361086165 this] edit. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 20:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC) |
As per this discussion - please re-add the engine parameter. A partial revert of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_video_game&action=historysubmit&diff=378927911&oldid=361086165 this] edit. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 20:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:{{done}}'''[[User:Ronhjones|<span style="border:1px solid black;color:black; padding:1px;background:yellow"><font color="green"> Ron<font color="red">h</font>jones </font></span>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Ronhjones| (Talk)]]</sup> 20:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC) |
:{{done}}'''[[User:Ronhjones|<span style="border:1px solid black;color:black; padding:1px;background:yellow"><font color="green"> Ron<font color="red">h</font>jones </font></span>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Ronhjones| (Talk)]]</sup> 20:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
::Looks like the instructions still need to be updated. <span style="background:black;color:white"> '''''— '''''[[User:CMBJ|<span style="background:black;color:white">'''''C M B J'''''</span>]] </span> 22:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==RfC: Should contributors be permitted to manually specify licenses in an infobox under some circumstances?== |
==RfC: Should contributors be permitted to manually specify licenses in an infobox under some circumstances?== |
Revision as of 22:52, 21 December 2010
![]() | Video games Template‑class | |||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Edit request
{{editrequested}}
Can the {{Italic title infobox|{{{italic title|}}}}} be moved down to the bottom of the template text? If italic title=no
, and a {{DISPLAYTITLE}} is on the page, as well, it puts a carriage return at the top of the article, leaving a blank space.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Think this has already been done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Broken?
Infobox video game | |
---|---|
Genre(s) | ... |
There seems to be a typo or something broken in the template, as there is always some extra space at the bottom of the last row used. See the example -->
Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Related to above. Hopefully fixed now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- It appears fixed. Thanks MSGJ, I didn't see the talkpage note about the issue until today. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Another push for license field
Having reread this a couple times, I fear the current table will not get consensus as too many different highly specific licenses are involved even with all the best faith by CMBJ. However, we can mostly agree that restricted usage is acceptable. So I re-propose to firstly instate the "basic design" for the field and then discuss further expansion (i.e. |freelicense=
) if we wish. I deliberately did not list categories yet (and that is a great idea that encourages this proposal) in order to finish the main proposal — to have pre-defined field values. So one step at a time.
Description | Parameter input | Output left side | Output right side | Default category |
Games that are strictly sold on a commercial, for-profit basis | |license=proprietary
|
License: | Proprietary | Category:Proprietary video games, a new subcategory within Category:Proprietary software |
Proprietary games provided to an end-user at no cost (not to be confused with free software) | |license=freeware
|
License: | Freeware | Category:Freeware games |
Proprietary games provided to an end-user at no cost, but which also encourage redistribution and limit functionality in some way | |license=shareware
|
License: | Shareware | Category:Shareware |
Proprietary ad-supported games that are provided free of cost to an end-user | |license=adware
|
License: | Adware | Category:Adware |
All free and open source games wholly published under licenses explicitly approved by the Free Software Foundation, except those released into the public domain | |license=freesoftware
|
License: | Free software | Category:Free, open source video games |
Games verifiably released into the public domain | |license=publicdomain
|
License: | Public domain | Category:Public domain video games, a new subcategory within Category:Public domain software |
All remaining open source games wholly published under uncommon, novel, or other licenses compliant with Open Source Initiative or Free Software Definition guidelines | |license=open-source
|
License: | Open source | Category:Open source games |
Games released under licenses that are uncommon, complex, novel, or otherwise require human input. Non-neutral and colloquial terms, such as Abandonware, should not be used under normal circumstances. | |otherlicense=
|
License: | Custom user-defined field | N/A |
Amendments welcome.
- Support this field design idea as before. This will completely remove all the license cruft and force users to select real, correct licenses. This can then further be applied to categorize the games. In future, the available field values can be expanded/modified when such consensus is reached. I believe the above selection addresses nominator's and supporters' desire to include the license field as well as preserve simple and non-specialist approach applicable to almost all games. For exceptions, there is also the custom input field. As mentioned above, a bot can in future check what values are most used/desired and we can adjust the field accordingly. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support - I have taken you up on your offer to amend the proposal by (1) clarifying the descriptions of the "open-source" and "free software" parameters in a more user-friendly way, and (2) reincorporating the automatic categorization model which should be very helpful to readers and editors alike. You can re-remove the categories if they're a deal breaker for you, but if categorical redundancy is the primary concern, we may just as well implement a genre1=, genre2=, genre3= series and integrate the two while we're at it. — C M B J 10:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- I support adding auto-categorization, but just one step at a time to get a move on this. I would also support genre sorting by several fields and automatic categorisation as well, in a separate discussion. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- We can separate auto-categorization from this proposal if you really want, but I do not foresee there being much objection to such an uncontroversial win-win. On a side note, I have re-amended the proposal to preclude use of non-neutral terms, as well as to include public domain as per Jinnai. — C M B J 23:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose-I think adding one for public domain should be done as that is a possibility of a well...non-license license. However, that part isn't really a major concern of mine as there aren't too many at this time.
- I do not want to add the custom support it because of the custom field. It will be abused in the same way the current field is being abused and solve absolutely nothing for why we removed the field. People will simply use that to slap a specific license on their that's very technical and doesn't help the understanding of the item to the average Wikipedian reader. I want to make it clear I'm not against a notation of having another unusual license, just not one in the lead because people will essentially put stuff like beerware instead of shareware which is what it should be as beerware is simply a minor subset of shareware.陣内Jinnai 17:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- What if there was no custom entry field? I suppose any "special" licenses can be discussed in prose? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- My support is dependent on having a custom field, and Jinnai's opposition, though well intended, is a perfect example of why. He has not satisfactorily demonstrated why a bot cannot mitigate misuse that stands to affect only 1-5% of the relevant article base. His specific example of Beerware is not and never was anywhere close to being a statistically significant problem. There is absolutely no known empirical evidence whatsoever that misuse of the parameter in this form could result in any more than ten to twenty minutes cleanup work annually. Yet, despite all of this, an outside editor must still fight an uphill battle for months on end in order to gain support for something that is widely accepted elsewhere on the project—that's precisely the kind of intrinsically bureaucratic process that compelled me to take my position in the first place. And honestly, if we cannot even agree on the validity of existing statistical analysis, then I think that there's little remaining opportunity for us to reconcile our respective viewpoints. I will go ahead and try to initiate an RfC tomorrow, assuming that Jinnai and I reach an agreement on the terms. — C M B J 08:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- What if there was no custom entry field? I suppose any "special" licenses can be discussed in prose? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose: Still suggested to be used for commercial games. Prime Blue (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- That could be done by simply having in instructions that leaving this blank means that the license for all works is proprietary commercial or the same as those already listed similar to how we don't list modes for games where the mode for all games is the same.陣内Jinnai 23:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Can we figure out some way to move forward with a licensing parameter? The accompanying RfC does not appear that it will ever materialize at this point. — C M B J 23:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Moving forward with the 'game engine' parameter: revised proposal
Description | Parameter input | Output left side | Output right side |
If applicable, indicate a link to the game's engine. Please note that only game engines with an established, independent article are permissible, and novel engines should not be specified with this parameter. | |engine=[[Titan (game engine)|Titan]]
|
Game engine: | Titan |
Moving forward with H3llkn0wz's willingness to reach a compromise, I propose that the above be added to the template. Automatic categorization is also a real possibility, but seeing as the extensive number of game engines may require a fair bit of code, I'll leave this for a future discussion. — C M B J 10:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support as nominator. — C M B J 23:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Moving from neutral to Support in this format. Only engines with an article, that can further the game's understanding by clicking on the wikilink. I can see how this is useful, as opposed to listing unknown, non-notable engines that do nothing informative for the reader. As a side note, there would be far too few members in each engine category to warrant auto-categorisation. We can, again, use a bot to scan for non-compliant field values. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Support. I'm surprised there's no "Game Engine" parameter yet (I would have it output "Engine" instead). It would link all the Unreal Engine, id Tech and RAGE game pages nicely. However, here's a borderline case for that "full independant page" requirement. Carmageddon and a few other games use the Blazing Renderer engine, yet it is a pitiful paragraph on the developers page. It doesn't look likely for expansion. Should that be ignored, or linked to anyway? JaffaCakeLover (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would ignore that, since it's not a stand-alone article. There's not much info one can learn from that. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- You can learn what engine it used. If a new game is notable enough to have an article, sometimes it company isn't yet, but we still list its publishers. Same way with the designers being listed. Any engine that a notable game is made with should be notable enough to have its own article anyway. Only linking to some and not others is rather bias. Dream Focus 06:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support - I wasn't active when the removal of this parameter was discussed in archive 9, but the engine is an important defining factor of a game. - hahnchen 11:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support adding this parameter back into the infobox, but not limiting who is listed, for reasons I stated above. Dream Focus 06:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
|{{#if:{{{engine|}}}| {{!}} '''[[Game engine|Engine]]''' {{!!}} {{{engine|}}} }}
As per this discussion - please re-add the engine parameter. A partial revert of this edit. - hahnchen 20:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Done Ronhjones (Talk) 20:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like the instructions still need to be updated. — C M B J 22:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
RfC: Should contributors be permitted to manually specify licenses in an infobox under some circumstances?
- Proponent contends that a user-defined license parameter is an indispensable tool which, according to statistics, has presented a negligible maintenance liability to the project and would be even more manageable under current proposals. — C M B J
- Opponent contends that a user-defined license parameter is nonessential and an unjustifiable burden because of a problematic history including the use of technical terms, superfluous exhibition, and other general misuse. 陣内Jinnai
Relevant information:
- Consensus to remove license parameter
- Initial proposal to reinstate license parameter
- Bot-generated statistics on use/misuse of the license parameter in both Template:Infobox video game and Template:Infobox software
- Continued discussion
- Second proposal to reinstate license parameter
- Third proposal to reinstate license parameter
Should contributors be permitted to manually specify licenses in an infobox under some circumstances? — C M B J 22:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
License parameter
Can we added it? It is useful for free games as Hedgewars. Regards. emijrp (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- See the above discussion and accompanying RfC. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Italics
{{editprotected}}
Since Template:Infobox has now been changed so that it allows italics, could someone change the code to reflect this please rather than using {{Italic title infobox}} (similar to how its been implemented at {{Infobox book}}, {{Infobox album}}, {{Infobox newspaper}}, {{Infobox play}} etc etc.)? Mhiji (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry. Just realised this template doesn't use Template:Infobox. Could someone convert it to an infobox first and then do this please?! Mhiji (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Not done: You'll have to code this in the /sandbox first (I notice someone has started it) and then get consensus for the change. And it might be worth checking the talk archives in case this has been discussed before. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Distribution field
The addition of the distribution field was made following a discussion on archive 9 arising from confusion over the media field. But in practice, as can be seen at Template:Infobox video game/doc, instead of superceding the media field, it's just used to indicate whether a game is distributed digitally or retail. This is utterly, utterly redundant. The platforms usually indicate if it is digitally distributed, and when it doesn't, the distribution is trivial. Do we indicate that albums are now available on digital? That films can be streamed? No, because it makes no difference - let's get rid of it. - hahnchen 11:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- You mean the field labelled "Distribution" added here right? Not the "Distributor" one that sits below publisher. Gotta make it clear which of the two similarly named items is being talked about, one very important and the other not. If you're talking about the "distribution" field, then yeah, get rid of it. Is it even used anyway? -- Sabre (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- The original proposal was to limit the field to games where the distribution method is ambiguous (as we do with the media field if the media is ambiguous). Jinnai opposed, so the documentation currently dictates to use the distribution field in every video game article. And I have to say with more games using digital distribution, this is a good move – as it also makes sense for older platforms. While the media field becomes virtually redundant with the platform field as the media is a consequence of the console used, the distribution method is not as clear-cut and evident to people who are not familiar with the subject. Prime Blue (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Why is the distribution method relevant at all? We can grab mp3s, stream movies, and download ebooks, yet I'm sure Wikiproject Literature would balk at a distribution field. When everything goes digital, the media field will become redundant, but this doesn't make the distribution field relevant. - hahnchen 21:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- The distribution field is relevant because there are platforms where the distribution method is not clear to the reader (e.g. Microsoft Windows) and because "download" cannot be used in the media field since it is not a type of digital media. I don't quite understand what you mean by the last sentence, though: The physical releases won't go away just because there are more and more digitally distributed games. Prime Blue (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- That a game is digital or retail is not relevant, it doesn't need a separate line on the infobox to define. If it is, just put "None (digital)" in the media field. - hahnchen 16:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- What would you do for games with ambiguous media platforms that have received a digital release as well? "Cartridge, optical disc, none (digital)". Ew, no thanks. I'm still for limiting the distribution field to games released on platforms with an ambiguous distribution method (though this is something that should rather be discussed with Jinnai than with me), but I am strictly against the removal of the field. Prime Blue (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Or you could get rid of it altogether, which is what I'm proposing. Or you could just put digital distribution into the media field, which we had been doing previously anyway, knowing that the reader will understand what it entails. Knowing that I can buy a game in a shop is not useful. - hahnchen 17:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am aware that you do not find the field to be "useful" or "relevant", but it does not solve the problem as I do not share your opinion. You did not answer my question either. Prime Blue (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I did answer the question. Just do what we did before. You need to justify this field. - hahnchen 23:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am aware that you do not find the field to be "useful" or "relevant", but it does not solve the problem as I do not share your opinion. You did not answer my question either. Prime Blue (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Or you could get rid of it altogether, which is what I'm proposing. Or you could just put digital distribution into the media field, which we had been doing previously anyway, knowing that the reader will understand what it entails. Knowing that I can buy a game in a shop is not useful. - hahnchen 17:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- What would you do for games with ambiguous media platforms that have received a digital release as well? "Cartridge, optical disc, none (digital)". Ew, no thanks. I'm still for limiting the distribution field to games released on platforms with an ambiguous distribution method (though this is something that should rather be discussed with Jinnai than with me), but I am strictly against the removal of the field. Prime Blue (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- That a game is digital or retail is not relevant, it doesn't need a separate line on the infobox to define. If it is, just put "None (digital)" in the media field. - hahnchen 16:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- The distribution field is relevant because there are platforms where the distribution method is not clear to the reader (e.g. Microsoft Windows) and because "download" cannot be used in the media field since it is not a type of digital media. I don't quite understand what you mean by the last sentence, though: The physical releases won't go away just because there are more and more digitally distributed games. Prime Blue (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Why is the distribution method relevant at all? We can grab mp3s, stream movies, and download ebooks, yet I'm sure Wikiproject Literature would balk at a distribution field. When everything goes digital, the media field will become redundant, but this doesn't make the distribution field relevant. - hahnchen 21:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- The original proposal was to limit the field to games where the distribution method is ambiguous (as we do with the media field if the media is ambiguous). Jinnai opposed, so the documentation currently dictates to use the distribution field in every video game article. And I have to say with more games using digital distribution, this is a good move – as it also makes sense for older platforms. While the media field becomes virtually redundant with the platform field as the media is a consequence of the console used, the distribution method is not as clear-cut and evident to people who are not familiar with the subject. Prime Blue (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Well we could just get rid of it, but it does have some benifit. I would rather not have this for systems where distribution method is always the same, FE: PS2. However, some newer and some older systems, as well as computers, use different methods of distribution that aren't quite the same. A cart isn't the same as a disc and a floppy disc isn't the same as a cd/dvd and none of those are the same as download distribution. FE: new consoles have disc and download distribution methods. Older systems, like the NES have often had computer peristalsis and thus different methods of distribution. Finally, there is now the concept of cloud computing which is not the same any of the above methods.陣内Jinnai 21:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's not what the distribution field is for though. It's not about a CD or floppy, that's clearly stated in the media field. All "distribution" does is specify whether it can be downloaded - this is not a defining factor of a video game, given that anything can be downloaded.
- Cloud computing is fairly crystal ball, unless you're talking about browser games, in which case the platform usually dictates it. I don't think whether a game is on OnLive deserves to be mentioned in the infobox at all, unless its an exclusive. - hahnchen 23:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- I forgot we kept media field. I thought we were merging it into this.
- With that said, there need only be 3 types listed here then:
- Physical - default assumed when its the only type. If multiple types exist, then it should be listed.
- Download - downloading the entire game.
- Cloud - having none or little of the game on your computer and accessing the resources through a central hub, usually via the internet.
- By definition, all MMOs are cloud games because much of resources they do not host on their own PC. They just host the textures and stuff like that. It's not nessasarily cloud computing like many think of it where nothing is kept on the computer, but cloud computing by definition doesn't require this therefore its not crystal balling.陣内Jinnai 23:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Different idea to prevent this from becoming a circular discussion: The distribution field contents do not fit the media field, but it works vice versa: Simply remove the media field and include its contents in the distribution field (replacing the "physical" option): New possible values would then be "floppy disk", "cartridge", "memory card", "optical disc", "download", and "cloud computing". Only use the field if the platforms leave this ambiguous (e.g. Microsoft Windows). Problem solved. Prime Blue (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- As I thought that happened already, something along those lines is fine.陣内Jinnai 18:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Edit request
No objections to the replacement of the media field by the distribution field despite a reasonable amount of views on this page. The sandbox was recently changed, so I'll just list the revision here. This line has to be removed:
|{{#if:{{{media|}}}| {{!}} '''[[Digital media|Media]]''' {{!!}} {{{media|}}} }}
Thank you, I'll handle the documentation. Prime Blue (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- This does not include the contents of the media field in the distribution field, as I think was discussed above. Please clarify, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- See this edit. Hahnchen's case was to remove the distribution field as it does not supersede the media field. As the contents of the distribution field do not work in the media field but it fits vice-versa, the media field is now replaced entirely with the distribution field. Additionally, the field is restricted to articles where the platforms leaves the distribution method/media ambiguous. That course of action is also in line with the original discussion. Prime Blue (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've asked for more input at WT:VG. I'd be OK using the distribution field for everything, but instead of removing the media field, you should just make it point to the same thing. - hahnchen 20:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Removed edit request as there seems to be some room for discussion still. What do you mean by "point to the same thing"? Prime Blue (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've asked for more input at WT:VG. I'd be OK using the distribution field for everything, but instead of removing the media field, you should just make it point to the same thing. - hahnchen 20:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- See this edit. Hahnchen's case was to remove the distribution field as it does not supersede the media field. As the contents of the distribution field do not work in the media field but it fits vice-versa, the media field is now replaced entirely with the distribution field. Additionally, the field is restricted to articles where the platforms leaves the distribution method/media ambiguous. That course of action is also in line with the original discussion. Prime Blue (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain why we shouldn't just revert back to the singular media field. I originally thought it referred specifically to storage media, but it seems to refer to the broad definition of digital media, which could encompass CDs as well as network delivery. - hahnchen 00:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Because "download" is not a type of media, "none (digital)" is a very clunky way of explaining it and all of the contents fit the distribution field without any problems. Prime Blue (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is a form of media. Not storage media, but it could be classified as the transmission medium, which is covered under digital media. If you're using that relaxed definition of media, it easily covers everything the distribution field offers. The distribution field actually leads to content delivery which almost exclusively used for digital distribution, and could lead to people filling in CDNs or services into the field. The media field has been used for years on Wikipedia, and can (and has previously covered) downloads. - hahnchen 21:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- The media field points to digital media. A download is not a type of digital media, no matter how you turn or twist it – and the article does not talk about digital distribution in any way. Additionally, your definition of content delivery is wrong: The term is not a synonym for digital distribution and the article clearly explains that it is instead "the delivery of media content", and it goes on to specifically mention the two types of content delivery: "Delivery of finished content for digital distribution" and "Delivery of the end product to the consumer". And your concerns over the usage of the distribution field are not valid: Everything will be explained in the infobox documentation as it already is and there are – let's face it – a lot more people who use the media field the wrong way by including intricate details like cartridge sizes and number of discs. But this is all irrelevant to this discussion. That said, I find that your stubbornness in opposing one field over the other is reaching hardly bearable levels, especially given the fact that I have already compromised to cut it back down to one field for all the field contents and to limit the articles the field is used on. Prime Blue (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Let's roll back a bit. You suggested the distribution field, you had one support, from the entire video game space, and then implemented it - that's not a consensus, I'm trying to reverse that. Above, you failed to even justify why you think the field is relevant. Download could just be classed as a form of transmission medium as streaming media is. And content delivery is synonymous with digital distribution. In the real world, it's called supply chain management. Try searching for "content delivery" on Google Books and see what you get. - hahnchen 21:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed: even if you talk traditional media (newspaper, magazines, etc.) it's recognized that "online distribution" is a new media type. I would consider "online distribution" as the media term for downloadable titles as to diff from the possibly-confusing "digital distribution". --MASEM (t) 21:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Let's roll back a bit. You suggested the distribution field, you had one support, from the entire video game space, and then implemented it - that's not a consensus, I'm trying to reverse that. Above, you failed to even justify why you think the field is relevant. Download could just be classed as a form of transmission medium as streaming media is. And content delivery is synonymous with digital distribution. In the real world, it's called supply chain management. Try searching for "content delivery" on Google Books and see what you get. - hahnchen 21:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- The media field points to digital media. A download is not a type of digital media, no matter how you turn or twist it – and the article does not talk about digital distribution in any way. Additionally, your definition of content delivery is wrong: The term is not a synonym for digital distribution and the article clearly explains that it is instead "the delivery of media content", and it goes on to specifically mention the two types of content delivery: "Delivery of finished content for digital distribution" and "Delivery of the end product to the consumer". And your concerns over the usage of the distribution field are not valid: Everything will be explained in the infobox documentation as it already is and there are – let's face it – a lot more people who use the media field the wrong way by including intricate details like cartridge sizes and number of discs. But this is all irrelevant to this discussion. That said, I find that your stubbornness in opposing one field over the other is reaching hardly bearable levels, especially given the fact that I have already compromised to cut it back down to one field for all the field contents and to limit the articles the field is used on. Prime Blue (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is a form of media. Not storage media, but it could be classified as the transmission medium, which is covered under digital media. If you're using that relaxed definition of media, it easily covers everything the distribution field offers. The distribution field actually leads to content delivery which almost exclusively used for digital distribution, and could lead to people filling in CDNs or services into the field. The media field has been used for years on Wikipedia, and can (and has previously covered) downloads. - hahnchen 21:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
As I have said before, I am perfectly fine with removing one of the fields, grouping the contents into the remaining one and limiting it to articles where it is actually ambiguous – but all the contents have to fit the field. Neither "download" nor "cloud computing" (it was Jinnai who insisted on the latter, before someone comes complaining to me...) are types of media, especially not in the sense explained in the "Digital media" article (which refers exclusively to physical media). I'd be more open to the idea if you had reliable sources backing up that those two contents are in fact a type of media. Same goes for content delivery: Neither of the reliable books defines content delivery as a synonym of digital distribution – and you'll notice that the books turning up on Google Books are also based entirely on the online distribution aspect and not the traditional delivery of digital media. Though, if you still insist it is a synonym, I have nothing against removing the link to "Content delivery" either. The article is lackluster and, given that users will know what the field tries to convey by its contents, not much of a help anyway. Prime Blue (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
When did the infobox get this wide? How to change that
Everywhere this template is used, it takes up far too much of the article. It wasn't always this wide. It takes up 50% of the top of the articles its in. Can we reduce it back to its original size? Even if you reduce the size of the image in it, its still that big. [1] Compared to what it was previously. [2] Dream Focus 06:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Both look the same width here. Could be a browser issue. --MASEM (t) 06:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Firefox 3.6.3 is what I'm using. People complain about it loading up badly for them as well, and are trying to eliminate the infobox altogether because of it. Wikipedia itself must've changed something that is causing this problem, since the same article imported to the wikia still works fine. Dream Focus 06:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I also see no difference, im also using Firefox but version 3.6.12. Salavat (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I updated to the newest version, which is 3.6.12, and still have the problem. Using Windows Vista, although no idea why that would matter. Some see the problem, others don't. That is weird. Dream Focus 08:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I can only speculate it may have to do with the fundraising banner, but that's not an assurance. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I checked the box in "my preferences" under "browser gadgets" to "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner". Reload the page, still the same problem. I continued the discussion at the help desk[3] since someone there might know, and it does affect all infoboxes not just this one. Dream Focus 15:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- It may be because you accidently zoomed in text.陣内Jinnai 18:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! That solved the problem. In Firefox I click the View tab, then Zoom, then Reset, and its all better now. I'll tell the others. Dream Focus 21:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- It may be because you accidently zoomed in text.陣内Jinnai 18:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I checked the box in "my preferences" under "browser gadgets" to "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner". Reload the page, still the same problem. I continued the discussion at the help desk[3] since someone there might know, and it does affect all infoboxes not just this one. Dream Focus 15:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I can only speculate it may have to do with the fundraising banner, but that's not an assurance. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I updated to the newest version, which is 3.6.12, and still have the problem. Using Windows Vista, although no idea why that would matter. Some see the problem, others don't. That is weird. Dream Focus 08:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I also see no difference, im also using Firefox but version 3.6.12. Salavat (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Firefox 3.6.3 is what I'm using. People complain about it loading up badly for them as well, and are trying to eliminate the infobox altogether because of it. Wikipedia itself must've changed something that is causing this problem, since the same article imported to the wikia still works fine. Dream Focus 06:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
is it acceptable to have the infobox not load up at all?
- Need more opinions at a game article page that involves this template. Some want to make it so that just the image shows up and not any of the infobox text for the first infobox, and then nothing at all for the second infobox for the expansion pack farther down into the article. Just a collapsed state and you have to click "show" to see it. Please click both edits to see. [4] Since the experts about this box are on this talk page, I assume, does any article out there that uses it do this? Doesn't it defeat the purpose of having an infobox entirely? Is this a good place to ask for a third opinion about this, since it is concerning this template? Dream Focus 15:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- The main infobox at the top of the article should never be collapsed completely per WP:ACCESS, though individual fields within it can be (see the documentation for the exact fields). The second box further down is debatable, though if there is enough space in the article, I see no reason to collapse it. It's all about weighing up WP:ACCESS against formatting. Prime Blue (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- We have never wanted to completely collapse the main infobox - just the text in it. This box would be okay to have fully expanded. But in the case of the second i-box, it pushes other material (a box on the games reception) almost completely out of the reception section. That one needs to be collapsed. Nolelover It's football season! 18:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- You're not really allowed to collapse much. You can collapse long lists of production staff or releases, but the other info would have ACCESS violations. You may have to move your image to the left rather than right. Looking at the article, you can collapse all but the first release date.陣内Jinnai 18:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- I assume you are talking about the first infobox, in the lead? Nolelover It's football season! 18:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see where WP:ACCESS says the infobox can not be collapsed (or if it is considered collapsed if the image is shown). Could someone point me to the section of WP:ACCESS where infoboxes are discussed? WP:ACCESS specifically says infoboxes are optional. Vyeh (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- See the section "Users with limited CSS/JavaScript support". --MASEM (t) 19:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. It looks like infobox content that is mentioned elsewhere in the article can be collapsed as the intent is not to deny article content to people with limited CSS/JavaScript support, but it is recognized that their experience will be inferior. Vyeh (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- See the section "Users with limited CSS/JavaScript support". --MASEM (t) 19:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see where WP:ACCESS says the infobox can not be collapsed (or if it is considered collapsed if the image is shown). Could someone point me to the section of WP:ACCESS where infoboxes are discussed? WP:ACCESS specifically says infoboxes are optional. Vyeh (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- I assume you are talking about the first infobox, in the lead? Nolelover It's football season! 18:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- You're not really allowed to collapse much. You can collapse long lists of production staff or releases, but the other info would have ACCESS violations. You may have to move your image to the left rather than right. Looking at the article, you can collapse all but the first release date.陣内Jinnai 18:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- We have never wanted to completely collapse the main infobox - just the text in it. This box would be okay to have fully expanded. But in the case of the second i-box, it pushes other material (a box on the games reception) almost completely out of the reception section. That one needs to be collapsed. Nolelover It's football season! 18:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- The main infobox at the top of the article should never be collapsed completely per WP:ACCESS, though individual fields within it can be (see the documentation for the exact fields). The second box further down is debatable, though if there is enough space in the article, I see no reason to collapse it. It's all about weighing up WP:ACCESS against formatting. Prime Blue (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think I fixed the problem with alignment using Wikipedia code to make things work out properly, so please look at the article now and discuss it on the talk page there. Dream Focus 19:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Looks fine, but that second infobox needs to be merged with the first one per WP:LAYOUT.陣内Jinnai 19:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Two infoboxes are certainly not forbidden, but in this concrete case, I'm almost leaning towards merging them as well: The only different fields are designer, version and release date. At the expense of the version field (and under the condition that the designer situation is explained in the article), a single infobox with the current formats employed would look like that. Prime Blue (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Vyeh, I say we just go ahead and merge the infoboxes...now! Anything, and I do mean anything, looks better then this! Nolelover It's football season! 21:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of implementing Prime Blue's suggestion. Vyeh (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Deperecate the Version Field
The most recent version number of any software is a piece of highly dynamic unpredictably time sensitive information, I don't think it's something that should be generally included. Can the version field be deprecated or removed completely? --Pyroguy (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- The last time it was discussed, we had a weak remove and a weak keep. I can't say I'd care much if it was removed. Prime Blue (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've personally found the version information to be a useful aid when patching games. In some cases, the information is vital: developers may go out of business or otherwise wholly cease supporting a multiplayer game that still needs the final version for productive matchmaking on GameRanger or GameSpy. Strangely enough, I don't recall ever encountering inaccurate information, either, though I'd imagine it is a reasonable cause for concern. — C M B J 05:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Remember that we're serving the non-gamer reader here. A version number, while certainly useful to a gamer that is trying to patch things, has very little value to anyone else. In the case you described, it's better to go to fileplanet or other game download site and look to see what patches are there, than to rely on WP for that. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've personally found the version information to be a useful aid when patching games. In some cases, the information is vital: developers may go out of business or otherwise wholly cease supporting a multiplayer game that still needs the final version for productive matchmaking on GameRanger or GameSpy. Strangely enough, I don't recall ever encountering inaccurate information, either, though I'd imagine it is a reasonable cause for concern. — C M B J 05:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- The latest version field does seem like info creeping. While it may be "useful" information, it isn't defining of the subject. This is information that one should get from a game wiki. It also gets frequently abused by modders (or fans of mods) attempting to change the canonical version number to a mod version. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- In its favour, it's a good way for the reader to quickly see whether a title is still a going concern with its developers, or how long it was "supported" for. Miremare 18:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would say the version number marginally accounts for essential info you'd expect to find at a glance for PC games.陣内Jinnai 03:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- I recognize its utility, but I still don't think it's any more essential than a dozen other things one could mention. When all of those things are put into the infobox, it becomes info creep, a bunch of little things that a few might, but most do not care about when seeking an encyclopedic overview. IMO the standard for this type of detail simply has to be set higher, especially when e.g. information like DRM is excluded (and that even has a context of importance outside the actual playing of the game). Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- The version field does define the subject, that's exactly what it does. I agree that the field is much more useful for describing ongoing software projects such as VLC media player, but even for games, it can be important - for example, Counter-Strike 1.6 is massively removed from Counter-Strike b6.0. - hahnchen 22:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- But we don't have separate articles for CS 1.6 and CS b6.0 - they're one and the same. It's fine to discuss the differences within the article, but the reader (non-gamer) isn't going to care in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- If we had separate articles, then we wouldn't need the field. The Counter-Strike article isn't very good, but if it were to have a gameplay section, it would discuss 1.6 gameplay. The version field defines the subject, a non-techy may not care about it, in the same way a non-techy does not care about the browser version they are using - this doesn't make it unimportant. - hahnchen 23:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- But we don't have separate articles for CS 1.6 and CS b6.0 - they're one and the same. It's fine to discuss the differences within the article, but the reader (non-gamer) isn't going to care in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- The version field does define the subject, that's exactly what it does. I agree that the field is much more useful for describing ongoing software projects such as VLC media player, but even for games, it can be important - for example, Counter-Strike 1.6 is massively removed from Counter-Strike b6.0. - hahnchen 22:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I recognize its utility, but I still don't think it's any more essential than a dozen other things one could mention. When all of those things are put into the infobox, it becomes info creep, a bunch of little things that a few might, but most do not care about when seeking an encyclopedic overview. IMO the standard for this type of detail simply has to be set higher, especially when e.g. information like DRM is excluded (and that even has a context of importance outside the actual playing of the game). Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would say the version number marginally accounts for essential info you'd expect to find at a glance for PC games.陣内Jinnai 03:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- In its favour, it's a good way for the reader to quickly see whether a title is still a going concern with its developers, or how long it was "supported" for. Miremare 18:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)