Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 3

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)
 * 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 VG 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)

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.  Pagra shtak  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)

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)

Via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries

 * 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 clarifications, annotations, etc. I suppose -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 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. JACO  PLANE  • 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:

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)". - hahnch  e  n 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.  Pagra shtak  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)
 * I would agree that this would be a useful inclusion - I can't see how people are complaining about cluttering, as this box is already a lot emptier than many others, for example TV show infoboxes. If there are no objections soon, I'll go ahead and add it. The Islander 17:36, 26 August 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.
 * 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, 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)
 * This is an excellent idea. I was actually quite surprised that it wasn't a field already. Nethack and Angband currently use Infobox Software probably in part due to the lack of a license field in this template. Feezo (Talk) 05:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a decent suggestion but my one reservation is that this field far from being a simple field could have the ability to sprawl. Copyright law, whilst having a thread of commonality running through it, has little quirks that are particular to specific countries, we could end up with the situation where we have to list various countries with different licenses. - X201 09:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Couldn't the options be limited? ie. Don't include Beerware and postcardware for example. Limit the options to Copyrighted ... freeware ... abandonware etc. Just a few common stock selections that people can use. I don't think its all that common that a game would have a different license in one country to another, at least not a significant difference. -Gohst 04:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Too restrictive. See Category:Software licenses. Feezo (Talk) 12:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think its a field which has use. I'm open to any suggestions, whether its include ALL the licences or a refinement of some of the more less used ones... it doesn't bother me. Its just when you've got a games like Seiklus and Need For Speed up here, a quick look at the infobox will let you know what is happening with the game. Same way as the Commander Keen games are still copyrighted. -Gohst 01:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No objections have been raised, so I'm requesting the addition of a License field identical to Infobox Software. {{#if:{{{licence|}}}Feezo (Talk) 02:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * {{done}} Tra (Talk) 14:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. -Gohst 12:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, you'll probably want to add an entry to Template talk:Infobox CVG/Syntax Guide depending on how you plan to use the field. Tra (Talk) 14:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Feezo (Talk) 05:20, 30 July 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)