Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 4

Frames per second
Many games run at a constant framerate on a particular platform. I think it would be useful to have a framerate field to place this data.

Link to game website
I think it would be very useful if you were able to add link yo the game website! - Titan602 - The mind of darkness 16:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, a field "official website" would be very useful and shouldn't be too open to abuse since the word "official" is pretty clear. Any dissenters? GDallimore (Talk) 16:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd expect to find the Official website alongside all the other links in the external links section. The infobox is getting bigger and bigger and bloating beyond it's original use which was to give the reader a quick blast of important facts. I'll use the same example I used last time a request for an official website field was raised.
 * Which game would you expect to find at http://www.bladerunner.com/ ?
 * The original discussion is here Template_talk:Infobox_CVG/archive1 - X201 17:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all against infobox bloat, as will be clear from my comments elsewhere on this page, but this field I think would be a good one as part of the "summary information". For your bladerunner example, I actually wouldn't expect to find anything about a game at that site, given the popularity of the film! As to one other possibly valid point raised in the previous discussion which was essentially "not all games have sites", that's just a good reason to make the field optional and enough games DO have official sites that it's a useful link to have. Perhaps not console games so much, but certainly many PC games have long-lasting websites with useful info, updates and so forth. eg http://www.civ3.com .GDallimore (Talk) 22:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Copy protection
I request creating a field for the type of copy protection. This is notable since several forms of copy protection are controversial, such as Starforce or online DRM like Steam. It is something that the user has a right to know before buying or installing the game. Ham Pastrami 02:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea, but different releases of a game can have different protection schemes. Even things like StarForce aren't applied to every release these days. It'd be very fiddly to include this kind of information per-release in the infobox, and I am completely opposed any kind of blanket-statement field (even if it is true for a title at the time of writing). A section in the article would be much more flexible. --Tom Edwards 12:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I considered that also, as protection methods are occasionally removed by patches, or differ between regions (where there may be different publishers). But these situations can be delineated within the infobox field, in much the same way as "Release date" (multiple dates for different regions) or "Media" (as with multi-platform releases on cartridge vs CD vs DVD). A section in the article seems to be overkill, as the issues related to StarForce should be discussed in the StarForce article and not in each game that uses it. It's also questionable as to whether post-installation removal methods actually justifies the removal of association. As in the article you referenced, the removal of StarForce protection from one title (or the uninstallation of the title) does not necessitate the removal of StarForce's software from the system (which is one of the points of controversy). Thus, as long as StarForce is installed at all, it remains resident on the host computer, regardless of whether the protection aspect is removed later, and people interested in keeping their system free of such intrusions are not aided by revisionism claiming the game to be StarForce-free. I just think that the presence of this information at all far outweighs the potential negatives of having incomplete information (which is always a danger of WP anyway). Ham Pastrami 03:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But these situations can be delineated within the infobox field, in much the same way as "Release date" (multiple dates for different regions) or "Media"
 * Which is exactly what I think would be bloating the infobox up. The majority of copy protection schemes aren't of any great interest to normal users, remember. In fact StarForce is the only example I can think of that is. You're right that a section would be too much; perhaps just a sentence in the introduction?
 * As in the article you referenced, the removal of StarForce protection from one title (or the uninstallation of the title) does not necessitate the removal of StarForce's software from the system (which is one of the points of controversy).
 * That was just an example (though as it happens TM on Steam used the driverless version of SF, so it still stands as one). There are or may be other situations where whatever protection is used elsewhere isn't present at all. --Tom Edwards 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Pruning the template
OK, are there any fields in this lengthy template that can be removed to remove bloat? Here are two of my suggestions for fields that I think should be removed. Add others if you have a good reason for deleting and we'll try to build some consensus on each one. Suggest holding a discussion under each point below and sign your individual points like in an AfD. GDallimore (Talk) 22:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * media
 * Delete Will normally be totally obvious from the platforms supported and/or the age of the game. eg this Dreamcast game came on a GD-ROM. Oooh, really! Is it useful information anyway? I could see a field like this one being used to indicate whether it is sold on a medium or if it is download or online only, but let's lose this field for now and think about replacements later. GDallimore (Talk) 22:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Is useful for cross-platform games, especially for older PC games. Also useful for newer games which (possibly in the future) are only available through online distributers, such as GamersGate. SharkD 17:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * input
 * Delete Not particularly useful to my mind in the infobox. Are readers really going to care to find this information that quickly? Additionally, such information would be valuable only to players of the game, I would say, so it's more trivia than it is encyclopedic information. GDallimore (Talk) 22:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep SharkD 17:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No opinion at the moment, although in both of these cases they apply more to PC games than anything else. Please mention this discussion on the main project page. Andre (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasn't input one of the arcade fields originally? - X201 22:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected: add hCalendar microformat
Please add hCalendar microformat mark-up (as used recently on Infobox Album, Infobox Single and Infobox Film) by making these three changes, each adding one class:

{| class="infobox bordered"

to:

{| class="infobox bordered vevent"

and:

background-color: #CCCCFF;" | 

to:

background-color: #CCCCFF;" class="summary" | 

and:

{{#if:{{{designer|}}}|

to:

{{#if:{{{designer|}}}|

I'll then update the documentation and extend this bot request to use {{tl|start date}} for the earliest release date on each instance of the template. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Any chance of explaining the changes and if required allowing the CVG project to decide if they want them? What is hcalendar format? How will it benefit us? - X201 21:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One aspect: From the CVG project side, it was noticed that many older games have released dates on December 31 or January 1 of certain years. Checking against gaming sites like IGN and the like show that these odd dates are coming from those sites, likely due to their inability of their databases to handle year-old release information.  We were looking to get a bot to cycle through articles with the CVG infobox to pull any articles with these dates into a category to be able to check them.
 * General purpose, the hCalendar format is a way to make date representations into an XHTML format that then can be used by other applications. As other parts of wikipedia are now using this for release information (Films and musical singles and albums), it would seem to make sense to do that for video games as well. (see WP:BOTREQ) --Masem 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So in simple plain English you're saying a microformat is a way of explicitly tagging an infobox item, the same as if it were a field in a database, so that it can be read by an external entity and so that that external whatever-it-is knows that in, say a game name field it's getting the game name or in a designer field the designer? . If that is it in a nutshell I hope the Microformats team don't go into advertising, because their project page is nowhere near "clear and easy to understand". - X201 21:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. By the way, a bot isn't needed to detect articles with a date of December 31 or January 1 – ParserFunctions can handle that. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So does this actually help with the 31 December & 1 January thing, and if so how?  Mi re ma re  19:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

editprotected
Per 1, 2, and 3:

 ! style="background-color: #ccccff; white-space: nowrap;" | Release date(s) →  ! style="background-color: #ccccff; white-space: nowrap;" | Release date(s)

&mdash; madman bum and angel 16:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Declined. This wouldn't work. It would require the contents of the release date parameter to consist of only the month and day. I think we're going to need a bot for this one, but I may be wrong. --- RockMFR 17:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. It was my understanding that that was all there was.  I'm not involved with the project.  &mdash; madman bum and angel 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Adjoining game infoboxes
Is there any way two repeat two infoboxes in the template? Like for an expansion, or an updated version? If not, could there be? Common practice seems to be to put a separate infobox in a different section. This sometimes leads to a complete separation of new information that could be better put into the appropriate game sections (gameplay, story, etc.). I didn't see any info on this, sorry if I missed something obvious. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  06:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Empty fields
In the instructions on the template's page, it says that all fields are optional. However if the field is left blank or if the field is omitted completely certain fields still show up in the table. Would it be better to only display the fileds that are filled in? On Spore (video game) people are constantly changing the release date, for example. If the field could be omitted then it wouldn't attract casual editors' eyes and be the cause of constant reverts. What do others think? --Monotonehell 00:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Making them all hidden when empty makes sense to me. Can't think of a reason not to at the moment. - X201 07:56, 22 August 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)
 * I was just coming here to post that very question. Seems counter-productive and makes the infobox less informative. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble   argue  check ) 02:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was removed because it was getting way out of control, mainly people listing games that weren't direct sequels or not even sequels at all but just joined by the same character. The best way out of it was removal of Preceded/Followed by and to use the Series field instead to point readers to "series" articles about a whole game series which would provide context for any half or spiritual sequels rather than directing readers to a single article out of context. - X201 14:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can understand the issue, but the obvious solution is not to remove useful functionality from a template, but to remove the non-sequel entries in the individual articles. Many users like to include improper fair-use images in articles, but that doesn't mean we should make the Image tags only work for commons images.  I'm going to ask to restore the functionality.  I would suggest putting a warning about irrelevant non-sequel games in the template documentation. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble   argue  check ) 21:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Discuss this among the relevant WikiProject first. The comments here are nine months apart. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Move to Template:Infobox VG
editprotected The project this template is associated with changed name from WP:CVG to WP:VG ages ago, and the template name should reflect this. --MrStalker talk 14:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also change this: {| class="infobox bordered vevent" style="float: ; width: ; font-size: 90%; text-align: left;" cellpadding="3" to this {| class="infobox bordered vevent" style="float: ; width: ; font-size: 90%; text-align: left;" cellpadding="3"

This eliminates the problem of having more white space on one side af the image then the other when using images 256px wide, which is the most common. --MrStalker talk 15:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of these changes should be discussed on WT:CVG first. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed a long time ago, back when WP:CVG made the big move to WP:VG. This template was simply overlooked during the move. Axem Titanium 17:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Even so. It's only good manners to mention this discussion on the main project talk page. That way, no one could say they weren't warned. - X201 18:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll do that now. Axem Titanium 21:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When you have gained consensus there, please re-add editprotected fot the edit to be made there. Tra (Talk) 16:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, almost forgot about this. Consensus, I believe. Axem Titanium 21:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a bot ready to convert this? I don't believe you have consensus without it.  Pagra shtak  00:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I am ready to do this, and I am arranging to have the articles migrated to the new name as well. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for everything. Axem Titanium 03:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing style to be more like Template:Infobox Game
This infobox is showing its age. Compare to Template:Infobox Game, which does away with the garish colours and compartments. In addition, it'd mean infoboxes looked a bit more like each other.

(old code removed 11:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

Thoughts? Chris Cunningham 20:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Full proposal now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Chris Cunningham 11:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit
editprotected

This ; to this ; or this {{{width|264px}};

This makes the box fit around 256px (standard size) boxarts better. --MrStalker talk 18:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't this edit wait and be combined with the new Infobox that is being discussed on the project page? - X201 09:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Disabling editprotected, since the template appears to be undergoing major revamps and this may not be relevant any more.  Pagra shtak  15:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Make caption optional
editprotected Please change  to. Thanks. Anomie 14:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You can use the slightly leaner  -- DatRoot 14:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And all fields will soon be optional when the discussion over the revamped infobox is completed on the project page. Can this edit wait? - X201 14:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually did this before noticing this request. Done in any event.  Pagra shtak  15:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * X201: No, it couldn't wait, as the caption was optional until this morning. This was causing to appear on existing articles, and therefore needed fixing. Anomie 16:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * X201: that hasn't even been mentioned in the new discussion..? I would still strongly oppose all fields being optional, for the reasons I gave in the original WT:CVG discussion: The current mandatory fields should remain so, as they are for important info that should always be included for every game. An empty cell next to "publisher" in the table highlights that the info is missing, making it more likely to be added, whereas "publisher" not appearing at all would hide the fact that the info is needed. But yes, caption should be optional.  Mi re ma re  16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I was struggling to keep track of the whole discussion and got a bit confused over what was actually happening. - X201 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur that some fields should be mandatory.  Pagra shtak  17:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. This following should be compulsory :- title,developer,publisher,released,genre,modes,platforms,media and input.--SkyWalker 14:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that "released" does not apply to games that have not yet been released, and "input" is really not useful unless there is input besides the standard controller. "media" is another that has been argued is redundant in many cases. IMO, the currently required fields are sufficient. Anomie 16:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected: tweak to column
editprotected

Can we change the heading "designer" to "designer(s)"? Because you can have multiple designers of importance working on a single game. It's only a minor change (three characters), but its significant. -- Sabre 21:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't do this for publisher or developer, and there can be multiples of those as well.  Pagra shtak  21:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The old template did say Developer(s), Publisher(s) Designer(s). But when Chris proposed the template change, he seemed to have changed it so that only the fields where the parameter name was plural displayed an (s), eg Mode(s), Platform(s). I mostly copied his field names when compiling the merged code. I tend to think it's better this way - I think having with (s)'s on all the fields they become a bit redundant. -- DatRoot 22:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can have more than one publisher or developer, but it's not a massively common occurance. To me it makes perfect sense to change a column heading when it is perfectly normal (hence the multiple wikilinks I provided) for that column to contain more than one designer. I'm not asking for a change to every column heading - that's not needed, I agree with DatRoot over that - just for three characters to be added to the end of a single column to acknowledge the fact there can and often is more than one key designer. With this column we are dealing with individuals rather than the developer and publisher columns which deal with companies and businesses. -- Sabre 12:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I agree with that. Ok, so we can get any others changed that want changing at the same time, here's all the current differences in field titles between the old and current versions.
 * {| class="wikitable" style="font-size: 90%"

!Old !Current !Old !Current
 * Developer(s) ||Publisher(s)||Distributor(s)||Designer(s)||Latest version||Release date(s)
 * Developer||Publisher||Distributor||Designer||Version||Released
 * Rating(s)||Genre(s)||Input||Arcade system(s)||Arcade CPU(s)||Arcade sound system(s)
 * Ratings||Genre||Input methods||Arcade system||Arcade CPU||Arcade sound system
 * }
 * -- DatRoot 15:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please work out all the requested changes, make a test version with the changes, get consensus, and then put up an editprotected request. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems a bit bureaucratic for a simple change of three characters, so I went off and looked at the film infobox for their way of doing things. Rather than using (s) at the end, I'd propose using "x by" like the film infobox. I'd also recommend putting in a section for music composition, seeing as how that is gradually becoming more important for both the games and the composers. I've created a sandbox with the proposed changes, but I'll warn you now that my ability to change these things is not brilliant and therefore the music column may not be implemented properly. The sandbox is here. -- Sabre (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Docs
I've copied over the documentation and syntax guide that weren't copied over when the template was moved. - everything looks Ok but give it the once over to check. - X201 20:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Any reason you copied instead of moved it? Anomie 00:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed it. X201, never cut and paste to move—use the move feature. If you cannot, contact an admin for help or use Requested moves. See Help:Moving a page and How to fix cut-and-paste moves for some background.  Pagra shtak  06:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I normally do use move. Can't think why I cut & pasted it though . Just one of those fail to engage brain moments. - X201 09:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest release
editprotected I suggest adding one or more of the following from Template:Infobox Software: This is useful for open source games (or games like Battlecruiser 3000AD) where content is added post-release or over a lengthy period of time, or for games which haven't reached v1.0 yet (such as Vega Strike). SharkD 17:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) latest release version
 * 2) latest release date
 * 3) latest preview version
 * 4) latest preview date
 * Assuming there is agreement to do this, the code needs to be written and tested first. Then add an editprotected tag as the final step, for an admin to copy the new code into the live template. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I created a test version that works OK. You can find it here. You can see it in action here. SharkD (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I added them to the usage example, but I'm not sure how to add them to Template talk:Infobox VG/Syntax Guide. --Geniac (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

System requirements
Is it necessary to have system requirements in this infobox? It seems close to a violation of WP:NOT ("a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions...instruction manuals, game guides..."). The only reason someone would add it is to help people know if their rigs can handle teh über 1337 grafix of RigMelter 2000, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. Is there a justification for its existence? Sticky Light 06:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I did make up VG Requirements that allow more detailed requirements outside of the infobox.
 * However, I think that requirements are useful from the standpoint that someone may want to research what hardware VGs have required over the years. It's not really a guide (though I see how you see it being used as a guide to uberbox construction), per se, but more factual information when it is compared to other games. --M ASEM  06:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

edit request
editprotected Please link "Ratings" to video game content rating system, thanks. 16@r (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've incorporated the above request into my proposed changed version (here). SharkD (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't it be done directly on the live version? 16@r (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done Harryboyles 10:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hidden, but with boxart shown
I was wondering if anyone would be willing to create a version of Infobox VG Hidden that displays the boxart by default. Thanks! SharkD (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)