Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 7

Request: add "written by" to the VG Infoboxes.
Jay Lender here. In the interest of full disclosure I'd like to start by saying that I'm a professional videogame writer.

Given today's powerful computers, sophisticated programming tools and abundant talent pool, making a product with compelling gameplay is within reach of anyone who has the budget to do so. As a result, game makers are increasingly turning to Story to help differentiate their product from others in the marketplace. The gaming experience is becoming as much about WHY you are killing thousands of zombies as about the visceral thrill of doing it. The gaming press is full of discussion about game writing, both in industry- and consumer-oriented publications, reflecting its growing importance.

It was not always this way: in the past, videogame writing was something that often happened as a golden master headed out the door--a task performed by non-professionals with a little free time on their hands--but today, game developers utilize the services of professional, dedicated writers from conception to ship date. The writing process often runs parallel to the design process, but while many videogame designers may write, not all writers provide design services. Some high-profile examples of this would include Randall Wallace's work on Titan Quest, and John Milius' work on Medal of Honor: European Assault. Neither writer was credited with design work--only with writing. (For my part, I can tell you that in my 14 or so game writing jobs I have always and exclusively been credited as a writer, even when I performed limited design duties alongside the writing.) The industry has already moved toward the adoption of the separate credit for this type of work, and game designers will eventually take both credits, just as writer/directors do (and are in fact compelled to do) in film and television.

''I propose that to reflect the reality in the industry, we add a separate "written by" credit to the VG Infobox. This credit would be located directly below the "designer(s)" credit, and would reflect the growing importance and awareness of writing and writers in videogames.''

Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaylender (talk • contribs) 00:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This could lead us to some other considerations as well, which would likely vary from game type to game type: important technical credits. Seems worth exploring the idea. -- Ned Scott 07:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - A writer is a designer. You can simply put "writer" after the designer's name in the infobox. E.g., "Joe Smith (lead writer)". There's also nothing keeping you from including a detailed list of credits within the article itself. SharkD (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I oppose having it in the infobox. But a separate credits infobox for the development section might be an idea. - X201 (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can see where you're coming from here, stories and scripts are becoming far more notable in video game development. My initial reaction is that writer can be put into the designer column, we've got articles that list artists and producers under the designer section, so adding "John Doe (writer) " isn't that difficult and is certainly an option should this not modification not happen. However, I think that this is certainly worth some consideration: look at Template:Infobox film for comparison, half of it is often filled with relevant credits. In addition to just a writer's column, a composer column would also not go amiss - they aren't really designers - and with game music often being a stepping stone towards film and tv music their role is becoming more noteworthy: Michael Giacchino is probably the best example for that, the composer for Call of Duty and Medal of Honour, who moved up to film and TV and is responsible for the scores to The Incredibles and Lost. After some thought, I tend to agree with Jaylender, extra development rows could be a benefit, at the least ones for writer and and composer. They'd have to be optional - sometimes the writer can be something else in the project as well, like Chris Metzen's role in various guises around Blizzard's games. This gets an "Aye" from me, we should get with the times with credits. -- Sabre (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with the importance of writers, but this seems a little WP:POINTy-- it's not up to Wikipedia to make things important. I think most people would be challenged to think of any notable game writers. On the other hand, several designers and programmers have become household names. I certainly don't think a writer field should come before, say a lead programmer field or even a producer field. And at that rate you'd be turning the whole infobox into a credits list. This is the domain of specialized sites like MobyGames -- they actually do encourage people to fill out a full credits list. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Preceded By and Folowed By
I think preceded by and folowed by should be on the template. So then you could put the game before it and the game after it in the series.  wwesocks   02:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. That would be a good idea. Salavat (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we got rid of it at some stage in the past as game sequels, expansions, add-ons, spin-offs, etc aren't usually as clear cut as a simple "preceded by, followed by" arrangement. -- Sabre (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose because it gets either too complex as S@bre points out, or it's entirely trivial, e.g. Game X is followed by Game X2, followed by Game X3, etc. Not a particularly meaningful thing to have. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Any objection to the alternating color infobox ?
Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_VG#Ugly. this discussion], does anyone have any major objections to replacing the current infobox with the alternating colors version? I will make a wide-area announcement here and WP:VG after I do it as to handle any possible issues with the drop-in replacement. --M ASEM 14:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No objection. Fully in favour of it. The sooner the better. - X201 (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been waiting for it to take effect, you're all clear as far as I can tell. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 15:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Better. Liked it. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with everyone else. Go for it. I've been waiting for you to do it actually. The general consensus is for you to proceed, any concerns can be dealt with later really. -- .: Alex  :.  17:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already gone ahead and made the switch. Please let me know of any problems that arise. --M ASEM  17:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's one too many apostrophes ( ' ) surrounding the word Distributor(s): . --Silver Edge (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed on all 3 templates. --M ASEM 06:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you planning on updating InfoBox VG Hidden with Boxart as well? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Completed. Please let me know of any problems. --M ASEM  19:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Capital. Thank you. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

None whatsoever, thanks for the work you've put in. Someoneanother 14:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Spacing and noinclude
✅ This template currently suffers from a common problem of infoboxes, namely that the &lt;noinclude> opening tag at the end is on the line following the final "|}" of the table. This produces an extra newline in the article, which means a single blank line between the infobox and the following text leaves two blank lines instead of one. This can and should be fixed by moving the &lt;noinclude> onto the same line as the "|}". Hairy Dude (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed. (I've also fixed this on Hidden and Hidden w/ Boxart versions) --M ASEM  00:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Official website parameter
If Infobox company can have a "homepage" parameter, why can't Infobox VG? It would be useful for anyone wanting to quickly find the official website of a particular videogame. It Is Me Here (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Noone stated we shouldn't have it.--Rockfang (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Noone stated we shouldn't have it.--Rockfang (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I've noticed it, I shall state my objection to it. Infobox company is for a company, infobox VG is for a product, so comparisions there are invalid The official game site is already in most VG articles in the external links. Replicating it in the infobox is simply a waste of time and space - there's no real benefit to it. -- Sabre (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In the same vein as Sabre, that parameter could be mistakenly used to put in a fan site if there is no official site; I've also seen official sites be dropped when the sequel comes out. --M ASEM 12:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies for only just noticing this but I too oppose it. Due to games now having separate homepages for separate continents/regions this is only going to generate more "Well this is the official site", "but the article is written in Belgian English so..." arguments and we all know how much we need more of those. Links are served far better by the External links section where more than one possible "official" site can be linked to. - X201 (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ❌ No consensus for the change. PeterSymonds (talk)  13:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand the reasoning to not have it. I agree with the logic to not have one.  But how can consensus be established or deemed not established after this being "active" for not even an hour?--Rockfang (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I vote for this change. The benefit of having a link in the infobox is making the most important external link more visible to the reader. I don't see why this would be different than say for Infobox OS, Infobox Software, Infobox Game or even Infobox Brand. About the argument that there may not be one official link: most articles that use Infobox VG seem to agree on one external link titled "Official page". For those games that really do not have a single page, links can still be given in the External Links section. The change required is pretty trivial so I really don't buy the argument that it's a waste of time (See User:Avian/Infobox VG) Avian (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know this is an old discussion but I would like to suggest that the reasons given for not including it (namely that an unofficial site may be inadvertently added and that it is normally already mentioned in the External links section) could both equally apply to the company infobox but it is dealt with without issue on those pages. I think this would be a valuable addition to the infobox firstly because the External links section is normally buried at the bottom of the article and also, including the website in the infobox would further help distinguish the official site from Open Directory, Wikia and other links.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 13:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can the decision to apply this change be reconsidered? Avian (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You can propose it again if you want. Though it's probably better to do it in a new proposal than to re-activate this old one. It was re-proposed only a couple of weeks ago though.- X201 (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing whitespace
First of all, I don't want to flame anyone. But: What is it with this infobox and missing whitespace? Is there some kind of malfunctioning bot or editing tool or a few regular editors who honestly believe that removing extra whitespace will safe the project bandwidth costs? Because just about any VG related article I happen to occasionally edit has an inscrutable monolith of code sitting on top of it, instead of the easy-to-navigate table that an infobox should be, even on code level. And it's not just an issue with articles about older games, which might have been created before the various WikiProjects started revamping their infobox templates. No, this also applies to upcoming releases. Again, I don't want to step on anyone's toes here, just thought I should raise this issue at some point. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What articles do you see this happening in? --M ASEM 15:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say at least 90% of the VG articles I have encountered, including relatively new ones, i.e. Patapon (linking current revision). A rare example of a readable implementation of the box would be Battlefield Heroes. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, you're talking about how they appear within the source, not on screen, I'm assuming (as display-wise, I see no different in either example). The documents have the cleaner "table" approach, but I think what happens is that people tend to copy and paste from an older game article when creating a new one, instead of copying from here, and because of that, older infoboxes tend to be all grouped together.  As there's no harm in this, I don't think there is a push to fix this, but there's also no harm in cleaning these up as well. --M ASEM  16:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If it is only an issue of reused code, then a possible strategy to limit that would be to gradually work through WikiProject VG's featured article list (and eventually move on to the GAs), as these are the most likely articles to be used as a reference point. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[REQUEST] Change system requirements
People, shouldn't it be more correct if System requirements was changed to Minimum system requirements?? I don't think that's redundant. 20:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are minimum and recommended system requirements provided, there is a separate template VG Requirements that can outline the differences, and the infobox should point to this if they are complicated. But otherwise, it should be understood that what is provided in the infobox is "minimum" since that is what "requirements" implies, and the fewer words in the infobox, the better. --M ASEM  20:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture format suggestions
Spawning from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. If aspect ratios is to be used, then simply state it as such,

|

Currently, most articles are using this parameter to state resolutions, which is incorrect. I suggest the implementation of a maximum resolution field. This is relevant for computer and console games, and much easily verifiable than native resolution.

|


 * ✅ the parameter aspect ratio is now a synonym for picture format, and the parameter resolution is now available. Happy‑melon 10:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hrm, so are we now going to be using maximum upscaled resolution? I think native resolution is more informative. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 12:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki
Hello, is an admin can update the fr interwiki -> fr:Modèle:Infobox Jeu vidéo. Some robot update wrong thing on fr. Thank a lot for your help. bayo 07:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ - X201 (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Budget / Revenue
Movie infoboxes have a section for the movie's budget and revenue, I think we should add the same to Video Game infoboxes. Sure, the information won't be included on every game, but it's important information to know, especially for high-profile games. For example, Grand Theft Auto IV is speculated to be the most expensive video game ever made at $100 million, and is also expected to break sales records. Information like this is not currently easily comparable across video games because it isn't in the infobox. Rodzilla (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Requirements
This is consistently the messiest field in the infobox, and I think it should either be removed and delegated to another infobox, or reworked so that it has sub-fields or a sub-template to present the requirements uniformly, like rows for CPU:, RAM:, etc. To take things even further, perhaps we should consider splitting PC-specific and Arcade-specific fields to a secondary infobox or sub-template. Note: this is especially true when there are multiple platforms to consider. Then the requirements section is messy and BIG. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've previously made VG Requirements for this that should be used for any more complex than the basic lines. --M ASEM 02:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A minor change
A minor change in the latest release version/preview version display: a single slash separating the version number from the date. This is for clearer display and consistency with Infobox Software, which uses the same format. GregorB (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)



✅ Seem uncontroversial to me. --M ASEM 22:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This was really quick, thanks! GregorB (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Consistency across accepting singular in attribs
Bitten me a few times, this one. The template currently accepts, etc. but uses  and. We should allow single forms in all cases. While we're at it, the MoS for templates discourages mandatory attributes, so make them optional, and make "modes" a little clearer. Three one-liners.


 * Platform


 * Platform(s)

becomes




 * Genre


 * Genre(s)

becomes




 * Mode


 * Mode(s)

becomes



Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Happy‑melon 10:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Release dates in collaspible list format
Apparently someone has figured out how to make a section of a table have a collapsible format (see Collapsible list). This has been done on the Portal (video game) article.

I would propose that we adopt this to be part of the template, which requires adding one (maybe two) more parameters: the one required would be "first_released" which is just the date the game was first released anywhere, with no mention of country or system. This is the one that shows by default with the collapsed form of the list.

Now, realizing that many games only have one release date they can give (due to age or the like), I propose that a second parameter "no_release_list" (or whatever is easier to remember) be included. If this parameter is on, whatever values make sense for that, then there would be no use of the collapsible list, and the value from "first_released" would be used as the release parameter. --M ASEM 20:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fully support the above proposal, after dealing with Myst which had a bajillion release dates (I ended up removing several because sources were conflicted on when they were released, but there are others I would add if they could be collapsed by default.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 20:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This would be better rolled into vgrelease. I'm planning on updating vgrelease and VG Requirements to serve as neat collapsed subtemplates for this kind of thing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * May I ask how were you suggesting changing the vgrelease template? Was this going to become a separate template table like VG Requirements?  If not, and it was just improving vgrelease as to be used in the infobox, this proposal doesn't change that usage at all. --M ASEM  15:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of collapsing information like this. I'm alright with navboxes being collapsed, but article content is a different matter. If it's important enough to be in the infobox at all, which I think most people believe, then display it! What is the reasoning behind this proposal? --- RockMFR 03:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because for games such as Myst where there is a PC release date, a Mac release date, and dates for Playstation/3DO/Saturn/Jaguar/PSP and DS, it makes no sense to have an infobox which clutters the article content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 11:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Collapsing is not compatible with printing. Have you thought about the people who want to print articles? Kariteh (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Release dates should be contained within the prose as well. It shouldn't be a problem if the article is written properly. -- Sabre (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Masem mentioned the Portal (video game) article above as an example of his proposal. That article is a featured article yet does not contain all release dates of the infobox in the prose. Kariteh (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a valid point, and I'm checking to see if there is print support for collapsible navframes. --M ASEM 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Its a good idea, especially for the movie or sports games that are released on all possible platforms and have all different release dates. They make a very long list and being able to collapse it to one date would be good. Salavat (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to reseed this (and I'll toss a note at the WP:VG page), but specifically, this is what can be added: From a template side, this is not a problem to handle. --M ASEM 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One new parameter is added: "first_released" This should be a single date.
 * If this parameter is provided, then what is in "released" will be contained inside a collapsible list, with the value of "first_released" being the shown title of the collapsed list.
 * If this parameter is not provided (and thus the graceful backwards compatibility), then there will be no change from the present version of the template.


 * Support Seems like a reasonable idea here, as long as documentation makes it clear that its only for numerous release dates (ie not 2 or 3), as is the case on Portal or Myst. -- Sabre (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Definitely makes infoboxes look more elegant, with the details available to those who need them. I think editors can be trusted to use these collapsible fields on a case-by-case basis. Randomran (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

missing doc
I don't see any guidelines on what should go in the genre and platform fields. It'd be cool if someone added some. -- Akb4 (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The guideline for the Input field is also missing. - kollision (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The guideline for the input field is my own person bugbear to be honest. When I arrived here the guideline was to use generic entries of compatible control equipment eg Gamepad instead of Sixaxis and DualShock 3 And Steering Wheel instead of WonderWheelz Racing Wheel RX5. I don't know if the instruction was lost from the syntax guide or just never placed in there to start with. Either way it needs to go back in pronto. - X201 (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Title parameter
Can  be changed to , to allow for a blank parameter. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this was asked before (maybe not here), but a title is a necessary part of the infobox, even if the image repeats the title, simply because not everyone may necessarily see the image. Is there another reason for removing it ? --M ASEM  16:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to remove it. I want the code changed so that if someone only puts, it still displays the title instead of '. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Last Game, This Game, Next Game
Is it possible to add Last Game, This Game and Next Game options (in the same manner as Template:Infobox Album) to allow linking games in a series? -- JediLofty UserTalk 09:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Most video game series already have a series navigation box at the bottom of the article that already does this. I can't wait for the "This game was released after that one" "Ah but its a prequel so it comes before that.." arguments to start. - X201 (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, navboxes are better for this purpose because the order of games in a series is often not linear: unlike albums, video games often have spin-offs. Kariteh (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

[REQUEST] Alternate covers
If possible, I would like to see an addition to the infobox similar to the one on the album template that shows alternate covers/box art for games. Obviously it would only be used if the boxarts are significantly different, and not "exactly-the-same-except-for-rating". I think it would help give orphaned images their proper homes back. Yellow Mage (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This we have to be very cautious with. Even if the box arts are significantly different, there needs to be a compelling reason to include a second non-free image for the game's cover.  In some cases (see, for example, the Okami Wii cover/IGN watermark image) this is reasonable, but many others it is not really necessary.  I think adding a tag to the template would encourage people not including this correctly, and if the second cover is really necessary and discussed, can be included in the body of the text. --M ASEM  13:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)