Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 3

	Make Believe Game
Graphics Engine	Unreal Engine 3
Physics Engine	Havok 4.5
Animation Engine	Euphoria 2.7

	Make Believe Game
Engine (Graphics)	Unreal Engine 3
Engine (Physics)	Havok 4.5
Engine (Animation)	Euphoria 2.7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

→

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)

Footnotes

Footnotes are now possible. Taric25 17:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not support Combination removing footnotes, because it is not an unused field. Taric25 19:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Kindly explain the purpose of this field and why it is necessary. Combination 10:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles such as Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars use footnotes in their infobox. Taric25 09:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Other infoboxes use footnotes, such as {{Infobox Country or territory}}. (See United Kingdom for an example.) They are not redundant, and they do not belong at the end of an article. Cease and desist until you have consensus to revert! Taric25 19:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Combination, talk about this. Taric25 01:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop edit warring over this. Discuss it here, and only add footnotes if there is consensus. Pagra shtak 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I want Combination to talk about this. I have given my reason for adding footnotes, and video game articles, such as Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars use them. We have come to a consensus to move the information from a different section in the article to the footnotes of the infobox, just like {{Infobox Country or territory}} does with United Kingdom, on the talk page. Combination continues to revert without discussing it here. When I go to edit videogame articles that use Infobox footnotes, I see they are gone, and the information is lost and reduces the quality of the article. In addition, the footnotes have citations, and removing the footnotes deletes the linkback to them. In essence, the reader wonders something like, "Um, I see reference 4 in the References section, but it doesn't exist in the article? Why is it here?" Taric25 20:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You're just re asserting your position, there is no evidence of thorough discussion or concensus on WP:VG. Each template is treated as its own, guidelines for other infoboxes do not apply. Combination 08:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is giving any reason for the footnotes to not be in the template. Objecting on the grounds of not discussing is not a reasonable objection. Is there a reason for the footnotes to not be in the template? --- RockMFR 04:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The only objection to footnotes being in the template is that is is an unused field, which it’s not, because Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games articles such as Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars use it. Also, other Wikiprojects such as WikiProject Countries use footnotes in Template:Infobox Country in their articles such as United Kingdom. The only other objection is that there is no consensus, and that each template is treated as its own; guidelines for other infoboxes do not apply, however, Template:Infobox supports footnotes. Are there any other objections? I really don’t see why we can’t have footnotes like other Wikiprojects have with their Infobox templates. Taric25 04:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just curious. What other CVG articles use footnotes in the infobox? - X201 10:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

CVG articles can’t use footnotes in their infobox. For example, if you go to the article Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, you’ll see no footnotes in the Infobox, but if you edit the page, you'll see they're there. Another thing that’ll tip you off is seeing reference 6 and 7 at the bottom of the page, but if you click on the ^, nothing happens, because they’re in the Infobox footnotes, which this template’s current version does not support. I enabled the footnotes in another version, so they were visable at that time. They only way I know to see if other CVG articles use footnotes in their infobox is to search the source code of their older versions, since it’s most likely that they’ve been taken out and moved to another section by now. Taric25 15:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oscarthecat, when I aid that no one opposes it, I did so beause Combination was a red link. I see that it's back now. Anyway, I have exceplified footnotes usage in the usage section and am changing the template to match. Taric25 15:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

({{editprotected}} disabled 15:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC) by ais523; discussion is ongoing, if it peters out or comes to a consensus and someone still wants this change made, please place it back up at the end of the section)

Please revert to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_CVG&oldid=136452522 by Jacoplane to include footnotes for the reason listed above. Taric25 15:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have cancelled you edit request. As I explain below there is no good reason to have footnotes except that you have written an article in a way that requires them when it could be written in a better way. Footnotes unecessarily complicate an already complicated infobox, so please give a good reason why they should be included.GDallimore (Talk) 15:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have exemplified why we should use footnotes in the usage section. I ask for this edit, so users can see how, why, and where we should use footnotes in an Infobox template. Also, Jacoplane protected the page, and the only reason that it currently doesn't have them is because Oscarthecat, obviously a user who can edit protected pages, took them out, because my reason for adding the footnotes back was because I claimed that no one opposed the edit. I thought that because Combination turned into red links, and I though that user was banned or something. It looks like the links are back to blue, so I was wrong. In addition, Oscarthecat removed the footnotes, that user said to see the talk page… but neither Oscarthecat nor Combination wrote anything on the talk page. Please let us revert to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_CVG&oldid=136452522 by Jacoplane to include footnotes, so you can see their use in the usage section of this talk page. If you take a look at it and still don't agree after that, then discuss why you believe we should not have them. Taric25 16:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what GDallimore said below. Exactly the same effect could be achieved using reflabel & a notes section. It doesn't need a field adding to the template that will be useless in thousands of articles. - X201 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a look at how they're used in the usage section of this talk page with footnotes enabled before we make a decision. Taric25 16:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has already seen how they're used when you added & re-added them without consensus. The place for notes is at the end of the article or actually in the article text. The infobox is becoming like a mini encyclopaedia in itself. - X201 16:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I never either added or re–added footnotes without consensus. I looked at the situation on the talk page, and if I felt it either favored or had gone stalemate, then a made an edit. Do not claim that I have gone against consensus without showing specific examples. Second of all, no one has seen how they're used, because I just added their usage to the usage section of this talk page a few minutes ago, and footnotes are not currently enabled. Third, before you claim that footnotes belong wherever you think they belong, because you think infoboxes don't need footnotes, why don't you look at (non-CVG) articles that use footnotes in their infoboxes and explain on their talk pages that their footnotes do not belong in their infobox on the article's talk page? Why not? Oh, that's right, because you'll be met with hostility, since the editors of those articles, such as United Kingdom, believe that footnotes better serve their infobox(es), such as Template:Infobox Country, rather than the notes section or text within the article. Go ahead. Why don't you remove their footnotes and place them within the text of the article or the notes section? Why not? Oh, that's right, because it goes against their established consensus. I am trying to build the same consensus here. Taric25 16:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

er..? A quick look at the edit history of the template and at the very first line of this discussion seems to disagree with you saying that you never added or re-added without consensus.

This has nothing to do with the infoboxes of other Wikiprojects , they can do what they want with their infoboxes, if they as rational people have decided to have Footnotes then that is their choice. Just because they have them doesn't mean CVG should and just because CVG decides against a feature doesn't mean others can't have it.

Other projects believe that footnotes serve a purpose in their articles, so they made the choice to have them, the best CVG has been able to muster on the subject is one person vehemently in favour of them and several others requesting that there be a consensus before they are added, it's not a stampede of demand either for or against is it?. - X201 08:24, 27 June 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#Infobox footnotes

Why does your Infobox, Template:Infobox Country, use footnotes? What are their purpose? Should other Infoboxes support footnotes? We request your comments at Template talk:Infobox CVG. Taric25 04:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably, I'd say, to avoid the information presented in the main body of the template being cluttered by (<small>) clarifications, annotations, etc. I suppose <ref>-style footnotes could be used, but, if I recall correctly, it was not favored as the infobox footnotes tended to be of a different kind (i.e. clarifications rather than providing reference information).
Whether or not other infoboxes should support footnotes depends, I guess, on whether or not they (could) include similar clarifications, annotations, etc.
Hope that helps. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The footnotes of the infobox are for clarification, annotation, or both. If they were references, we would use the <ref> element, as we currently do for other parts of the infobox and the rest of the article. Since the only user who opposed the change no longer exists (see the red links), I have made the change. Taric25 20:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

Has any type of professional reviewing ever been discussed for the Infobox. Example: I would like to add professional IGN game ratings (such as Grand Theft Auto III having a rating of 9.6/10). Thoughts? Thricecube 23:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been discussed (at the top of this page) but the discussion did not really get anywhere... I would suggest you raise this on WT:CVG since you're more likely to get a response there. I think you'll find a lot of opposition to this idea, though. 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. _TheIslander 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#Notes.

According to Help:Infobox, which while not official policy sounds quite sensible to me, Infoboxes are intended to "provide summary information". In summary, the release date was 1996 for that game. The fact that the title screen originall had the wrong year on it does not alter that fact although it might be an interesting point of trivia.

I guess what I'm saying is that the case for having a footnote in the infobox for this Mario game sounds dubious at best, so I suggest editing that particular article to find a better way to present the information.

But is there a case to have a footnote field in general, even if it probably shouldn't be used in this particular article? I think the case for adding a new field would have to be pretty good since this infobx contains a lot of fields already and it's important that it remain easily usable by all classes of editor. I can't think of a good reason to include a footnotes field, so suggest that one not be introduced.

Just my 2c. Thanks for listening GDallimore (Talk) 21:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

License2

I still think that it would be a good idea to have a liscence category. -Gohst 04:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

~~To serve what purpose?~~ Per #Licence, I presume. That sounds reasonable to me, but it would be good to get a couple more supportive comments. GDallimore (Talk) 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

{{editprotected}} No objections have been raised, so I'm requesting the addition of a License field identical to {{Infobox Software}}. {{#if: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)