Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 15
missing fieldsHi, several fields which exist in the good infobox software (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_software) are notable missing in this box: website, license, first vs current release. Adding them would lead to more consistency & I think these fields of the general software box help makign the video game infobox better fitting to the whole range of video games, e.g. also open source, community driven and indie games. Shaddim (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Since this is brought up every couple months, may be we should find the primary discussions and put them in a "commonly proposed fields" header or something? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The other side of the issue is that video games no longer are treated with the same type of careful attention to such detail as software; yes, back in the days of DOS and UNIX gaming, video games and software overlapped heavily in the sense of tracking version numbering, licenses, etc., but very few games today that matters anymore. We could add these fields, but they would only apply to a small fraction of the games out there, as noted the potential for well-intentioned misuse is far too high to justify supporting that small a fraction of games with those fields. We want editors to write these articles for the non-gamer, and most of those details you are asking for are more geared towards the gamer side, which is another reason why they were removed. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Infobox open source video game
Where are the reliable sources coming from for the contents of the licence field? Everything in the infobox should be a reflection of sourced info in the prose. - X201 (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Another alternativeWhat if we were to have a "license" field that would only accept certain terms (eg "public domain", "open-source", "freeware") and not display if none of those terms were used. And particularly making sure "commercial" or the like is not one of the allowed terms? In otherwords, we are treating the assumption the game is commercial by default by not displaying it (the case for most games) and only showing when it is non-commercial? This is by far the simplest and least disruptive approach (grandfathers all uses). We'd just need to set what are the allowed license fields. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Release for emulationPlatform: "This includes dedicated ports, but not games in emulation or services. " I'm curious about this, maybe it would be useful for the readers to let them know the game is available for some recent platform on older titles using the infobox. 179.7.213.60 (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
DistributorI'm not entirely advocating this, but I've been pondering it and wanted to see what everyone thought. Distributor is a field that has long caused issues, and in modern days become more and more antiquated as digital distribution has become a bigger player. Should we even have this field? In most cases, we've already slapped a rule that when it matches publisher, hide it. And in the rare cases beyond that, it is almost always unsourced and unmentioned in prose. Beyond that, is this field of any true encyclopedic value? -- ferret (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Bot proposalSee Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 18. I have suggested the removal of other previously supported parameters while the bot is running. What I wrote at the BRFA is: It may be helpful to remove other previously supported parameters at the same time. It looks like the main offenders in Category:Pages using infobox video game with unknown parameters are
I have finished cleaning out the maintenance category, including a few cases the bot missed Distributor. Should be easy for us to watch over it for invalid parameters now. -- ferret (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Programming languageCan someone please add a field for the programming language (as in Template:Infobox software)? Might be useful for certain games, especially if they are written in exotic or custom languages. --194.118.192.35 (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Improve formatting to be on pair with other InfoboxesCould it be possible to improve the formatting of this Infobox, with a better formatted title, and maybe with automatic field separation in categories? (not limited to only those 2 improvements). To explain myself better, Here is an example of a page using the television Infobox (used in 40,000 pages). Here is another example. I think it's important to have this widely used Infobox (used in 20,000 pages) visually and categorically robust like the rest of the popular ones. ~ posted by Genoskill (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata tracking categoriesWe have a pair of categories defined here at Category:Articles with infoboxes completely from Wikidata and Category:Articles using Infobox video game using locally defined parameters that IMO should categorize based on parameters which the templates allows us to pull from Wikidata rather than all parameters in the template. --Izno (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Revised version@Izno and Ferret: I've put together a revised version of the template at Template:Infobox video game/sandbox that uses Module:WikidataIB, which supports using preferred Wikidata values, not showing rows from Wikidata through
@Mike Peel: A few editors have stated that blank local values no longer suppress Wikidata, which was how Module:Wikidata functioned. Is that to be expected? My "go" vote on this was based around expecting the existing suppression to work, that is, there would be no change to current data pulls, just more available functionality. This is most commonly brought up in regards to the engine field. Please see WP:VG/WD and let me know if those instructions for suppression are no longer valid. If not, we may need to fall back, in part or whole, for a wider discussion. -- ferret (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Arbitrary break - new issues?Please add new issues here. The inclusion of a logo, and non-suppression of blank local values, have been fixed. -- ferret (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Unwanted Wikidata resultsAstroneer: the previous version (18 August) had no Wikidata references (it had a probably unnecessary "edit on Wikidata" in the infobox, but no values were taken or sourced from Wikidata). Since then, the only thing done to the article was adding one cat with no impact on Wikidata or the infobox[1]. The Wikidata item for the game also hasn't been changed since June, so that also can't explain the difference. So it must come from either this template directly, or an underlying template. The problem is that now the modes "Single-player, multiplayer" and the platforms "Microsoft Windows Xbox One" are sourced to Steam, Wikidata Q337535. That it is useless to get the Wikidata number for Steam instead of the enwiki link is a different issue (dependant on CiteQ, which is up for deletion anyway); that Steam is a shop and not the kind of source we want here is partially a problem of Wikidata (they shouldn't allow it) and partially a problem here (which Wikidata source should we port to here, and which not). But that this template adds Wikidata sources a) even though the values are locally added, not through Wikidata, and b) even though the actual value (i.c. XBox) is not even included in the Wikidata item, is a huge problem: basically, you are now taking local values and adding Wikidata sources for the same field, without any consideration whether they have the same value. This is a big nono of course. In general, when we have locally added values, like here, for these fields nothing from Wikidata (values, source, ...) should be imported. Fram (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fram: I need to test, but my understanding is that this parameter Mike has added to the sandbox, noicon, works like thus: If set to yes, WikidataIB does not output edit icons, and the "Edit on wikipedia" displays at the bottom. If set to no, WikidataIB will put little edit pen icons next to Wikidata values, and the link at the bottom will be hidden. Does that fit what you're looking for? Which would you prefer as a default? -- ferret (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Prequel and SequelIt would be really nice if someone changed the infobox to contain an option for prequels and sequels, thanks. XCoduster (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Add a game version informationHello everyone, I was wondering what are the opinions around here about adding a "game version" info for the games. Opinions?
Field orderThe field order in the infobox doesn't match the field order in the article Template:Infobox video game, specifically in the Full syntax, Syntax guide and TemplateData sections. For example, the staff fields (director, producer, writer, etc.) are at the top in the infobox; on the other hand the staff fields are at the bottom in Template:Infobox video game. Could someone make the field order in the infobox match the order in Template:Infobox video game? -- Wrath X (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Infobox widthCould the infobox width be slightly increased so as to match the width of infobox film? Both game and film infoboxes already have matching font sizes, images sizes and label-data gap. They also have similar fields (director, producer, writer, etc.). I think it would nice to have consistency between similar infoboxes. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes also mentions consistency between infoboxes as a design principle. -- Wrath X (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 11 December 2017
In the "bodystyle" parameter, change the width from "264px" to "22em". This is to match the width of infoboxes video game series, video game character and film. Wrath X (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Default image width
Could someone change the default image width so it fills the infobox more? One of previous changes (in September I think) made it so that images are now less wide. Comparison with different image ratios: I prefer the old size with less padding in all cases. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Removal of the display parameterIs there any reason why the
Optional support stopped parameter wanted neededI was editing some pages on MMO's and realized that we need optional parameters for putting in when support stops for the game. We need several:
This can mean patches and bugfixes for offline games. For online games we also need an to define when the servers are taken offline.
SeparatorThe Wikidata values returned by this template are set as separated by line breaks. From what I've seen this is unusual, doesn't look too good, and can't be changed. Now, the template default is comma-separated, which looks normal. However, an editor might want to use a different format sometimes, so I propose that we introduce another parameter into the infobox, which can be set as the separator. This can be done by changing
The series fieldUnless overridden, this automatically calls Wikidata, which can call any old rubbish in Wikipedia regardless of its relevance or irrelevance. Links to DAB pages get caught by User:DPL bot, which reports bad links to DAB pages per WP:INTDAB. Three editors, with over 200,000 edits between them, have been discussing this problem. One of them had found a solution, after about an hour's work. See User talk:Narky Blert#Eye of the Beholder. This is not acceptable. Templates like this which create bad links which are caught by a maintenance bot amount to WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Narky Blert (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Skate (video game) and Template:Infobox video game (series= field)@TheDeviantPro: Template:Infobox video game is one of about half-a-dozen templates which create spurious links to DAB pages. These are errors under WP:INTDABLINK. The guidelines take precedence over template documentation. If a well-behaved and long-established bot like User:DPL bot reports an error, then there is an error. The problem is almost certainly that, somewhere deep in its innards, Template:Infobox video game is making a #ifexist call to Wikipedia. The link may show as black rather than blue in the problem article, but the error is nonetheless there and it needs to be fixed. It cannot be swept under the carpet. I came across the problem in Skate (video game) for the fourth time because it had once again reappeared in Disambiguation pages with links. I have now fixed it in another way. Errors like this are easy to see, but extremely difficult to find and to fix. I doubt that there are as many as five editors on English Wikipedia who know how to do so. (Offhand, I can only think of another two or perhaps three. I have wasted well over an hour of my life learning how to do so.) Pinging Certes, who is the real expert on this type of template problem; and BD2412, who too has tried to fix this identical problem in Skate (video game), and who has had his fixes reversed twice. Repeatedly re-inserting an error which has been fixed is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Narky Blert (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Add new field for current statusI think a new field labeled "state" under "release" would be useful for quickly informing users if the game is currently defunct or still active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orelbon (talk • contribs) 00:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Edit request: adding "border" parameter
Include the
macOS in the infoboxWhy should game articles use the name of the OS when it was released? The previous names of macOS are already covered in its own article, and I think that keeping the older names will only bring confusion in the future. Software articles already use the most recent name, so why not video game articles? - 83.143.85.130 (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Is this just going to be ignored now? I started this discussion because I think the way macOS is treated right now is wrong. I want this to change, macOS should be the only thing that appears in any infobox, and if anyone has the time to make these change, they should be allowed to. - 83.143.85.130 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Still waiting for an actual discussion to occur here. I have stated why the current reasonings to keep the current rule are invalid, and I still aim to have it changed 83.143.85.130 (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Iterative gamesSome series push out many games, or every season in the case of sports games. Such as FIFA 98 has a sequel in FIFA 99. If you look at any sports infobox, they have "next" and "prev" parameters, for easy navigation between articles (Such as 2014 FIFA World Cup.)
On staff in infoboxI am suggesting an addition, can I see some support, opposition, or comments? The addition is in bold:
TarkusABtalk 22:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata |
 | This edit request to Template:Infobox video game has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add "follows" and "followed by" in videogame infobox template. This would make it much easier to navigate previous and next in a video game series instead of requiring the reader to return to the series page. Prodikl (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- This content is going to be covered in the article, likely in the lead, and doesn't seem supremely germane to the article topic at hand. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- This has been discussed multiple times before and has yet to garner consensus for it, so I doubt it does now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- To add to both, we would run into problems in many longer series of what "follows", is it by the release or by game chronology or other metrics? To use an example, there's at least three ways to organize the various Assassin's Creed titles. --Masem (t) 21:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the replies. I understand that there could possibly be some ambiguity regarding which series, but I think having the option is more helpful than not having the option. I think it is a worthwhile discussion point for each series to define their own series on a case by case basis. Users might add multiple entries for which series path they would follow
- E.g. (For "Assassin's Creed Rogue"):
- Followed by: Assassin's Creed Unity (Main Series)
- Followed by: Assassin's Creed Identity (Full Series)
- E.g. (For "Assassin's Creed Rogue"):
- Again, I understand and agree with the opinions listed here, I would only argue that it'd be a net gain having this option and wouldn't detract from the experience of reading and exploring a series, and on the contrary, would add to the experience. Thank you again for taking the time to consider and reply.Prodikl (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- For bigger series, this sort of thing is handled by the navbox instead, so it's not like this information isn't represented anywhere at all. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}}template. Izno (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Co-op
Can this be added to the modes field since it's technically different from a traditional multiplayer mode? I can name dozens of games in which the multiplayer is co-op only (e.g. Mario Galaxy and Odyssey, Knuckles' Chaotix, etc), and the article on the subject describes it as a distinctive mode. JOEBRO64 21:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be on board with this, as it has a dedicated article at Cooperative gameplay. -- ferret (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I do recall a discussion on this point, and the issue is that if you start differentiating between competitive and co-op, then people will want to add in other facets, like couch-vs-online co-op, asymetric multiplayer, etc. As long as we are very explicit that it is only 3 possible values, and that any specific aspects should be discussed in the body. --Masem (t) 00:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well, if you make it a switch statement, then you can set it to only have three values. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support distinguishing between competitive and cooperative multiplayer. Phediuk (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think the mode parameter should just be removed, as I feel like it's something that we have simply kept from the past where we used to include media, version numbers, and other non-essential forms of information. I'm aware this is probably not a popular opinion so its unlikely to get removed. But that being said, co-op is just a form of multiplayer, and we don't distinguish other forms that Masem brought up, so why this? But let's say this does pass, would this only be used for games that Joebro brought up? For example, would games that include co-op and PvP multiplayer include both (like Halo), or just the general multiplayer tag? I just feel like this is trying to solve a problem that prose handles better. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Any more responses to this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, removal is probably the best option. Once we have co-op in, people will start calling for PvE, PvP, couch play, and whatnot. Lordtobi (✉) 13:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- No opinion either way on whether we should remove the parameter, but I agree that co-op is unnecessary and opens the doors for a lot of different types of multiplayer modes that we would have to start covering - I am very against that.--Alexandra IDVtalk 13:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose removing the parameter. Whether a game is single or multiplayer is one of the most basic possible pieces of information about it, and is generally one of the first things stated in any coverage of any game. The modes field is essential. Phediuk (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Kill it. Prose handles the nuances better and categories handle the large segments. Last big discussion was here (2015), with a brief reprise in 2017. Haste the day when Wikidata starts handling these distinctions instead of us. (not watching, please
{{ping}}) czar 00:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC) - Oppose removing the parameter. Keep it to single/multiplayer as possible choices. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 01:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Co-op is still multiplayer, which is one of the two options for the field. I don't see a reason to complicate it further. There are many other multiplayer modes and variants. Since we can limit the field's values, I believe it can stay. Removal seems a bit extreme as same argument about details belonging in prose can be made for almost every field. Eventually, we might pull data from Wikidata, but not yet. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Any more responses to this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Guidelines for including Producer(s)
The current guidelines state:
Do not list the "Executive producer" or other "sub"-producer credits, as they are not generally as intimately involved in a game's development;
However, the page Video game producer has more nuanced view:
Most video and computer games are developed by third-party developers. In these cases, there may be external and internal producers. External producers may act as "executive producers" and are employed by the game's publisher.
For an internal producer, [a]n executive producer will be managing all of the products in the company and making sure that the games are on track to meet their goals and stay within the company's goals and direction.
This corresponds well with my own experience from the game industry.
I would therefore suggest to amend the guideline not to include Executive producer from publisher, but include them when they come internally from the developer, as in this case they are actually working very closely with the project.
--Elwetana (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I agree with this. For one, executive producers do usually take a more hands-off approach on the game's development, and this rule about "internal producers only" would most likely be ignored anyway, with people just adding any executive producer role they see. I'd like to see what others think first, as I may change my mind on it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- I also don't agree with adding executive producers either, but the justification seems to be a load of OR. I'd advocate to something like "regular" producers having precedence over general and executive producers when adding them to the infobox. If a game has "regular" producers, those would suffice. Otherwise add general or executive producers. Something along those lines. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 01:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- How would it be possible to distinguish external vs. internal executive producers without doing a bunch of original research? This is rarely reported on. The guideline as written was intended to discourage over-bloating the producer credit with a million names. An overly restrictive-sounding wording is helpful as a first line of defense against that but it can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Did you have a particular case in mind? As it stands, I don't see a compelling reason to change it. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I understand you point. All right, I will discuss this on the talk page of the specific game I am concerned about.--Elwetana (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- How would it be possible to distinguish external vs. internal executive producers without doing a bunch of original research? This is rarely reported on. The guideline as written was intended to discourage over-bloating the producer credit with a million names. An overly restrictive-sounding wording is helpful as a first line of defense against that but it can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Did you have a particular case in mind? As it stands, I don't see a compelling reason to change it. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Platform and Release Date fields
After considering for a long time, I'd like to discuss the above fields in the Infobox. Using Doom (1993 video game) as the ultimate example, I have to following two questions:
- Platform - Do we really need a platform field? Ignoring the ridiculous list present in the infobox, does any of that information at a cursory glance as a casual reader help me understand anything. I'm old enough to know what MS-DOS is, but what does it help to have this as part of an ever growing list of platforms. Doom could have been on that old Nintendo Game N Watch (it probably is somewhere), it doesn't help me understand what it is or how it operates. I'd like to propose removing platform entirely OR restricting it to initial launch only, as the rest will be explained in prose.
- Release Date - the second is largely the same as the first, what does creating a laundry list of dates do to enlighten or educate the reader? The Sega 32X port was apparently released at 3 different points in 1994. So what? It was released in 2005, 2006, 2009, 2012, this is not helping me understand what or why the game is, and these release dates either are, or should be in the prose. Even though the list is hidden it is still redundant and in some cases impossible to complete because the sources don't exist anymore to back them up. I'd like to propose again that we restrict this to original wide release date. This proposal would probably need some refinement for major Japanese games that were released there originally and not in English (the subject of this Wikipedia) until a later date, but beyond that, I think knowing Doom is a 1993 video game is all I need to know.
I think these also both align with our existing guidelines around developers in only aiming to listing the original and not people who port a game to a different format without changes. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- To be fair, the same argument can be extended to every single field in the infobox. What does a developer name mean to a reader? It tells them nothing about where they are situated or how big they are or what games they make. How does knowing the developer's name help the reader understand anything about the game? Should we remove the developer field? Genres are vague and diluted. Modes are unspecific. Roles vary greatly. Engine is specialist knowledge. Let's not even mention arcade fields. To sum up, I kind of see what you describe for all fields. Personally, I think the line for inclusion is fine where it is. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Echoing Hellzknowz, I do think that we opt to use the collapsable list more often in infoboxes in the case where a platform or release date list becomes longer than 2-4 lines, with the title of the collapsed list being the original platform of release and date. Or if it becomes even more unweildly (where the fully expanded list could take half the page), indicate a deference to the body. --Masem (t) 16:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hellknowz, I don't think that's fair, developer is akin to director or producer on films or music, platform is akin to DVD and VHS. Developers win awards, formats don't usually. You might have best PS4 game but not best Blu-ray disc.
- Masem, I do think deference to the body should be the default as otherwise where do we judge the cut off? Is it 5 dates? 6? Doom is an EXTREME example but I can't see a reason for that information to be in the infobox. Formats I think are pointless, it's one of the reasons I shift them in to the last part of the lead on articles I work on rather than the opening. For the uneducated user, PS4 doesn't give me any information about what the game is, it could be as much a AAA blockbuster as a small 8-bit indie game. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- If, with everything filled out and expanded, the infobox goes far outside my browser window (typically at 1000px high), then there's too much in there. Massively-ported games like Doom and Lemmings do need to be handled differently, but for the bulk of games that are not wildly ported, those platforms are important, particularly distinguishing from PC to console to handheld to mobile. They should not be buried. When you get to something like Doom, you can reduce the lede to something like "first released on PC and has been widely ported to many systems". --Masem (t) 19:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have generally used three as the cutoff point. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- We should not remove the platform field entirely. Platforms are a defining characteristic of many old games and drove how the game played and was presented. I could see an argument with reducing the fields to just original release, but ultimately I could not support because I'm uncomfortable with how the policy would treat cases like Snatcher and Sonic Chaos. Snatcher was first released on Japanese computers in 1988, but the more notable release in the English speaking world is the Sega CD version from 1994. And Sonic Chaos first came out on the Master System but is primarily known as a Game Gear game. TarkusABtalk 19:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well you could define a "notable" release then. As I said with dates above, if it was released on some type of Japanese only system first then we could include than and then the widest western release as we are a Wikipedia catering to that territory. I'd be happy to have that for Snatcher. As for Sonic Chaos I would have only thought it was a home console game tbh, I'd have gone with that release, but again if you can prove notability the game gear could go there aswell. In contemporary terms you would probably then list PC, Xbox One and PS4, for a new game, but we already exclude things like formats where a game is being emulated or available through a digital store. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Platforms are important and should not be removed—they put games into great technical context, and video games are a very technical medium. The problem of the infobox is not the number of platforms, but the number of regional release dates. I'd personally support getting rid of them and only have one release date (the first one) per platform. They are typically unsourced and added by drive-by editors anyway. Also, I'd support combining the platforms field into the release date because it's essentially a duplication. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- The only change I'd support is maybe just going with the initial release date in the infobox and detail everything else in the dedicated release section. That, or add native collapsible support in the parameter, which would serve the same general purpose. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose any change at this template for the problem attempting to be remedied. Individual articles with so much content for a given field that it beings unwieldy and detrimental to the infobox should be handled on case by case basis with local remedies. For example, creating a table of platforms and release dates somewhere in the article itself, and linking the infobox field to that table instead. This doesn't need hard-wired into the template documentation itself. We already have advice to using collapsible lists, and there's many other possible options. -- ferret (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm looking more at a guideline rule than a technical change if that helps. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Same answer. self-quote: "This doesn't need hard-wired into the template documentation itself." -- ferret (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm looking more at a guideline rule than a technical change if that helps. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with ferret. Despite individual cases where a unique fix is required, having a dedicated place to look for "expected" information like platform and release date across articles is good and important. The entire premise of an "infobox" on Wikipedia was built with this goal in mind and it's not just on video game articles. Readers land on an article on *any type of media* and expect to find the publication date in the infobox. Removing the release date and platform fields to fix Doom (1993) is a baby with the bathwater solution. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW in some articles I've seen if there's a ridiculous amount of platforms the game was released on, then it just says "Various" followed by a link to the development/release section. For Doom I'd do that and link to the article for versions of the game. JOEBRO64 19:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly what I described as a local remedy for Doom. We have ways to do this, we don't need to make them hard and fast rules though. -- ferret (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Ferret and Axem Titanium. I also want to say that regional release dates are important in video games due to how the medium doesn't regularly get simultaneous or near-simultaneous worldwide releases and translations in the same way films do (Japanese games often take several months or years to come out in English) and because of regional lockouts. Castlevania is a 1986 game, but wasn't playable in Europe until 1988. If I look up a game on Wikipedia, I expect to quickly at least find when it was originally published, and when it was available in the West.--Alexandra IDVtalk 20:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Derivative copyrighted cover arts
Hey, we have a user uploading derivative cover art. See File:Super Smash Bros Melee box art.png and its sources as an example. Does this violate WP:NFCCP #4? « Ryūkotsusei » 22:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, striping out (not cropping out) the platform branding is an improper derivative work. We do recommend cropped out the platform id when the game is on multiple platforms, if possible, but this is definitely not such as case, and even it is was, fully wiping it out is improper. --Masem (t) 22:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- That said, I see some of them , going through the wikia, are reportedly from E3 press kits. If they are, we should have the source to be to those kits, not through wikia. --Masem (t) 22:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Can we word the guideline better? My understanding is it's more for multiplatform games like Resident Evil 2 (2019), for example, that are not historically tied to any one platform. Melee on the other hand is a GameCube game through and through, as are some other game covers the user replaced, and thus they should retain the game banner as it's part of the game's original release and tied to its history. courtesy ping @Arkhandar:. TarkusABtalk 22:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I do agree that when the game was initially released 100% exclusive to one platform, the box art should remain that platform's box art, if that's the best we can do. Multi-platform releases should strive for no platform banner if possible. However, let's assume these images are truly owned by Nintendo - the ones that show the cover art without the platform branding. Then I think it is actually find to use those, as long as it is an official sources. We should not crop away to get that state. --Masem (t) 00:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- @TarkusAB and Masem: Thanks for both of your replies. I also agree that the guideline should be re-written to be more specific. I also think we should retain the original box art (with platform, publisher and rating banners) when the game has only been released for one platform. If the game has been released on more than one platform (including remakes and emulation re-releases) I think it's more appropriate to have the official packaging artwork instead (without banners). As a note, I've only uploaded official artwork, not any crops. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 20:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I do agree that when the game was initially released 100% exclusive to one platform, the box art should remain that platform's box art, if that's the best we can do. Multi-platform releases should strive for no platform banner if possible. However, let's assume these images are truly owned by Nintendo - the ones that show the cover art without the platform branding. Then I think it is actually find to use those, as long as it is an official sources. We should not crop away to get that state. --Masem (t) 00:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Can we word the guideline better? My understanding is it's more for multiplatform games like Resident Evil 2 (2019), for example, that are not historically tied to any one platform. Melee on the other hand is a GameCube game through and through, as are some other game covers the user replaced, and thus they should retain the game banner as it's part of the game's original release and tied to its history. courtesy ping @Arkhandar:. TarkusABtalk 22:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- That said, I see some of them , going through the wikia, are reportedly from E3 press kits. If they are, we should have the source to be to those kits, not through wikia. --Masem (t) 22:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm trying to come up with new wording but I'm seeing a lot of exceptions here. We might want to think about this more. Taking the images Arkhandar uploaded which strip out the platform branding but also ratings and "extranous" text (like for SSBM) above to me still is doing what the job of cover art does but without drawing one's eye away from it. The only thing annoying is that the open strip above looks off. As long as that's official imagery straight from N, I think it works better than the cover with the GC and ratings. But then I saw we cut the PS3 logo from Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, or the PS2 from Okami, but at that point, the fact both contain the ratings and company logos at the bottom make the lack of a platform branding stand out. So here's how I think we want to put it:
- If you can find official coverage imagery from the developer or publisher or a good RS that would be expected to have access to media kits, that is the same as the normal cover art but removes the branding and all the ratings (as well as ideally logos) from the front cover (as with SSBU above, or with Gears of War (video game), then this version is preferred.
- If you can't find such a version, and all you have to work with are cover arts that include platform branding and logos and ratings:
- If the game is a tied to a platform (exclusive to it or well-tied to it, as with SSBU, Uncharted, or Okami) then use the version with the branding and all. If you can't get rid of the ratings and logo boxes, it makes little sense to also get rid of branding if that game is tied to that platform.
- If the game is not tied to any singular platform, then removing the branding via image cropping is acceptable. Preferring cropping from PS2/3/4/Xbox/PC versions (where the boxes have typical aspect ratios and the branding is a bar along the top) is far less noticeable than vertical branding remove (ala Switch games).
- Does that seem reasonable? --Masem (t) 21:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Masem: I know the upper "strip" on File:Super Smash Bros Melee box art.png looks off but I had nothing to do with it. It's the official artwork, cropped to the GameCube case's aspect ratio. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 22:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Masem: I wouldn't prioritize artwork on games released for a single platform. I'd go for something like this (ordered by priority):
- If the game has only been released on one platform: use the retail packaging artwork;
- If the game has been released on multiple platforms:
- Use the packaging artwork with no branding (excluding game branding, ex: logo); cropped to the aspect ratio of the retail packaging artwork where the artwork has the most visibility;
- Or use packaging artwork with branding; ideally cropping the platform branding, ensuring that the artwork is cropped minimally.
- What about this? ~ Arkhandar (message me) 22:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe change the first bullet to "If the game was originally released on one platform: use its original retail packaging artwork for said platform;". So a game like Sonic 2 continues to sport the Mega Drive cover even though it's been ported to other platforms since. TarkusABtalk 22:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- @TarkusAB: I understand the rationale behind that, but wouldn't that misrepresent the game's later releases? After all, we're not really cataloguing boxes on Wikipedia, we're using the box artwork to aid the reader identify the article's subject. As such, I think that in cases where a game has been released on multiple platforms (regardless if it was originally or not) we should just use the non-branded packaging artwork when available. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 22:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree the image is to aid identification, and I also think the image should aid in historical relevance and accuracy. Since most game articles are about the game when it was released, and re-release artwork is typically digitally modified or re-done completely, I think we'd be doing a disservice to our readers not presenting them with the original cover (console branding and all) to provide historical context. Film articles use the original theatrical release poster from its native country, book articles use the first edition covers, and albums use the original release cover, so I think we're more in-line with the norm here. TarkusABtalk 23:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- @TarkusAB: I see, it makes sense. Multi-platform rule shouldn't apply to emulated re-releases. However, if the game was ported or remade and those newer versions don't have an article of their own, multi-platform rules should apply. What do you think? ~ Arkhandar (message me) 23:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I definitely disagree. We need more input. TarkusABtalk 23:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I also disagree. If you think about it in terms of the article's scope (95% of the article is about the original Genesis version), then it makes more sense to include the Genesis cover art rather than an edited, platform-free version. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @TarkusAB: I see, it makes sense. Multi-platform rule shouldn't apply to emulated re-releases. However, if the game was ported or remade and those newer versions don't have an article of their own, multi-platform rules should apply. What do you think? ~ Arkhandar (message me) 23:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree the image is to aid identification, and I also think the image should aid in historical relevance and accuracy. Since most game articles are about the game when it was released, and re-release artwork is typically digitally modified or re-done completely, I think we'd be doing a disservice to our readers not presenting them with the original cover (console branding and all) to provide historical context. Film articles use the original theatrical release poster from its native country, book articles use the first edition covers, and albums use the original release cover, so I think we're more in-line with the norm here. TarkusABtalk 23:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- @TarkusAB: I understand the rationale behind that, but wouldn't that misrepresent the game's later releases? After all, we're not really cataloguing boxes on Wikipedia, we're using the box artwork to aid the reader identify the article's subject. As such, I think that in cases where a game has been released on multiple platforms (regardless if it was originally or not) we should just use the non-branded packaging artwork when available. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 22:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe change the first bullet to "If the game was originally released on one platform: use its original retail packaging artwork for said platform;". So a game like Sonic 2 continues to sport the Mega Drive cover even though it's been ported to other platforms since. TarkusABtalk 22:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
On ending the practice of laundry listing dates...
In contrast to Darkwarriorblake's discussion above, I want to specifically talk about changing the role of the |released= parameter of {{Infobox video game}}. If we need to use {{Video game release}} and {{Collapsible list}} to laundry list release dates in the infobox, then it is not faithful to the purpose of an infobox, which is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article." I'm proposing that we should change the documentation to remove references to the two aforementioned templates and instead change it to a passage encouraging a) the original release date of a game be written in this parameter and b) the addition of more release dates in this parameter be agreed upon by consensus on an article's talk page. This way, the indiscriminate stuffing of release dates into {{Infobox video game}} can stop and that proper discussion on which release dates are important enough for inclusion in the infobox can potentially take place on various articles without the documentation being used to hold them back. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why should users have to put that much time into deciding dates on a case by case basis? Something I have learned with time is that editors have lives outside of Wikipedia, and we should be streamlining our efforts not extrapolating them dozens of thousands of times, because you're always going to have one editor who wants to add further dates, and this is advocating a discussion be had around this when it happens. It is far easier if you want to eliminate those templates, to insist only upon the original release date and original country release date if talking about a non-western release like in Japan where it may be vastly different. This works fine for film articles and in the vast majority of cases would eliminate the requirement of any templates and any discussions. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Darkwarriorblake: Would it be better if I changed my proposal for a) from "the original release date of a game be written in this parameter" to "the original release date of a game be written in this parameter, along with its release date in its country of origin if it's a non-English game"? I share your sentiment that we should be going about this the same way for film articles; the reason I brought this discussion up in the first place was because I wanted the practice to be the same for video games as it was for films, music, and literature infoboxes on Wikipedia. However, individual discussions on which release dates should be put in articles for specific films, albums, and novels have arisen on various articles on Wikipedia over the years. This is why I brought up b). I'm absolutely not implying that a mandatory discussion be made on every single article, just that discussions will arise on ones that are controversial, and those discussions shouldn't be put down but actively participated in to form a consensus. You can make a bold edit to remove excessive release dates and as long as it isn't controversial, there won't be a need for discussion. But of course, we shouldn't have to summarise the policies governing discussion on Wikipedia in an infobox documentation, I'm simply saying discussions can and should take place if release dates in the infobox are controversial, and that should be at least noted in the documentation. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, how is this subjective line of thinking going to be enforced on 1,000s of articles? We should either keep status quo, force the use of collapsible templates when games have more than a single date, or simply list the first date regardless of region and omit all others. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Dissident93: If there is so much information that we need to hide it from the reader in a {{Collapsible list}}, then it shouldn't be in the infobox. It should be expanded in full in the article prose instead. Both the status quo and collapsible lists defeat the the purpose of an infobox, and the third option was what I literally proposed in my original premise above. I am open to Darkwarriorblake's idea of a release date in a game's country of origin if it's not a western game, though. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Isn't that going to result in it basically being a list of US release dates? And also create the anomaly of Eastern games created outside of US getting an additional release date for their country of origin, but Western games created outside of US not? - X201 (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- No? Japanese games usually release in Japan first, so it would show that over any localized date in those cases. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- X201 no I don't think so. It should be the original earliest publicly available release date which for an English-language game on the English wikipedia, should be the earliest release in the US/Canada/Europe I guess. Maybe could go into more detailed specifics than that but there is typically a single worldwide release date for games, it's rare you get it in one country and it's released 6 months later elsewhere. For something like Earthbound, it's a Japanese game first so it should include it's original release date there and then the next widest release that can be sourced. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- "should be the earliest release in the US/Canada/Europe" That's the bit I have a problem with. Games have disproportionally been released in the US days before Europe, even when they're developed in Europe. By default we'll end up being a list of US release dates, narrowing the the worldwide view. - X201 (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Officially release or just released before date? I was under the impression that most stuff is available worldwide on the same day now, especially with digital downloads. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- A lot of Japanese games still aren't, but that has changed over the last couple of years. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Officially release or just released before date? I was under the impression that most stuff is available worldwide on the same day now, especially with digital downloads. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Let's please not forget that older games had different schedules than today. Games took months or even years to see a release external to their country (sp. Japan). "English release date only" is a non-starter. --Izno (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Izno Sorry I didn't say English-only, I said country of origin + earliest major western release relevant to the Wikipedia. Plus other notable dates where applicable which would be a lesser used case. I struggle to think of an example off the top of my head but a situation where a game was maybe released in some areas early due to unusual circumstances like a leak maybe. Dishonored for example lists the French and American dates as the studios in both regions were responsible for it. So you would list the Japanese date of a game if it's a Japanese game. You wouldn't exclude it by default. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Darkwarriorblake: Unless it came out the same day, of course. Dishonored should ideally only have 9 October 2012 as its release date. The European and Australian release date difference by two and three days is not significant enough to warrant any kind of importance, and both those releases and later PlayStation 4 and Xbox One ports can easily be detailed in the "Release" section instead of crammed into the infobox. This is one example of what many other articles should do similarly to achieve the purpose of an infobox as a faithful, short summary that, in addition, doesn't have to hide information via means of {{Collapsible list}}. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, but summary doesn't have to mean a single entry. It's only bloted when we have like 2 or 3 different versions of a game that all have different regional release dates. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Dissident: Infoboxes generally don't have to be a single entry, of course, I agree with that. I'm simply saying Dishonored specifically shouldn't have anything more than 9 October 2012. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @PhilipTerryGraham: Yes I agree then, all of them are timezone related things. It's different when a game gets a big, publized release in another region months/years later, such as Persona 5 or something.
- @Dissident: Infoboxes generally don't have to be a single entry, of course, I agree with that. I'm simply saying Dishonored specifically shouldn't have anything more than 9 October 2012. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, but summary doesn't have to mean a single entry. It's only bloted when we have like 2 or 3 different versions of a game that all have different regional release dates. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Darkwarriorblake: Unless it came out the same day, of course. Dishonored should ideally only have 9 October 2012 as its release date. The European and Australian release date difference by two and three days is not significant enough to warrant any kind of importance, and both those releases and later PlayStation 4 and Xbox One ports can easily be detailed in the "Release" section instead of crammed into the infobox. This is one example of what many other articles should do similarly to achieve the purpose of an infobox as a faithful, short summary that, in addition, doesn't have to hide information via means of {{Collapsible list}}. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Izno Sorry I didn't say English-only, I said country of origin + earliest major western release relevant to the Wikipedia. Plus other notable dates where applicable which would be a lesser used case. I struggle to think of an example off the top of my head but a situation where a game was maybe released in some areas early due to unusual circumstances like a leak maybe. Dishonored for example lists the French and American dates as the studios in both regions were responsible for it. So you would list the Japanese date of a game if it's a Japanese game. You wouldn't exclude it by default. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- "should be the earliest release in the US/Canada/Europe" That's the bit I have a problem with. Games have disproportionally been released in the US days before Europe, even when they're developed in Europe. By default we'll end up being a list of US release dates, narrowing the the worldwide view. - X201 (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- X201 no I don't think so. It should be the original earliest publicly available release date which for an English-language game on the English wikipedia, should be the earliest release in the US/Canada/Europe I guess. Maybe could go into more detailed specifics than that but there is typically a single worldwide release date for games, it's rare you get it in one country and it's released 6 months later elsewhere. For something like Earthbound, it's a Japanese game first so it should include it's original release date there and then the next widest release that can be sourced. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- No? Japanese games usually release in Japan first, so it would show that over any localized date in those cases. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Isn't that going to result in it basically being a list of US release dates? And also create the anomaly of Eastern games created outside of US getting an additional release date for their country of origin, but Western games created outside of US not? - X201 (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Dissident93: If there is so much information that we need to hide it from the reader in a {{Collapsible list}}, then it shouldn't be in the infobox. It should be expanded in full in the article prose instead. Both the status quo and collapsible lists defeat the the purpose of an infobox, and the third option was what I literally proposed in my original premise above. I am open to Darkwarriorblake's idea of a release date in a game's country of origin if it's not a western game, though. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 21:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Add license field?
Could we add a license field to this infobox? There are notable video games such as Xonotic, 0 A.D. or Ryzom, that are free and open-source, which is an aspect that plays a big part in their notability, which is why I think this should be clearly visible. Similar infoboxes, e.g. the operating system infobox, have this field already. Now I am not an experienced Wiki user so I don't feel confident trying to edit the template myself -- could someone confirm this is a good idea and make this happen? Perhaps a separate field for code and asset license would be best, as these often differ (see how libregamewiki does it). ---Drummyfish (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- This field previously existed and was removed by consensus. For most video games, its not applicable, and rarely discussed by reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- And if it is notable/sourced, then it can go in prose no problem. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- We need a template for the top of talk pages that links directly to the most recent discussion of frequently asked questions. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- And if it is notable/sourced, then it can go in prose no problem. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Add sequel and succeeded
Can you you probably know from the title add sequel for example Wwe 2k14 Sequel Wwe 13 succeeded Wwe 2k15 The Awesome Guy in the world (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- This has been discussed several times before, and while there are series where it is obvious, there are other series where this can be abused. The navbox at the bottom of the article is best suited for this. --Masem (t) 21:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
"Discontinued" date or similar for multiplayer/online games
Many online or multiplayer games depend on the developer continuing to host, patch or otherwise maintain it, so they'll come with a 'discontinued' date or something similar. A sentient pickle (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- This has also been discussed before, with consensus being against it due to the high probability that people will misuse it. Just think of some game that is still fully playable, but hasn't had a gameplay update in a few years, so people will consider it "finished" and add something like that to the infobox. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
How about a "Based on" parameter?
What about an optional "Based on" parameter for video games that are based on other media such as Spider-Man 2: Enter Electro or E.T. the Extra Terrestrial? Americanfreedom (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Parameters to the video game infobox
Hello there! Is it possible to add new parameters to the infobox such as: Input device and media type. Input device describes which device you use for example: Keyboard, mouse or hand control or joystick. And media type describes which media you use: For example CD, Cartridge, Floppy disc. --88.90.220.108 (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, these have previously been removed following discussions among WP:VG members. -- ferret (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Addition of new optional parameters
Hello! Can you add new fields to the infobox concerning system requirements, input device and media type?. System requirements which tell which was required for the game when it is was first released. Input devices which tell what type of input devices was used for game and finally media type which concerns what type of media the game was available for. --88.90.220.108 (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, these have previously been removed following discussions among WP:VG members. -- ferret (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Addition of parameters
Hello! Can you add new optional parameters concerning graphics, animation and programming. --88.90.220.108 (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- You'll need to be more specific in what you mean here by graphics, animation, and programming. We have fields for the artists and programmers already. -- ferret (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- And any notable animators would belong in the artist field anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
website
Why it doesn't have this field? A lot of games have own pages, on it's serie/developer/publisher-'s websites . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilias48rus (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- They do not always remain long after a game has been released, whereas all the other facts in the infobox are generally stable even with the game long out of print. We do put the website as an external link. --Masem (t) 19:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have issue with general prominence of external links in infoboxes, as a separate rationale (and in general keeping with WP:EL). --Izno (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Too many ticks for series, not sure why
@RexxS, Mike Peel, and Izno: Check out Star Wars: X-Wing. Series is being populated from Wikidata. We want the series to be italicized, so we have prefix and postfix of double tick in the template. However, it looks like extra ticks are being applied from somewhere causing the text to bold instead with single ticks around it. I might be too rusty right now cause I'm not seeing why. -- ferret (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note the ominous lack of "Star Wars:", WikidataIB might be interpreting the colon in the interwiki link (removing it from the caption appears to have no effect) incorrectly. Lordtobi (✉) 13:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- There was a recent change to Module:WikidataIB, [2], it looks like you now define which items you want to appear in italics at Module:WikidataIB/titleformats, and video game series (Q7058673) is there. So I think the solution is to remove the italics here, which I'll do with my next edit. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Excellent, that explains it, and is probably a better way to do it for consistency besides. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, this fixes the incorrect formatting, but am I mistaken that the lack of the prefix is still erroneous? Lordtobi (✉) 14:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- @RexxS and Mike Peel: If WikidataIB is not deliberately shortening "Star Wars: X-Wing" here, then I think that WikidataIB may be returning the Norwegian label (which is just "X-Wing") rather than the English one for some reason. -- ferret (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, when WikidataIB creates the text to be displayed in the infobox, it takes the sitelink to English Wikipedia and removes any namespace prefix as well as any parenthetical or comma-separated disambiguators. So Star Wars: X-Wing becomes just "X-Wing". The problem is that both the creators of the Star Wars series and the MediaWiki software use a colon in titles, but for different reasons. The code that does this is in lines 595–597 and I could refine it if anybody can come up with a reasonably simple algorithm that consistently distinguishes between the use of a colon as a namespace indicator and its use otherwise in titles. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe this is too simple to work, but with only a half-dozen namespaces that this template would be used in (if that), why not just do a match and only remove the colons when the value matches? Primefac (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- I considered something like that, but I can't be sure the list of namespaces that might be used on a Wikidata entry is closed. However, I remembered that the mw.site library holds a metatable of valid namespace names, so it's relatively simple to extract the suspected prefix and check if its entry in the table exists, and only then remove the prefix and its colon. I've made the change in Module:WikidataIB/sandbox, so for Star Wars: X-Wing (Q54853):
{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getSiteLink |qid=Q55311}→ Star Wars: X-Wing (video game series){{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |qid=Q54853 |P179 |ps=1}}→ Star Wars: X-Wing{{#invoke:WikidataIB/sandbox |getValue |qid=Q54853 |P179 |ps=1}}→ Star Wars: X-Wing
- Just checking that it still removes genuine namespace prefixes - for Category:Contents (Q1281):
{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getSiteLink |qid=Q4167836}→ Wikipedia:Categorization{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |qid=Q1281 |P31 |ps=1}}→ Wikimedia administration category, Categorization{{#invoke:WikidataIB/sandbox |getValue |qid=Q1281 |P31 |ps=1}}→ Wikimedia administration category, Categorization
- That seems to work. If nobody spots any further problems, I'll update the main module from the sandbox later this evening. --RexxS (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Done. I flushed the cache on Star Wars: X-Wing and it now displays Star Wars: X-Wing as planned. --RexxS (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- I considered something like that, but I can't be sure the list of namespaces that might be used on a Wikidata entry is closed. However, I remembered that the mw.site library holds a metatable of valid namespace names, so it's relatively simple to extract the suspected prefix and check if its entry in the table exists, and only then remove the prefix and its colon. I've made the change in Module:WikidataIB/sandbox, so for Star Wars: X-Wing (Q54853):
- Maybe this is too simple to work, but with only a half-dozen namespaces that this template would be used in (if that), why not just do a match and only remove the colons when the value matches? Primefac (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, when WikidataIB creates the text to be displayed in the infobox, it takes the sitelink to English Wikipedia and removes any namespace prefix as well as any parenthetical or comma-separated disambiguators. So Star Wars: X-Wing becomes just "X-Wing". The problem is that both the creators of the Star Wars series and the MediaWiki software use a colon in titles, but for different reasons. The code that does this is in lines 595–597 and I could refine it if anybody can come up with a reasonably simple algorithm that consistently distinguishes between the use of a colon as a namespace indicator and its use otherwise in titles. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- @RexxS and Mike Peel: If WikidataIB is not deliberately shortening "Star Wars: X-Wing" here, then I think that WikidataIB may be returning the Norwegian label (which is just "X-Wing") rather than the English one for some reason. -- ferret (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, this fixes the incorrect formatting, but am I mistaken that the lack of the prefix is still erroneous? Lordtobi (✉) 14:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- Excellent, that explains it, and is probably a better way to do it for consistency besides. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- There was a recent change to Module:WikidataIB, [2], it looks like you now define which items you want to appear in italics at Module:WikidataIB/titleformats, and video game series (Q7058673) is there. So I think the solution is to remove the italics here, which I'll do with my next edit. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
add website parameter
Hello.
Browsing through List of roguelikes, I encounter several games that have a website in their infobox, but when viewing the article code, I see that they are using Template:Infobox software, so, I'm asking that this template includes the website parameter, as detailed in software infobox source code.
| label23 = Website | data23 = {{#if:{{{website|}}} |{{#ifeq:{{{website|}}}|hide||{{{website|}}} }} |{{#if:{{#property:P856}} |{{URL|{{#property:P856}}}}| }} }}
Thanks, in advance. Mrmagoo2006 (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- The website parameter was removed from this template by consensus. There was an editor who disagreed with this infobox and changed games he edited, particularly open source ones, from video game to software. That behavior along with several others resulting in him being community blocked. A quick check for a few of these, I see he's the one responsible for them using software. They should be converted back to video game. -- ferret (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Image property
Why not use P154 instead of P18? It also has its own category. --𐰇𐱅𐰚𐰤 (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- The short answer is that video game articles usually use cover art or promotional posters, not logos. It's somewhat pointless for this infobox either way as they are almost uniformly NFCC. -- ferret (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Size parameter
I'm suggesting a parameter called "size," for which the size of the video game's installer package in MB or GB can be shown. I got this idea from Template:Infobox software. Melofors 17:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, particularly in this day of digital downloads and frequent updates. A game's size can vary significantly over time. It may be different on PC than on console. It basically falls within "technical specifications" which we have avoided for video games since there's no end to how much detail gets into that. --Masem (t) 17:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's also rarely reported on, and where noted in "minimum requirements" would fall under the old "requirements" field, long since removed. -- ferret (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- sometimes size is reported, I know there have been a few games that when the install size is revealed, we get a few articles like "clear out 100 gb of space for this!", but that should all fall under standard technical specifications that we generally don't include unless there's more critical commentary about it, and at that point, that makes it a prose thing, not an infobox thing. Otherwise agree :) --Masem (t) 15:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's also rarely reported on, and where noted in "minimum requirements" would fall under the old "requirements" field, long since removed. -- ferret (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- And for the MOS guideline against this, see WP:VGSCOPE #13. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: in addition to the reasons listed by Masem, the size might not be known for games that are not downloaded (e.g. cartridge, disc, web based, pre-installed). Also, you would run into the ambiguity of installer (or download) size versus installed size. – voidxor 23:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Three parameter suggestions
I'm suggesting three parameters, two of which are very similar.
The first two suggestions are related to each other. Optional 'predecessor' and 'successor' parameters could be used for the previous entry in a series and the next entry in a series, respectively. So for example, for the article Ratchet & Clank: Going Commando, one could set the 'predecessor' parameter to ''[[Ratchet & Clank (2002 video game)|Ratchet & Clank]]'' and the 'successor' parameter to ''[[Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal]]''. Likewise, if one were editing the infobox for the game SSX Tricky, they could set 'predecessor' to ''[[SSX]]'', and they could set 'successor' to ''[[SSX3]]''. I know not all games in every game series are this cut-and-dry, but I believe it would be useful for games that are.
The third suggestion is for an optional 'website' parameter (see, for example, Infobox software), which could be used for the official website of a game (not fan sites, and not digital storefronts like Steam or Amazon). For example, if one were editing the infobox of Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, they could set the 'website' parameter to {{URL|https://www.konami.com/mg/mgs5/}}. Likewise, if one were using this parameter in the infobox for Cyberpunk 2077, they could set it to {{URL|https://www.cyberpunk.net/us/en/}}. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- All three of these have been discussed multiple times in the archives. Please feel free to search. --Izno (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I do not see anything wrong with adding these parameters so
I would generally support its addition. One thing we should avoid if the predecessor parameter is added is to avoid is being unnecessarily inserted when used for a game which is the first in the series (e.g. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune - Predecessor = series established. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 20:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC) I have changed my mind on this issue since navboxes could be used plus the other reasons below. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 01:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)- Template talk:Infobox video game/GameSeries would be a good place to start research on what might be wrong with adding the parameters. Or just put
precedein the archive search box. --RexxS (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC) - The 'predecessor' and 'successor' parameters would be prone to edit warring since they are subjective (would people put in chronological, main/sub series, and/or plot connections?), while the website thing doesn't really serve a purpose with it being listed as an EL too. I don't believe the film (and other entertainment media) infobox does this, so why should video games? Navboxes also generally serve the purpose of 'predecessor' and 'successor' too. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- {{Infobox television}} does have all three, but I've recently brought up a discussion in the hopes to reexamine the URL parameter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- The "ease" which video games can be made , and thus gain prequels, sequels, side stories, alternate takes, and whatnot, compared to television and film is why we at VG don't use those parameters. --Masem (t) 22:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- {{Infobox television}} does have all three, but I've recently brought up a discussion in the hopes to reexamine the URL parameter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm against the addition of predecessor/successor parameters, because it's the kind of thing that is so open to interpretation that you will always get people changing it back and forth. What is the successor to Super Mario Bros. – is it Super Mario Bros. 2 or Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels? Are Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire followed by Emerald (next version of the Gen 3 games), by FireRed and LeafGreen (next releases), or by Diamond and Pearl (next generation of Pokémon games)?--AlexandraIDV 21:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Template talk:Infobox video game/GameSeries would be a good place to start research on what might be wrong with adding the parameters. Or just put
- As someone who was here when this was all fields and in black and white; I saw the state of the infobox when it had preceded by and suceeded by fields. It was a god awful mess. And that was on the stable articles, the edit wars on the unstable ones were ridiculous. Navboxes do this job far better than the infobox ever could. As for website. Official websites expire very quickly and within a year end up only pointing to the main holding page, or even worse the latest game in the series. Again, this is a job that the External Links section does better than the infobox. With both suggestions, others are always left to clear up the mess. If you hadn't guessed, I OPPOSE all of them. - X201 (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I guess if we're discussing these again, then oppose for all the same reasons that were iterated previous times. The infobox was previously a bloated mess and it took a lot of work to trim it down to a clean standardized version. This meant many fields that "make sense" on their own to be trimmed for overall benefit. Most of the were never clearly covered by reliable sources and most had few games with clear values, so they are of very marginal use in the grand scheme of things. (I realize software infobox has many more fields, but I believe it's a similarly bloated version that video game one was before. It's full of technical details of interest only to very specialized audience. Many are never repeated in prose and hardly any of those are reliably sourced.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe it's time to make an FAQ page about these common ones that keep on coming up. --Izno (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I was thinking that. They are perennial snowballs. - X201 (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- General statement of agreement with X201. -- ferret (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe it's time to make an FAQ page about these common ones that keep on coming up. --Izno (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Sound director parameter
I know this has already been discussed in the past. But, please, let's consider adding a parameter to indicate the key person of the sound department. If several people worked on sound, we could only mention the head of the department (usually quoted as "Audio director", "Sound director", "Sound", "Sound manager" in the game credits), omitting the sound designers, editors, studio engineers, etc. In smaller teams where the sound director may be the sound designer itself, we could mention him/her as the key person. I know that there is usually little talk about the sound department. Still, please consider that, like all the other figures mentioned in the infobox—direction, design, programming, the script (story), art, and music—, sound is a strictly necessary component of a game. —Lion-hearted85 (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you know it has been discussed before, perhaps you could point us to those discussions to see if what you are saying has also been discussed/rejected before. --Izno (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I could find two sections relating to this: One from 2013 with no actual arguments and @Masem disagreeing, and another from 2015 with just as few arguments and involving @X201 and Dissident93 and yourself to an unclear position. Neither request seems to have brought any arguments pro-inclusion to the table, while the primary argument against was the relevancy of the department to the game's overall development. I also saw no clear consensus in either discussion, so I will stay neutral in this one for now. IceWelder [✉] 14:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Given that DICE and BAFTA make distinctions for audio work from music in their awards, I could see a single field for the lead sound/audio producer. Its a fair-enough request. --Masem (t) 15:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry about not citing the discussions. They were precisely the two mentioned by @IceWelder. As @Masem says, we could use this field to identify only one critical person related to sound production. When the sound producer coincides with the soundtrack producer, or if clear information is not available, we could ignore this parameter. —Lion-hearted85 (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- We already have a composer credit and the awards typically go to that person, not the sound director.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, a sound director isn't that notable and is almost never mentioned in prose (unlike the art director and composer). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- I see, you are right. It's true that most of the times sound production is not cited in prose. So, as you say, we can keep the current practice: when the sound work is interesting and notable enough (for example, for games whose sound design has been praised or awarded), it will be properly treated in the Production paragraph. —Lion-hearted85 (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, a sound director isn't that notable and is almost never mentioned in prose (unlike the art director and composer). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 13 July 2020
| This edit request to Template:Infobox video game has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a based_on parameter for video games based around films or other works. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit template-protected}}template. I am fairly certain that has been discussed previously, but review the archives. Izno (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC) - I disagree, as this would only apply to certain games (of which there are not that many) and is always mentioned in prose anyway. A Spiderman game doesn't need something as obvious as "based on = Spiderman". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Release date (P577)
| This edit request to Template:Infobox video game has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please use P577 for the release date when not entered locally. This probably means changing
{{{released|{{{release|}}}}}}
to
{{{released|{{{release|{{#invoke:WikidataIB|getValue|rank=best|P577|qid={{{qid|}}}|name=released|suppressfields={{{suppressfields|}}}|fetchwikidata={{{fetchwikidata|ALL}}}|onlysourced={{{onlysourced|no}}}|noicon={{{noicon|no}}}|sep="<br />"|sorted=yes|{{{released|}}} }}}}}}}}
I think. (tested) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit template-protected}}template. The reason Wikidata hasn't been implemented for the release field is because Enwiki has complex rules around this fields, which regions should be included, which platforms, etc. Even the exact mechanism for how to list platforms and regions has no set in stone format, or the interaction with {{Vgrelease}} that is typically used. -- ferret (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)- Hi ferret, Not sure if you're aware but everything else inside this template is invoked from Wikidata so I don't see why they'd need to get consensus for this when others have all been accepted without issue ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: Because the original discussions to enable Wikidata, which I implemented, did not have consensus to implement the Release field due to the complexity of our rules surrounding it. To be a little clearer, the complexity of the rules cannot be satisfied with a direct pull of the "best/earliest release date", which means in essentially every case the wikidata pull of this field would be overridden. The only place it would work would be titles with a single global release. I'm not saying we won't do it, just that there's reasons we didn't do it and I feel it requires more discussion. -- ferret (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ferret, yeah, unless we only list a game's initial release in the infobox, I don't see how this is much help. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Even listing just "the initial release" is not possible with the above use of WikidataIB. It will pull all release dates, without any qualifiers or context, so it will just be a list of dates. -- ferret (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ferret, yeah, unless we only list a game's initial release in the infobox, I don't see how this is much help. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: Because the original discussions to enable Wikidata, which I implemented, did not have consensus to implement the Release field due to the complexity of our rules surrounding it. To be a little clearer, the complexity of the rules cannot be satisfied with a direct pull of the "best/earliest release date", which means in essentially every case the wikidata pull of this field would be overridden. The only place it would work would be titles with a single global release. I'm not saying we won't do it, just that there's reasons we didn't do it and I feel it requires more discussion. -- ferret (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi ferret, Not sure if you're aware but everything else inside this template is invoked from Wikidata so I don't see why they'd need to get consensus for this when others have all been accepted without issue ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Updating Computer Releases
Currently the main three ways to say something is coming to computers is to mark a release as either Windows, Mac or Linux. For the past decade or so, the assumption was that a PC release meant a widespread PC release (i.e. if something was out on both GoG and Steam, the release would be simultaneous). However, with the introduction of not only the Epic Games store but many publishers (Bethesda, EA, Ubisoft) having their own platforms which then go on to release on Steam/Epic/GoG/etc. at later dates, we should really update how this is presented. I would personally recommend we always specify the operating system and the storefront, whether it be in a superscript reference or in parentheses (see The Outer Worlds and Borderlands 3 as examples). Buh6173 (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- No that just creates far too much potential confusion. Windows is the platform, period. If there are storefront release concerns/issues, that can be documented in the body. Its the same aspect with things like beta periods or early access periods. Once the game's out the only date we concern ourselves with is the date of release in a region or worldwide. --Masem (t) 22:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Windows is not the "platform" in this case. If you're on PS4, it doesn't matter if you buy a Ubisoft game through Ubisoft or through Sony; there aren't staggered release dates. Any official release date (Steam's is different from Epic's) should be logged in the infobox. Buh6173 (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- We've had several prior discussions that we do not consider availability on different storefronts to be meanful, as we are only tracking by platform. If one simply doesn't chose to use the Epic store over Steam, that's a consumer choice, but from an encyclopedic standpoint, the game was released when it was first available on any storefront for that platform and that's all that matters for a short infobox summary. Now, to use the example of Hades, the fact that it came out on Steam and within 3 days of that hit 1M sales with 300,000 from the three days it was out, then having described the releases on separate storefronts in the body is fine. But it still clutters the infobox. --Masem (t) 22:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Masem. The point of an infobox is not (or shouldn't be) an exhaustive detailing of every facet of every field. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- We've had several prior discussions that we do not consider availability on different storefronts to be meanful, as we are only tracking by platform. If one simply doesn't chose to use the Epic store over Steam, that's a consumer choice, but from an encyclopedic standpoint, the game was released when it was first available on any storefront for that platform and that's all that matters for a short infobox summary. Now, to use the example of Hades, the fact that it came out on Steam and within 3 days of that hit 1M sales with 300,000 from the three days it was out, then having described the releases on separate storefronts in the body is fine. But it still clutters the infobox. --Masem (t) 22:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 5 November 2020
| This edit request to Template:Infobox video game has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can the website parameter be added to this infobox? I see it useful to link to the official website of the video game, like minecraft.net for Minecraft, genshin.mihoyo.com for Genshin Impact, and leagueoflegends.com for League of Legends. Aasim (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to disable the tper for now pending a discussion on this (or time for one, at least). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I refer you to my previous response at Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 15#Three parameter suggestions. --Izno (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Predecessor and successor
Hello! Is it possible to add fields for preceded by and followed by which denotes which game which preceded and succeeded the first game. Mvh Sondre --88.91.100.244 (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, this again. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Added FAQ
After yet another "GIEF SUCCESSOR" thread, I've started an FAQ. Right now it's just an index of the past year or two of discussions here. See Template talk:Infobox video game/FAQ. Feel free to go forth and actually summarize the group opinion. --Izno (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Should an edit notice be created, pointing out the FAQ? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am not a fan of edit notices as being just more banner blindness. The utility of the FAQ above is that I can link to it like #FAQ. --Izno (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Proposal on arcade fields
I mentioned this on WT:VG and it got some support so I wanted to make a formal proposition.
- Proposal: Remove the arcade game-specific fields Cabinet, CPU, Sound, and Display from the infobox.
Reasoning: These fields are each a combination of (a) too technical, (b) difficult to source, (c) not normally written in prose, and (d) not defining characteristics of the game. We already prohibit system requirements on non-arcade games per WP:VGSCOPE#13 for similar reasons. I've omitted Arcade System from this proposal, as there was some hesitation from others about removing it.
Votes
- Support as nominator TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support These fields can all be derived from the arcade system specified and don't belong in the infobox. For that matter, I support removing Arcade System and an AWB run to move it into Platform instead. -- ferret (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- The "Arcade System" parameter is closer to what we'd have as an "Engine" field for video games, and I'd be careful with that. I mean, the "platform" for all arcade games is "arcade", but the "arcade system" if it is notable is like the game engine it runs on. Now, that does beg the question, how many of those are notable? I know there's an AFD on one of the Namco ones for example, If only a fraction of these "arcade system" boards are notably that a smattering of arcade game infoboxes use it, then yes, lets deprecate that parameter too. But if it can be used more than say 10% of the time, we probably should keep it. --Masem (t) 19:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support the four give as per nom. Mostly tech specs. --Masem (t) 19:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - they are a relic from the past when game articles had more technical details. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom and above. IceWelder [✉] 20:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Arcade system should not be removed from the template. Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- @KGRAMR: Re-read the proposal. It's not advocating to remove Arcade System, only Cabinet, CPU, Sound, and Display. TarkusABtalk/contrib 03:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry! I did not make myself clear... Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- Partial support for Sound, CPU and Display. However, looking at arcade cabinet, it seems Cabinet would definitely get a mention being one of the primary characteristics of an arcade? Please correct me if I am misunderstanding this field and arcades in general. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Hellknowz: Yes Cabinet is a little different. While you may think of most arcade games being bought and sold as dedicated cabinets in the West, it was different in Japan and the East in general. They had "candy cabinets" which were sit-down cabinets (as opposed to the western upright standard), and they were generic as opposed to being decorated for a dedicated game. Games were not sold with the cabinets but rather in "kits" which included the game PCB board, instruction pamphlets, and promotional flyers. If you were an arcade owner, you owned several generic cabs and then just buy/sell the kits and swap out the boards. The JAMMA standard makes this very easy. Arcade game trading among hobbyists in the West is basically like this now. TarkusABtalk/contrib 11:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd say there's a rough consensus to remove fields here, with the possible exception of cabinet. -- ferret (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per above. OceanHok (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support While I did think its info that would appeal to a certain audience, it goes against What Wikipedia is Not. Le Panini Talk 01:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I agree with the concerns by TarkusAB and Le Panini, since Wikipedia is not a game guide. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I would actually vote to toss out the arcade system parameter too, since in my experience it's really hard to source and only a select few are actually significant. Anyways, I'm definitely voting to get rid of the others. They're useless to anybody that isn't an arcade cabinet/board collector — general readers are not gonna care what processor is used in Pac-Man, for instance. It's WP:GAMEGUIDE material that does nothing but bloat the infobox. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
So there is near universal support for this. Only one person voiced opposition, and one voiced concern for the Cabinet field to which I replied explaining and I don't see anyone else having concerns with it. Where do I need to go to make this happen? TarkusABtalk/contrib 03:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- TarkusAB, I removed them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- @TarkusAB and Dissident93: When removing parameters, make sure to arrange for cleanup, as it floods the maintenance category. @Primefac: Could you run PrimeBot against Category:Pages_using_infobox_video_game_with_unknown_parameters to clean up the recently removed parameters? -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, I can try to run this later today. Primefac (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Done, and I have to say I'm genuinely surprised that it took care of every page in the cat; usually it's "get rid of 90% of the garbage so the rest can be manually cleaned". A+, would bot for again. Primefac (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Thanks. The category is usually at 0, I keep it clean. -- ferret (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Seems like I didn't miss or break anything when removing the code then. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Even better! But yeah, I saw when you made the edit and it all looked shiny. Primefac (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- @TarkusAB and Dissident93: When removing parameters, make sure to arrange for cleanup, as it floods the maintenance category. @Primefac: Could you run PrimeBot against Category:Pages_using_infobox_video_game_with_unknown_parameters to clean up the recently removed parameters? -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Add field for end of life?
Online games and MMOs have an "end of life" date associated with them since they are no longer playable when the servers are shutdown. It would be useful to add that field to the infobox after the release date.S-1-5-7 (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- S-1-5-7, this has been discussed in the past (as a status parameter) and the consensus was that people would misuse this more than its intended purpose. Think of a game that stopped receiving updates, somebody could consider that game to be "end of life" even though you see cases like Left 4 Dead 2 that just received its first major update in over five years. I proposed that online-only games, including MMOs, could either have their own infobox or some sort of a yes/no flag that enables the use of status and other potential online/MMO specific parameters. The latter of course could still be misused, but the additional step(s) could be tracked and watched like we do for invalid parameters. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Dissident93 That is an interesting observation. Maybe the field could be something like "Online service status" and could be used for both pure online games that have ended (e.g., The Sims Online) as well as traditional games that are still playable but no longer allow multiplayer (e.g., Homefront). Games that don't have an online service component (e.g., Doom) wouldn't put anything in there even though they haven't been supported in decades.S-1-5-7 (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- S-1-5-7, I personally don't disagree with this, but I still see this creating more problems than it really solves. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Dissident93 That is an interesting observation. Maybe the field could be something like "Online service status" and could be used for both pure online games that have ended (e.g., The Sims Online) as well as traditional games that are still playable but no longer allow multiplayer (e.g., Homefront). Games that don't have an online service component (e.g., Doom) wouldn't put anything in there even though they haven't been supported in decades.S-1-5-7 (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
It looks like this Template_talk:Infobox_video_game/Archive_11#Closure_date was the previous discussion of this. S-1-5-7 (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- S-1-5-7, there were more recent discussions too that had the same consensus. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think this decision is a little short-sighted. The fact that a online-game is no longer available is a key fact about the game and belongs in the infobox. Pokémon Brick Bronze is an example where the fact that the game was discontinued was "crammed" into the released field. We put the "end-date" in all sorts of infoboxes (people - death_date=; companies - defunct=; websites - current_status=, etc.) The fact that it could be "misused" should not drive the content. The question is "is this a key fact that belongs in a summary of the topic?" MB 15:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- I would agree with this. Rather than discarding the idea for fear it'd be misused, I think we should workshop a name for the parameter that can't be as easily misunderstood.--AlexandraIDV 15:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Alexandra IDV, see my suggestion above. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, sure, if it can be solved in a technical way like that on/off switch that'd work too.--AlexandraIDV 01:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Alexandra IDV, see my suggestion above. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- I would agree with this. Rather than discarding the idea for fear it'd be misused, I think we should workshop a name for the parameter that can't be as easily misunderstood.--AlexandraIDV 15:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think this decision is a little short-sighted. The fact that a online-game is no longer available is a key fact about the game and belongs in the infobox. Pokémon Brick Bronze is an example where the fact that the game was discontinued was "crammed" into the released field. We put the "end-date" in all sorts of infoboxes (people - death_date=; companies - defunct=; websites - current_status=, etc.) The fact that it could be "misused" should not drive the content. The question is "is this a key fact that belongs in a summary of the topic?" MB 15:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Budget field
In order to be more like Infobox film, we should add a field for a game's budget. With the PS5, we're going to see all sorts of records being broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.205.194 (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely opposed. Game budgets are rarely announced, and are so difficult to source that the List of most expensive video games to develop is woefully out of date and incomplete. It also wildly lacks context as the costs for developing a game has changed vastly over time, above and beyond simple inflation. -- ferret (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also opposed for the same reasoning as ferret. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Further opposed. Film budgets are regularly reported, game budgets are not. --Masem (t) 06:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- What a crappy reason. If there's no data then you leave it blank. No need to be defeatist and give up before you've started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.205.194 (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- From experience, if we have a field, inexperienced editors will want to fill it out with any data they can find, including data from unreliable sources, which is not a good thing. But again, the percent of games we accurately know budgets for is probably less than 5%, making a field that would not get much use compared to all the other fields we have in place in this template. --Masem (t) 17:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- What a crappy reason. If there's no data then you leave it blank. No need to be defeatist and give up before you've started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.205.194 (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Translate title
Had a thought. The same way that {{infobox person}} has |pronunciation= and |native_name= parameters, have we considered adding something similar, to avoid footnoting in the lede? Similar to the current MoS, it would only be useful if the title was originally released in a non-English language and is also known by that native language title, but it's a much more elegant solution than footnoting in the first sentence. czar 19:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me. So, we'd be looking at title in original language, what the language is, romanization (if applicable), and an English translation? Anything else?--AlexandraIDV 20:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Watching for more opinions, but pointing out this would be difficult to implement for Wikidata. Would need to talk to RexxS and MikePeel. Maybe pull country of origin property, then pull the label of that language if available. A thing to consider, though. -- ferret (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'd make a table like we have today that traces the language item identifier to country/region identifier, maybe. (I think you might still have problems with countries like Canada that support both English and French.) --Izno (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep footnotes Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Infoboxes are supplementary. Footnoting in the lead was a compromise for a valid alternative title (in many cases). I would not support removal of such footnotes. (I see no issue with the infobox having an alternative name in a different language, but that rationale is crap.) --Izno (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Izno, agreed. Do other forms of media like films have this sort of thing? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Absolutely, you can find 'native name' in most other infoboxes in general, in fact. --Izno (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Izno, oh, I meant in addition to pronunciation parameter. I also see no issue with native name but I am unsure if it should fully replace the footnote. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- What quantity of articles are lacking that it is necessary to amend the infobox for this purpose on the English Wikipedia? For the same reason we use the footnotes, the non-English name is not important information on this part of the Wikipedia. It also tends to be long, like Metaru Gia Soriddo Surī Sabushisutansu which on top of unnecessary, would also aesthetically affect the infobox. Unlike biographical articles where the person's foreign name is their actual name, media known by a popular name does not need to be translated in the infobox. It's Metal Gear Solid, not Metaru Gia Soriddo. I vote to keep the use of footnotes, and I vote against amending the infobox for this purpose. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Darkwarriorblake, you are thinking about transliterations/romanizations. In Metal Gear's case, its displayed native name would be メタルギア. "Metaru Gia Soriddo" would be omitted from the infobox or relegated to the footnote. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's worse! But thanks for clarifying. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Darkwarriorblake, you are thinking about transliterations/romanizations. In Metal Gear's case, its displayed native name would be メタルギア. "Metaru Gia Soriddo" would be omitted from the infobox or relegated to the footnote. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Absolutely, you can find 'native name' in most other infoboxes in general, in fact. --Izno (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Izno, agreed. Do other forms of media like films have this sort of thing? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Emulated Ports and Arcade Archives? + Non-English Release Dates?
A lot of articles I see feature emulated rereleases of games in the infobox under Platform(s) and Release(s). Thing is, the syntax guide says not to include things like Virtual Console or PSOne Classics. Not only do a lot of articles do this, but many are listed as "Virtual Console" (here) and "PlayStation Network" (here). As seen in the first example, games released under the Arcade Archives series are also listed, despite these releases being emulated ports (most articles don't even acknowledge these rereleases outside of the infobox). Other articles (presumably more popular ones) aren't formatted like this (here). My question is which formatting is the correct one?
Another small question, is there a way for me to find release dates for non-English speaking regions (since they're omitted often) or do I just have to search on other sites? Thank you! -NJ (talk)
- None of them are correct and thus they should all be removed. As for your second question, Wikidata is supposed to document that sort of thing, but seeing as though that project gets a lot less traffic than the encyclopedias so you'd probably have to look elsewhere yeah. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 17 January 2021
| This edit request to Template:Infobox video game has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a "website" or "url" parameter so I can add the URL for one of the video game articles I am editing right now. Aasim (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not done: Please see the FAQ. This is a perennial request that will not be done. -- ferret (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Early access date
Is it worth adding a field for games that are released for early access to the public? It's common for this to be verifiable and different from the actual release date. It could also make it less confusing when people aren't clear if a game is released or just "early access" released. Jontesta (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, we don't consider the early access date as a release date. It can (and should be) noted in prose, but as some games that enter early access never get to a final release, we want to be careful to imply the early access is a release date. You can add it to the release date field but 1) if this is before a final release date is known, it should clearly be marked as early access, and 2) once a final release date is known (to the day, not a vague year or quarter/period) that needs to be removed in favor of the final planned release date. --Masem (t) 19:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh I agree with all that. I was suggesting expanding the template with two different fields, so that it's clear when a game is released as early access, and also clear when a game is released (or never released). It might avoid the misunderstandings that you just mentioned. Jontesta (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think we want to avoid that. We already have the problem with the release date field getting flooded inappropriate with re-released in emulated versions (eg virtual console releases) and the like, and the goal of the infobox should be to briefly summarize the key details. Early access dates are just extra noise in that sense once a game is in a released state. --Masem (t) 20:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh I agree with all that. I was suggesting expanding the template with two different fields, so that it's clear when a game is released as early access, and also clear when a game is released (or never released). It might avoid the misunderstandings that you just mentioned. Jontesta (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Implementing {{detect singular}} for plural parameters
Following recent discussions on {{Infobox television}} and {{Infobox film}} the decision was made to implement {{detect singular}} in a number of fields within those templates. Like there, I believe there is grounds for similar implementation here. Moreso, given that nearly every single field name currently ends with an unsightly "(s"). In the specific case of {{Infobox video game}} I think we could feasibly implement the change to every single field. EDIT: I've sandboxed it here. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 12:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Jasca Ducato: Detect singular does not work for data pulls from Wikidata. I added some testcases to check that if you want to look. Personally, I'd say it's quicker, cleaner and less work to just remove the plurals period, all the time, and not worry about it. -- ferret (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Some non-Wikidata observations:
- There are several scenarios where the developer's names already contain a comma, e.g. those with an ", Inc." in their common name, that will be evaluated incorrectly:
{{#if: {{Detect singular|Atari, Inc.}} | Singular | Plural }}→ Plural (cf. Battlezone (1980 video game)){{#if: {{Detect singular|2015, Inc.}} | Singular | Plural }}→ Singular (cf. SiN: Wages of Sin)
- The template also "detects" every use of 'list':
{{#if: {{Detect singular|Felistella}} | Singular | Plural }}→ Singular (cf. Felistella){{#if: {{Detect singular|Kalisto Entertainment}} | Singular | Plural }}→ Singular (cf. Kalisto Entertainment)
- Some will argue that "Xbox Series X/S" should be plural:
{{#if:{{Detect singular|Xbox Series X/S}} | Singular | Plural }}→ Singular
- While "(s)" is certainly a workaround, using
{{detect singular}}might introduce unwanted side-effects that the template user cannot really control (or know the cause of). As Ferret stated, the lazy method of removing "(s)" might be the best low-maintenance solution. IceWelder [✉] 13:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)- All valid observations that I hadn't considered. If we were to go down the "lazy" route, I believe removing only the paranthesis (leaving us with, for example "Directors") would be sufficient. After all, you can have a list of directors with only one entry, but cannot have a list of director. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 13:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, that's works for me. "Genres" is a field. It might have zero, one or more entries. -- ferret (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- All valid observations that I hadn't considered. If we were to go down the "lazy" route, I believe removing only the paranthesis (leaving us with, for example "Directors") would be sufficient. After all, you can have a list of directors with only one entry, but cannot have a list of director. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 13:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Minor aesthetic changes
| This edit request to Template:Infobox video game has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Opening a TPER per the discussion below. — Goszei (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I have made some minor aesthetic changes in the sandbox to the text styling (here is the diff from live: [3]). There are no functionality changes, and the test cases look good. If there aren't objections, I will open a TPER in a week or so. — Goszei (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Multiple lines of a single field appear to be more apart than before. I'm assuming this is caused by the removed datastyle field? IceWelder [✉] 10:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that is correct. With the datastyle the element height for a line is 16 pixels, and without a datastyle it is 18px (on desktop at 14px default). The style can be re-added, if desired. — Goszei (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Although it seems counter-intuitive as you removed a "font-size: 90%", I am finding that the text size in the sandbox version has shrank visibly. Is this really desired? Are we still meeting ACCESSIBILITY? -- ferret (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- My changes set the smallest text to 12.32 px (88% of other text on page, which is the default style for infoboxes), so we should be good for accessibility, which requires higher than 85% (MOS:SMALL).
- The "font-size: 90%" refers to the percentage of the size of other text on the page (14px default on desktop). So removing it is equivalent to changing that to "font-size: 88%". — Goszei (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done Primefac (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 31 May 2021
| This edit request to Template:Infobox video game has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest adding a parameter for when the game shuts down, e.g. for games like Call of Duty Online (which will be shut down on August 31, 2021. The parameter name should be called "{{{shutdown}}}". Jobenhein (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not done: Repeatedly discussed. See talk page archives and the FAQ at the top of the page. -- ferret (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Use proper lists
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The documentation for Module:WikidataIB rightly says: "For reasons of accessibility (see MOS:PLIST), do not use |sep=<br> for vertical unbulleted lists; use |list=ubl instead." Please follow this by replacing all instances of |sep=<br> with |list=ubl. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Parameter suggestion: "size"
Hello there. I hope this is the right place for this post. I suggest adding a "size" parameter, as some PC games, especially earlier ones (i.e. not modern games like Fortnite that are constantly updated), have a fixed on-disk size. I was about to add it to a page, thinking it exists, but I got this error:
Warning: Page using Template:Infobox video game with unknown parameter "size" (this message is shown only in preview).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyr Gaming (talk • contribs) 10:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- See Template_talk:Infobox_video_game/Archive_15#Size_parameter. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Oh, that was a quick response. I will take a look. Much appreciated! -Zephyr Gaming — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyr Gaming (talk • contribs) 10:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Propose adding Age Guide
I would propose again the idea of adding available age guide into the game infobox, e.g., ESRB E10. This info helps parent to decide. If available for more than one jurisdiction, should list all. --Rynh (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Has been asked for before many times, but no. Across the relevant Wikiprojects where ratings could apply, there's strong agreement to not include ratings due to the large number of ratings systems out there. If we included ESRB, we've have to include PEGI, CERO, etc. to avoid a US bias. If the game's rating is of discussion (such as when Australia's board refuses to rate a game) that is discussed in text but that's it. --Masem (t) 14:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for confirm. --Rynh (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Just adding that if people really wish to document age ratings for games, then they can via its respective Wikidata page. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- if it's in wikidata then it can be in wikipedia just as well.bi (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
| label18 = [[ESRB]]
| data18 = {{{ESRB|{{If first display both|{{#invoke:WikidataIB|getValue|rank=best|P852|qid={{{qid|}}}|ESRB=|suppressfields={{{suppressfields|}}}|fetchwikidata={{{fetchwikidata|ALL}}}|onlysourced={{{onlysourced|no}}}|noicon={{{noicon|no}}}|list=ubl|sorted=yes|{{{ESRB|}}} }}|{{#ifeq:{{{refs|no}}}|yes|{{wikidata|references|normal+|{{{qid|}}}|P852}}}}}}}}}
| label19 = [[PEGI]]
| data19 = {{{PEGI|{{If first display both|{{#invoke:WikidataIB|getValue|rank=best|P908|qid={{{qid|}}}|PEGI=|suppressfields={{{suppressfields|}}}|fetchwikidata={{{fetchwikidata|ALL}}}|onlysourced={{{onlysourced|no}}}|noicon={{{noicon|no}}}|list=ubl|sorted=yes|{{{PEGI|}}} }}|{{#ifeq:{{{refs|no}}}|yes|{{wikidata|references|normal+|{{{qid|}}}|P908}}}}}}}}}
- bi (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Baratiiman, the two projects have different guidelines. The English Wikipedia has good reason to omit this sort of thing in the infobox, as they are not independently notable 99% of the time and are thus unmentioned in the article body as well. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- it's last edit was 8 october 2012, wikidata was developed 29 october 2012. bi (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Baratiiman, the two projects have different guidelines. The English Wikipedia has good reason to omit this sort of thing in the infobox, as they are not independently notable 99% of the time and are thus unmentioned in the article body as well. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Per established Enwiki consensus, I agree with continuing to exclude ratings from the infobox. "It's in Wikidata" is not an argument for inclusion on Enwiki. The two projects have very different goals, in some ways opposing. Not everything in WD belongs here. -- ferret (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- 10 years before there was consensus try again. there is only PEGI and ESRB and they reasons are covered definitely always, legitimate wikis like baike show this data as appropiate age in infobox https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%88%80%E5%A1%942?fromtitle=Dota+2&fromid=2946584 https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1382250985480080&set=a.257183677986822 bi (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- There are not just PEGI and ESRB, there are dozens of countries with their own rating systems, some with multiple systems. The original consensus might have been established some years ago but still holds today. IceWelder [✉] 05:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't care how many years ago we last made a decision was. The consensus has been reaffirmed multiple times since then each time someone brings it up. It is still the established consensus, regardless of how long we've held it. We absolutely would not have individual fields for each rating system as you've put in the sandbox. Nor are those the only two rating systems, as already noted. -- ferret (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- 10 years before there was consensus try again. there is only PEGI and ESRB and they reasons are covered definitely always, legitimate wikis like baike show this data as appropiate age in infobox https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%88%80%E5%A1%942?fromtitle=Dota+2&fromid=2946584 https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1382250985480080&set=a.257183677986822 bi (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- not in en countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_film#Ratings bi (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- The section you link says:
[T]here are simply too many ratings systems in English-speaking countries, let alone the world over.
- and emphasises that ratings should not be included. The same is the case for video games with at least six different ratings boards in English-speaking countries (EU, US/CA, UK, AU, NZ, ZA) and we are not limited to that. IceWelder [✉] 10:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- The section you link says:
- To further add, WP is not a sales catalog, of which the ratings information is only to serve. If you are a parent, you can research the ratings information elsewhere. We mention ratings only when they impact a game's release or create controversy around a game (eg often the case for games that fail to be rated by the Australian ratings board as that by law there prevents their sale, which creates sourcing we use to discuss that - we're not including the rating as a parential guide but because of the impact on the game). --Masem (t) 17:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
"other_name" paramter
For many games that were released internationally, they have different names, e.g. Aero Fighters 2, which is known as "Sonic Wings 2" in Japan. A subtitle under the main title of the infobox that can be invoked with |other_name= or a similar parameter would be greatly useful. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 08:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Berrely, I'm not entirely opposed to it, but usually games with alternative (English) titles are already listed in the lead. If you include the scope to include localized titles in other languages and scripts then I fully oppose that for cruft reasons. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't want something like a native name, but some regions have different English names for games. It's fine being in the lead, just thought it would make sense in the infobox as well. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 09:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Add a space to input succeeding and preceding games if it is in a series
VictorBaxter (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- No. See the FAQ at the top of the page. -- ferret (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Automatic short description
I would like to propose the following automatic short description, in the format "[year] video game":
{{main other|{{short description|2=noreplace|{{#if:{{{released|{{{release|}}}}}}|{{#invoke:String|match|{{{released|{{{release|}}}}}}|%d%d%d%d?|match=1|nomatch=}} video game|Video game}}}}}}
updated based on feedback below 16:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
If the infobox is used in mainspace, and there isn't a manual short description already added, this will take the "released" parameter (or its alias "release"), and use the first four-digit string as the year (ex. "2004 video game" will be the auto SD). It will ignore any other four-digit strings (i.e. releases on other platforms listed after). If there's no release parameter, the fallback is "Video game" (capitalized by SD convention).
I put a version of this in the sandbox (with the mainspace detection commented out for testing). Since it is hard to show test cases for this, I have been pasting infoboxes from the wild into my user sandbox and changing them to use to the infobox sandbox, and it seems to work. I got the format from Template:Infobox film/short description, pinging author User:Primefac to check this logic. Any thoughts? — Goszei (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. Primefac (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Does this work with WP:SHORTDESCHELPER? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, it will show up as a shortdesc. I'm not sure I understand the question. Primefac (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- You check for both released and release but only match against released for trying to find a year. I'll be frank, I still don't really understand the purpose of shortdescs or why we need to automatically fill them when Wikidata should already be doing so, but meh. -- ferret (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wikidata usage for short description was discontinued last year, Ferret, for fear of obscure vandalism finding its way through. Short description helper allows you to import from wikidata, but if this does this for you (which is kind of what is being suggested) then I'm all for it. So long as we can overwrite it with the regular template, everything looks good. Just to confirm, if an article has a short description, this change isn't going to supersede that? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Correct, the
|2=noreplacemeans that it will not overwrite anything that is already on the article. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Correct, the
Fixed. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wikidata usage for short description was discontinued last year, Ferret, for fear of obscure vandalism finding its way through. Short description helper allows you to import from wikidata, but if this does this for you (which is kind of what is being suggested) then I'm all for it. So long as we can overwrite it with the regular template, everything looks good. Just to confirm, if an article has a short description, this change isn't going to supersede that? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Could this somehow be adjusted to also track short descriptions that don't fit the YEAR video game pattern too? It wouldn't have to automatically fix them, unless that can also be done too. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Do you mean articles with manually-added SD's in the format "[year] [genre] video game", for example? I don't think tracking is possible here; overwriting the manual SD's with "[year] video game" is possible, but not advisable (I presume that editors disagree on what should be in the "perfect" or canonical video game SD, and there are always exceptions, etc). — Goszei (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- How would the bot tell if the template was added manually or by itself? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, there's no bot at play here. The "noreplace" parameter allows the manual SD to take precedence. — Goszei (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Done I have implemented the code above in Special:Diff/1041716785, with one tweak. Note to Primefac: as far as I can tell, the "?" in the Lua pattern allowed three-digit strings to be fed into the SD, such as "123", so I removed it. — Goszei (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Add field for latest release version and date (as in Infobox software)
We should add 2 fields "latest release version" and "latest release date" as in Template:Infobox software. Most current games are frequently updated with new online releases, unlike games sold on shelves only. --OpenNotes1 (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure we've discussed this before and we're generally against it. Whereas productivity software updates are frequently discussed and by version number, game updates do not regularly get this (games like No Man's Sky are exceptions rather than rules), and differences in platforms can create differences in versions. --Masem (t) 20:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- See the FAQ at the top of the page. Perennial drive by request. :) -- ferret (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
FAQ
Given the hard work that's gone into it and the fact people seem to waltz past it in it's collapsed state, are there any objections to adding |collapsed=no to the FAQ and making it expanded by default? - X201 (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'd actually like to see a case where this is actually useful. I'm guess for sectional infoboxes? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
On the engine field
Right now we have the engine= field documented to limit to only standalone (notable) engines. I would suggest that we allow engines which have reasonable sections (named by the engine) within the body of article of the developer that created them as an allowed entry or part of the series page that the engine was specifically made for, as long as the engine has been used in at least or 3 games or where the engine has clearly been made note of by multiple sources. That is - the engine itself could be notable but for comprehension having it has a part of the developer or series. For example, Ubisoft's Dunia Engine is well sourced as a core engine in the Far Cry series, but there's just not quite enough info compared to something like Unreal or id Tech to make a standalone article for it to make much sense. So it as a subsection in Ubisoft is reasonable, but for the purposes of the infobox, then having it as an allowed entry in the engine= field makes sense. What we do want to include is that random indie game dev that made their own engine for their one or two games that they may have dropped its name in a blog but not covered anywhere else, for example. --Masem (t) 18:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Personally, if there's a redirect to a valid section with sourced details, I don't bother to remove it. I only tend to remove non-linked/red-linked. -- ferret (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- I actually thought we had discussed this as being allowable per guidelines. It's really just the stuff not notable enough to even to have a redirect, as well as frameworks like XMA and Java being added there that should be removed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have made an adjustment to the engine= parameter documentation here to reflect this, that redirects to developed sections on a game engine (like Dunia) are fine as well. --Masem (t) 15:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- I actually thought we had discussed this as being allowable per guidelines. It's really just the stuff not notable enough to even to have a redirect, as well as frameworks like XMA and Java being added there that should be removed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- A redirect to a non-engine-dedicated article that is (independently and reliably) discussing the engine should be fine, as this sort of link/mention would allow for discovery of additional material. Oh wait, this is already implemented. Fait accompli, FAIT ACCOMPLI!1~`1 — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- I feel like there should be a half-sentence that not every apparently blue-linkable engine is eligible. There are frequently redirects for game-specific engines to that game or to the game's developer, without any actual information on the engine. People frequently use the sole availability of a blue link as an excuse to link the engine to no value to the reader. IceWelder [✉] 19:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, it should at least link to a solid section within another article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
No way to add a website.
There is no way to add the website of an online game. The Spanish version of Call of Duty Online uses Wikidata and that is a lot more complete and flexible. In English, this template is used and it is extremely restrictive.
George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- The English one has been stripped of unnecessary fields. See the FAQ near the top of the talk page for past discussions on a website parameter. IceWelder [✉] 08:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- The external links section is used for websites here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Optional Source Code Repo field
Currently there are quite a number of games that are either open source (0 A.D. comes to mind) or had their source code released later under an open source license (discounting fauxpen source filth like the recent release of Amnesia's source code without any of the art assets, or that 'source available' BS), and most of these games don't actually use Video Game Infobox template and instead opt for the Software Infobox template, but only because it has a section for a source code repository, which the current Video Game Infobox template does not have. I suggest adding an optional field for a source code repository. I also think that it would be a good idea to add sections along the lines of "release version", "experimental version", and other similar sections for games that follow an early access model, like Satisfactory. LiftedStarfish (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Many of those cases were changed unilaterally from Infobox video game to Infobox software by a user who was later community banned (Partially in relation to such changes). We also do not include website in this infobox, see the FAQ above for some of the reasoning. There's really no need for website or repo in the infobox. Put it in external links. -- ferret (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed, links to open sources repositions is fair game for the external links section. --Masem (t) 15:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- This seems like something for external links since it is in the spirit of open knowledge/content. There isn't really any common information to be learned from that link in the infobox. We want things in the infobox that provide a good overview of the game compared to other games and a link by itself doesn't say anything other than there is source code. But a general reader, even a general player will not care about this. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- To add, the infobox should only cover information that all games would have, such as the developer and a release date. Anything that only applies to a small number of them would be better off kept as prose or as an external link. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
"Italic title" parameter not implemented
The template documentation lists italic-title=no as an option, but this is not in fact implemented into the template. I recently implemented this for Template:Infobox video game series (diff) – could a user with the necessarily privileges implement the same change into this template, please? Obskyr (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Obskyr: I'm not sure you understand the purpose of italic title. This is not about changing the italics of the above class. The title of a video game should *always be italic*. Italic title controls whether the infobox will make the title of the article at the very top, outside of the infobox, italic. It is used when the article name contains disambiguation, which should not be italicized, so that a proper DISPLAYTITLE can be specified instead. I've reverted your edit to Infobox video game series as well, as that should not be done. -- ferret (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ferret: Oh, so that parameter is for the article title. I see. The use case for de-italicizing the title in the infobox is when it, following a newline, contains the original-language name in a script that doesn't use italics. This is somewhat common in articles about Japanese video games – Japanese script should not be italicized, so there needs to be a way to deactivate (or work around) the auto-italicization. How do you reckon that should be handled? Obskyr (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- The Japanese title shouldn't be in the infobox. This is English Wiki. The Japanese titles aren't supposed to be directly in prose either per MOS:VG, but instead in a foot note if they are important. -- ferret (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- We don't always have an English title, but either way, the Romanji title is usually available, which should be italicized. Izno (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- The Japanese title shouldn't be in the infobox. This is English Wiki. The Japanese titles aren't supposed to be directly in prose either per MOS:VG, but instead in a foot note if they are important. -- ferret (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ferret: Oh, so that parameter is for the article title. I see. The use case for de-italicizing the title in the infobox is when it, following a newline, contains the original-language name in a script that doesn't use italics. This is somewhat common in articles about Japanese video games – Japanese script should not be italicized, so there needs to be a way to deactivate (or work around) the auto-italicization. How do you reckon that should be handled? Obskyr (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
