Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hidden structure

I've now made it possible to hide any field, instead of a select few, when using this template. The rationale behind this was that not all games can use all fields, and for older games this information may not immediately be available. It also looks horrid when you have a number of fields simply marked with something like {{{nogenres}}}. It shouldn't affect the general appearance of the box in articles that already use it. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 23:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

All of a sudden I'm seeing release dates in the upper left hand corner of articles like Half-Life 2 and Chrono Trigger, but not on others - is that the template, or me? Nufy8 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the advantage of hiding a field like genre. Every game has a genre, so it should always appear, and having the field present when blank will provide an incentive for filling it. --Pagrashtak 02:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. As many fields as possible should be left unhidden, since the point of any infobox is to display information in a consistent way. Even if this leads to blank rows, that will encourage editors to add the missing information. If you just hide all the rows, nooone will really ever realize what information goes in the infobox. -- Netoholic @ 03:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And apparently it caused those release date fields I was talking about to go screwy - the reversion put everything back to normal. Nufy8 03:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Those problems are the result of people using manual linebreaks in the Infobox parameters. Fix the articles' released= field. -- Netoholic @ 04:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you. Nufy8 04:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

hidden structure are nice ! well strcuture ; but it introduce some but with multiline maybe. Look at class="hiddenStructure" and Pac-Pix for exemple : "PEGI: 3+"" a the artice begin. oups sorry, i just understand the previews comment.

maybe use class="{{qif|test={{{ratings|}}}|then=|else=hiddenStructure}}" or something like that.

Sales figures

Would anyone object if I added an (optional) field to the infobox for sales figures? I think it's important information that deserves a mention in the infobox. Jaco plane 03:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I came here to ask that the same thing might be done. I see it's been discussed further down, and in archives, and that we're still looking for reliable sources for figures. Just wanted to add my moral support :) --Quiddity 20:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Make flag/icon layout official

I've used an image-based format in several infobox-cvg articles now (best example Half-Life 2). It's a compact, neat and immediately understandable way to convey information that would otherwise take up multiple lines or not be included, and I'd like to make it official policy. As well as explaining the system, there would be a list of platform icons and age ratings logos. All those in favour say OMGL33T! ;-) --Tom Edwards 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OMGl33t!! We should add on ot the template to make it easy to use. Such as just stating japan in order for a japn flag to appear. Similar stuff should be done for age ratings --Larsinio

We'd have to be careful with that, as someone might want the name to appear instead of the flag. --Tom Edwards 18:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds like a good idea. Sorry I can't quite get myself to say that ;) Jaco plane 19:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use flags. Images are one of the biggest burdens on the server resources. Developers like User:Jamesday, have said " I suggest minimising the use of "decorative", "icon" or "hint" images and using them for "content" only"[1]. A simple parenthetical note -- "(USA)", "(UK)", etc. -- is just as effective. -- Netoholic @ 21:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a blow. I disagree that text is as effective though, especially when you get obscure countries that people don't know about. And when it comes to listing several platforms on one line, there's no argument. But if images are unsuitable they are unsuitable... --Tom Edwards 21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Check out this diff (specifically line 607) for Brion's response to the image use question (and this was a question asked, I believe, because of Jamesday's comments). Keep in mind that response was regarding userspace images, not images used in article space. He does touch upon article space briefly though, and basically says that technical issues should not influence article policy decisions. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

His response was not on point, since the question was about image sizes, not overuse for "decorative" reasons. The second part mentions templates, which doesn't apply here. -- Netoholic @ 21:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You didn't read the whole diff then:

Recognizing that this is policy issue, would system capacity issues possibly be addressed by advising editors to go easy on image use in articles? (For instance, in a few articles I placed images more for page-design purposes than to illustrate a point. Should editors not do that? Only worry about it for likely-to-be-popular articles? Or not worry about it all?

Replies:

As a design and usability matter, you should avoid unnecessary images which don't contribute something to the article.

As a technical matter, it's our responsibility to keep the system running well enough for what the sites require. In other words: it's not a policy issue. If and when we need to restrict certain things, we'll do so with technical measures. --Brion 01:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me that only images which don't contribute to an article should be a concern, and then only from a design/usability point of view. The technical side, he says, is "[their] responsibility to keep the system running well enough for what the sites require". —Locke Cole • t • c 22:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think both developers are saying the same thing. Images should contribute to the article (as in "whatever the article is about"). Decorative icons are basically fluff. In the Half-life 2 article, there are ten images of "content" (screenshots, box art) and ~13 that are just decorative icons that should be avoided. -- Netoholic @ 22:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Jamesday says it because of technical concerns. Brion basically says that's false, and the only issues should be "design and usability" concerns. Does the icon add something or make the article more useful? Whether or not it taxes the servers are, as Brion says in the section quoted above, a concern for the developers (and will be dealt with as it becomes an issue). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so now you'd rather not err on the side of caution, and are going to make the argument that these decorative icons "add" to the article? Any image used should add solid value and content, and relate to the article subject itself. Everything else is avoidable. Look at the Half-Life 2 page... the "ratings" icons add nothing, since the text version describes it well enough. Of greater concern is that those icons are all tagged as "Fair use", which definitely does not apply to using them in this way. -- Netoholic @ 22:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Here's the way I would suggest setting up these infoboxs. -- Netoholic @ 22:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, actually. I think the nested list approach complicates the infobox unnecessarily, and makes it harder to identify the relevant information at a glance. For the release country flags, it provides an easy and immediate way to identify something while keeping clutter to a minimum. The more text we add to the infobox, the less useful it is as an at-a-glance reference. If we need to start adding bulleted, nested lists, then there's pretty much no reason to have an infobox at all: it's just as complex to pull information out of it as it would be to pull information out of a paragraph of prose. Icons (definitely for the release country, less so for the ratings systems) are vastly superior, from an information design and access perspective, to written prose ("a picture is worth a thousand words" may be trite, but it's also very true). And, to be sure, all of the country flags are public domain. While I am inclined to believe that our use of the ratings logos is valid under fair use, given the circumstances, I'm less concerned about them than I am about the flag icons, since it's much easier to express that information without visual aid. – Seancdaug 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That can be simplified by moving all release dates except for the original one into the article body. I am probably not the only person that has trouble actually distinquishing between some of the flags because they are/have to be so small. Many readers would probably trouble recognizing several of the flags "at a glance" as well, either because of the small size or unfamiliarity with what countries the flags belong. -- Netoholic @ 23:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, though, my concern is making information access as uncomplicated as possible. Splitting release date info across multiple sections in the article does not serve those ends. I would expect that most users interested in finding out when a particular game was released in a particular country would have at least a vague familiarity with that country's flag, especially considering that we're more often than not talking about pretty well-known nations like the U.S., the U.K., and Japan. In those situations where the user is unfamiliar, there's always alt. text tooltips, and the image itself can be clicked on for more information. That is, admittedly, not the perfect solution, but it is still less messy and bears much less potential for confusion than any other method I've seen used. – Seancdaug 01:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The flags, because they are crammed into the infobox, have to be set very small. I play Half-Life 2 and I am reasonable well-educated, but I couldn't tell the Australia or the China flags without hovering over them. Japan's flag looks like a bullet point to me, and the "world" icon is a formless blob. The EU flag is basically just a blue box. Removing the flags is also for the benefit of older readers (and editors) and for those that may have bad eyesight in general. Text can be resized easily, per user's personal customization, but images not-so-much. -- Netoholic @ 02:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Which gets at a much more basic problem: there's a limited amount of space inside the infobox. One way or the other, we need to abbreviate or symbolize certain facts if we want to make them fit. Icons are a tried-and-true method of getting information across without having to constantly spell things out. Not to sound insensitive to the visually handicapped (since you do make an important point, there), but this is the kind of thing for which I've had to conduct usability studies. Besides, the size of icons can be increased (within reason: I would suggest 32px, myself), and the presentation will still be cleaner and more accessible than it would be if we resort to complex nested lists or lengthy strings of text that tend to thwart the "quick reference" nature of the infobox. – Seancdaug 04:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't we just put a 1px border around flags with a light background? And, about server strain, wouldn't it reduce the strain a lot if we created a smaller .png version of the flags, rather than the server being forced to resize them every time the page loads? That would deferenciate between the flag and the infobox background. I definetly think images are a good idea... EDIT: I do not however, support using graphics to represent consoles, just the countries... --Wulf 18:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The border would probably get garbled when the image was resized. About "resizing them every time the page loads", this isn't how the server works: IIRC an image is resized once, then the resized image is cached and used for all future queries. So that's not a load issue either, really. =) (Sorry for the late response, didn't notice this when you posted it). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Theme

I suggest adding a "Theme" field to the infobox, like "sci-fi", "cyberpunk", "fantasy", etc. --kAtremer 16:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Genre covers this just fine. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No, genre is what the game is like playing, like smashing buttons in hope a combo will be born, or planning strategies, or playing roles. Theme is what it is looking like. There can be "sci-fi racing", "fantasy racing", "childish racing", and they all are of the "racing" genre, but have different themes. --kAtremer 07:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Optional fields that aren't?

The usage info (on this talk page) seems to indicate that the optional fields must be present, even when they're not used, but when I look at the template code I see that all optional fields default to "", that is, empty.

So logically speaking, omitting those fields should have the same effect as declaring them empty. So I experimented. And yes, the template still works when the optional fields are omitted, which is the whole point of them being optional. Did I miss something, or was the template changed to do this after the usage info was written? Should I change the usage info to reflect this? Shinobu 04:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Not all the fields are optional. You must have done something wrong or tested on fields that weren't optional. I just tested it and the optional fields don't show up when nothing is there. It is still best to list them regardless if they're being used. K1Bond007 04:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the usage info was written back when meta templates were still being used instead of the new class="hiddenStructure" technique, which is why it says they must be included as with meta templates it would break. However I'd say it is still a good idea to have all fields present as a future editor might know suitable information for one of the previously empty fields and, seeing the empty field there, will be compelled to add it. — Ian Moody ^(talk) 12:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that it's probably a good idea to include unused fields even if they're blank. FYI: I changed this template to utilize {{qif}} a few days ago. This was to improve accessibility for disabled readers. For a visual example of the difference between hiddenStructure and meta-templates, check out this TFD nomination. BTW, with meta-templates it won't break if you literally don't provide the parameter (see sample with no parameters provided). Only six parameters are required. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

@2K1Bond007: The behaviour you describe was the behaviour I was getting, and the exact behaviour I had a question about.

@everyone else: So it's as I thought then; the usage info didn't take into account a change made to the template at a later date. Shinobu 00:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

PSX=PS1

I have noticed that a lot of people are still using PSX to mean the PlayStation, when in reality, the PSX is a luxury PS2/PVR released only in Japan... The official acronym for the PlayStation is PS1 or PSone. --Wulf 18:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Experemental version

{{Infobox video game |title = Grim Fandango |image = [[:Image:Gim fandango cover.jpg|''Grim Fandango'' Lucas Arts Classics Cover]] |developer = [[LucasArts]] |publisher = [[LucasArts]] |designer = [[Tim Schafer]] |engine = [[GrimE]]  |released = [[1998]] |genre = [[Adventure game]] |modes = [[Single player]]  |platforms = [[Microsoft Windows|Windows]] |media = [[CD-ROM|CD]] (2)   }} Got any changes you want to test? Try it on {{Infobox video game/sandbox}}.

preceded and followed

Following the examples in the film and book infoboxes, I've added {{{preceded by}}} and {{{followed by}}} to this template. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

See the main Final Fantasy game articles for examples of how they are used. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Records?

Do we really need to know info about speed records in an infobox? I'd like to think an infobox should stick to info that's (mostly) static. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I added them there to deal with the records that get mentioned on the articles of many popular games like Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, OoT, Doom etc. Hopefully this will reduce some clutter. I know that records aren't static, but record-breaking times don't come out every day, and certainly when one does a fan of the game will update it. Also, it's an optional field. Wikipedian06 01:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think any such high score type field is necessary. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If my past experience is any indicator, usually the people adding high-score type info to articles are doing so to boost their ego or their image. Giving them a space in the box just encourages it, IMO. Then there's the verifiability side of things. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Names aren't added - only the times are. Verifiability is not a problem because I link to SDA/NESvideos directly. Look at Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario 64, etc. The "problems" you mentioned don't apply here. Wikipedian06 02:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You're being optimistic: just because you don't place names there, doesn't mean someone else won't. I'll defer to others as to whether or not the site you link to is a reliable source. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, many of the articles I pointed to already had information about the speedruns. There were entire sections, visible in the Tables of Contents, devoted to them. Many of those sections have been there for months - some with names of those top players - and no one has bothered to clear them. (For example: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Super_Mario_Bros.&diff=47395362&oldid=47382479#Current_world_record_time) Having this infobox field will give us a reason to clear them out. SDA stands for Speed Demos Archive, which is one of the top 3 speedrunning websites out there, along with Twin Galaxies. If they're not notable, why would they have their own articles? Hmm. Also, if you would actually check the sites you'd see that there are videos you can download that directly confirm the times, thus making the sources 100% reliable. Wikipedian06 03:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the dudes who makes these things (well, tool-assisted anyway), no. I essentially see it as advertising for Speed Demos Archive, Twin Galaxies, nesVideos (Bisqwit's site). As cool as they are, I very much mind advertising their sites all over Wikipedia. Nifboy 04:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

They're advertised in external links anyway. Wikipedian06 04:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In a way, yes, but not in any systematic fashion, nor at the top of the page as opposed to the bottom. Nifboy 05:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd rather link to MobyGames, in the same fashion that Template:Infobox Film points to the IMDb. Nifboy 05:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the opposition to this addition, I've removed them from the infobox. I too don't see the point to these (reliability as a source, notability as information for an infobox, and blatant advertising are my problems with it). Regardless, additions to this infobox that are not general coding fixes or anything of the like should be discussed first before being implemented as these changes effect thousands of articles. K1Bond007 05:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I kind of liked the sales field, though. Nifboy 05:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Add it back then. I believe all the fields should be discussed since that was the rule the Wikiproject had going and because of how many articles it effected, but whatever. I see I missed Cyberskull's additions too. Oh well. Not gonna be a pain about this, but it just seems like this infobox gets longer and longer. Whatever. K1Bond007 05:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

CyberSkull's additions were reasonable: Template:Album infobox and Template:Infobox Single both include an optional chronology section, it only makes sense here as well (since videogames tend to have sequels fairly often). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

We talked about including sales figures here. There was no real consensus, but there seems to be a problem with getting verifiable statistics. Unlike with movies, game publishers do not tend to publicly say how much a single game grossed. jaco plane 09:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Out of hand?

Does anyone else think that all these recent additions (preceded by, followed by, etc.) are getting out of hand? Soon, the infobox will take up the entire right side of an article no doubt. Its starting to look like a little too much... Thunderbrand 13:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The preceded by and followed by are handled quite nicely by the series templates, I think. Pagra shtak 15:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, this adds a bit of uniformity with the other infobox templates (most of which have a chronology section). The series templates are also usually at the bottom, and often contain a lot more than just which game came before/after (unless you're talking about the succession-style boxes, and then I still think the info is useful enough to warrant being in the infobox (and more prominent)). Regarding the other new fields, I agree, those are overkill. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think "preceded by" and "followed by" are ambiguous here when compared to other infoboxes. Should it be next game by that developer (like the music infoboxes) or next game in that series (as is probably intuitive)? Was Quake 3 followed by Doom 3 or Quake 4? --Mrwojo 19:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I would assume in the series, but this negates the purpose of the footer template that is on all Quake-related/Doom-related articles. Expansion packs and "spinoffs" are other problems. Did Call of Duty: United Offensive follow Call of Duty or was that Call of Duty 2? Spinoffs: did Unreal Tournament follow Unreal or was that Unreal 2? What about games that are similar or the same, but came years later such as Far Cry Instincts (see Far Cry) or Prince of Persia: Revelations (see Prince of Persia: Warrior Within). I'm sure there are some better examples out there than what I picked, the point is, however, that there is a lot of gray areas with the preceded/followed fields. K1Bond007 20:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly why the series templates do a much better job. The extra information Locke Cole refers to as an apparent distraction is actually an advantage. Pagra shtak 20:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the infobox should just go back to the way it was before. No speedruns, no precending/followed by for the reasons stated above. I think the series infoboxes that we have are a lot nicer. The infobox we have is already one of the largest ones around. - Hahnch e n 17:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess most disagree, but I tend to agree with Locke Cole that the chronology section is ok (for series). Other fields like speedrunning shouldn't be included. jaco plane 18:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Include homepage?

I think this template should include the address of the homepage of the game. Even though this can be found in the external links, it would be much easier to access it at the top of the article. --ZeroOne 10:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems my prediction is coming to pass. I would hold off until there is consensus. (as a note, a user added a "music" section to the code just recently) Thunderbrand 16:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Eek, it could be still worse though, take a look at Legend of the Galactic Heroes ...... ugh! Regarding the music section, I don't think we have consensus to include that. jaco♫plane 18:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that is pretty bad! I guess it could be worse... Thunderbrand 18:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

DO people even go to the oficial homepage? I guess if if the game is in development.... But usually when a game is released fan sites become more primary... IN that cases would a fan site be lsited in the infobox? It shouldn't be, but the argument is there. My vote is to keep it out; the only reason for inclusion would be for wikinewbies, who dont realzie you ahve to scroll to the bototm to get hte external links. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 18:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A homepage is only relevant to me if I can download the game or something like that. It's more appropriate in {{Infobox Software}} than in CVG. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly how I came to think of this. I wanted to download Soldat, which is a shareware game. For shareware games the official homepage is often the best media for all info related to that game. Official sites of true commercial games offer patches and some goodies. --ZeroOne 13:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Music?

I don't think music is really needed. If the composer is of note, they go in the designer feild. If the music part of the program is of note, it would go under engine. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it does seem a bit much. Thunderbrand 04:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. jaco♫plane 07:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So if no one objects I'll remove the field later today? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been removed. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Designer is not the same as a composer and vice versa. In my opinion, music field is as necessary as in Template:Infobox Film. Music credit(s) should be indicated and should be separated from fields like Designer or Engine. And in fact, 'Music' is a bad name for this infobox, it should be 'Music by', 'Music credit(s)', 'Musician(s)' or sth like that. Visor 15:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For the Commodore 64, the composers were as famous as the game designers, and were usually given individual credits. Please restore this feature of the infobox. --01:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)