Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Game Engine Field

The Game engine field should be put back in. The Main Reason it was deleted (curtsy of User:Masem):

"I've seen many cases where the engine is not known that users attempt to fill this in with something. If the engine the game uses is notable, it should be in the development section, but it is not a factor that people need to know "at a glance" at the box."

a. Vaguely citing "many" cases isn't an argument.

b. Some videogames don't have enough information on the development to warrant creating a development section.

c. Yes, the software that makes up a videogameis important.

d. Another argument (and presumably the reason all of those revisions were made was because the the box was getting to big. There is a solution to that: Have some of the fields in spoiler tags.

e. Finally I've noticed no one has gone through every single videogame page and transferred all the game engine information down to their development sections. If there is no motivation to do so, then there is no reason to delete this field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightgalrs (talk • contribs) 03:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Every game article should strive to have a development section; it is a key aspect of a game article; if all it contains is the game engine, that's better than nothing. Also, note that "deleting" the field from the infobox template does not delete the info from the article, it just isn't shown. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Yes the software that makes up the video game is important, but it is not really essential info. Even if there is no or a stunted development info the essential info on what the engine does can be gleamed from the "gamplay" section. Knowing a specific name here doesn't help most readers in almost every case.陣内_Jinnai 03:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• I was neutral before on this field and I guess nothing has really changed. Everything should be in prose, infobox is just a neat overview. Ideally there would be a development section, otherwise gameplay section. Besides, there needs to be a reference for most cases. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just to address some of the arguments brought up here: a) I have come across many, many console video game articles where people "forced" an unnamed engine on the infobox – enough to consider these cases equally numerous to when the field was properly used. b) As per the guidelines: If the material for a development section is not sufficient, other things like reception or legacy can be joined with it in a "History" section. e) I have manually updated lots of console video game articles in the recent past. If you find obsolete infobox fields, delete them and salvage references if they are included in them (maybe AutoWikiBrowser could be used to delete these unused fields automatically if they do not contain refs). Prime Blue (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Support reinstatement - Coincidentally, I also sought to have this parameter reinstated and originally included it as part of my new section below. I view the removal of the engine parameter as rather unfortunate, because there are at least two specific instances in my mind in which the parameter intrigued me and provided unique insight that would have been otherwise intangible. I realize that misuse has been a real problem, but I think that removal is a non-solution.   — C M B J   09:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I believe that the field should be reinstated. Since it's been a good period of time with no oppositions, should an admin be called to reinstate it in the template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamerzworld (talk • contribs) 01:45, October 14, 2010
  • So the comments above the (unnecessary) Arbitrary break and the previous discussion do not count? I for one am still waiting for proof that this field is more useful than pointless in most cases.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Haven't seen an argument here that makes a good enough case for reinstatement. - X201 (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the arguments here have not made any good reason why it's essential info nor how it would be prevented from being abused. For almost every article knowing the engine is not essential to understanding and for those few, it can be mentioned in the development section.陣内_Jinnai 14:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Though meaningless to casual readers, the 'media', 'cabinet', 'arcade system', 'cpu', 'sound', and 'display' parameters may be of substantial informational value to some readers. The same is true of 'game engine', which is not unlike a PC equivalent of the aforementioned parameters. Speaking from personal experience, I did not even realize that games shared a common engine until I learned about them through infoboxes. In fact, I once did not buy a game simply because of the limitations imposed by its game engine at the time, of which I learned solely about via an infobox here. Moreover, based on personal experiences, it seems to me that through no other single descriptor can you learn so many unrelated details about a PC game:

• Is this game like one I've played before?
• Is this game a console port?
• Is this game far more (or less) hardware intensive than it looks like it should be?
• Does this game use familiar key mappings?
• Does this game undesirably limit how many players can play on a multiplayer server simultaneously?
• Will this game be vulnerable to common software exploits or security vulnerabilities?

These details are of equal or greater importance than those provided by the 'distributor', 'distribution', 'designer', 'programmer', 'artist', 'writer', or 'composer' parameters. And though it can be argued that any one of these parameters could or should be left to prose, we retain them because they are of a reasonable value to some readers--and the same should be true of 'game engine'. Lastly, as for addressing abuse potential, the degree of actual harm was not so severe as to warrant removal. Other important parameters, such as 'requirements', face the very same dilemma. I further move to reinstate 'game engine' as a parameter.   — C M B J   18:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

First off, the way you are describing an engine is improper. Whether you chose to base your buying habits on an engine is up to you, but by saying there is an engine and believing by the very nature that engine X = good or engine Y = bad because of what it did in game A is fallacy.

So what you are doing is actually biasing a reader with possibly faulty info (sometimes those engines are changed enough they are renamed and that isn't always documented well so people just "assume" it must be the older, poorer one),

Also while we do try to present many items to a reader there comes a point where 1> Too much infomation is harmful because it creates information overload and 2> limitations of the table either due to hitting a barrier in the amount of coding it will accept (i don't think we're in danger of that here, but I have known it to cause problems) or it exponentially increases loading times for every page for each new parameter there is. True 1 new paramenter doesn't hurt much, but neither does another and another and another...

To take your points on each:

• That info is better described in the prose. Knowing the engine adds little to that knowledge. You can make a chess game from the DOOM engines. Knowing its the Quake engine won't help you know the chess game is like an FPS.
• That info is already described elsewhere in the infobox.
• Possibly the only valid item here, but we already have a software requirements and not enough on its own to warrant.
• Again key mappings can change depending on the game. A chess game made from an FPS isn't going to have the same key mappings. It's also not Wikipedia's purpose to inform players whether it has the same keymappings. If they can figure that out, more power to them, but that shouldn't be a reason for inclusion.
• This one assumes a biased opinion on the engine based on previous games and thus could actually in the very way you phrase it be construed as WP:NPOV if engine Y = bad is used in the infobox to help support a negative tone of the game inspite positive reviews. As i mentioned before that an engine for one game used in another is not the same it means that saying engine Y = bad and engine X = good is at least in the grey area for NPOV if even here you are already thinking in those terms.
• Again see previous statement. It doesn't mean that just because their was a problem with the original that exploit wasn't fixed and there's no way to note that in the infobox.陣内_Jinnai 05:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Before I answer any of your points related to this infobox, I want to first respond to the claim that I have in some way done something improper here. Neutrality is one of my very highest priorities as a contributor here. Yes, I spoke candidly from the subjective perspective of a reader. But that was exactly what I was trying to do: provide a real world example. That's precisely why I disclaimed my evaluation as a biased personal opinion, rather than presenting it as objective fact—and there's nothing objectionable about that at all.

With that said, I'd like to address the point of this parameter adding unnecessary clutter in this infobox. Currently, we have five parameters to describe the technical details of arcade games, but we only have one for PC games. I contest the notion that reinstatement of this single parameter is tantamount to the proliferation of trivial details in the infobox. This parameter was already a part of the infobox for years, and it was only removed as a result of a very brief cleanup discussion. We are not talking about going hog wild with a disproportionate number of new parameters.

As for similarities between games, consider Empire Earth and Empires: Dawn of the Modern World for example. Both of these games use the Titan Engine, 1.X and 2.X respectively, and are very much alike. They share remarkable similarities in interfaces, functionality, rendering, security, and even hotkeys. And while it is true that this should be described in the prose, not every reader wishes to stop and read paragraphs of text to ascertain something that may be apparent at-a-glance. If it is a chess game made with the Doom engine, then they will know to expect stark differences in most respects.

Another point which you addressed was that of security vulnerabilities. This issue is perhaps best illustrated by the Unreal Engine. As one of the most widely used engines, it is also one of the first to have exploits go public. What do Unreal Tournament 2003, Unreal Tournament 2004, Postal 2, Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield, and SWAT4 all have in common? They can all compromise a user's system because of the same buffer overflow problem. This does not mean that the Unreal Engine is bad in any way, it just means that a reader may need to take additional precaution if the game is being played in a mission-critical environment, such as a forward operating base. (And yes, people do play video games to unwind in these environments). Sure, patches will sometimes exist, but a person in a position with this sort of concern and responsibility should be able to determine that with additional research.

The next point is that of platform ports. No, that is not true—the infobox currently does nothing to tell you if a game was developed natively or ported from another platform. This leads us back to my subjective example presented in the aforementioned response: the Battlefield series. In this series, the oldest two games, Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam, both are virtually identical in their gameplay, graphics, interface, and hotkeys. With the release of Battlefield 2, the Battlefield engine had evolved considerably but still retained the vast majority of its original features and functionality. Then came Battlefield 2142—an even further evolution of its predecessors—which still maintained the same core set of features as the original game. To the end-user, every one of these four games had a familiar look and feel. Meanwhile, the Frostbite Engine was being developed for Battlefield: Bad Company, a console-exclusive game. This meant that a new feature set—one with roots in the console platform, rather than PC platform—was born. By the time of Battlefield 1943 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2, version 1.5 of this console game engine had been successfully ported to Windows, which ushered in an entirely new look and feel as compared to the four predecessors in the PC series, as well as a number of new features. This brings us to our next point: player limitations. With the addition of an interactive (as opposed to innate) environment in the Frostbite Engine games—a good thing—the developer decided that it was technically necessary in 2009 to limit Battlefield 1943 to 24 (as opposed to 64) players in order to compensate for the new effects. In the 2010 release of Battlefield: Bad Company 2, this number was increased to 40. So even though this is/was a limitation of the Frostbite Engine in versions 1.0-1.5, it may not be a limitation by the time version 2.0 is released with Battlefield 3.

The moral of the story here is not that any particular game engine is inherently good or bad, rather that each game engine is fundamentally unique in its own way, and games based on a common engine are likely to have common features, characteristics, vulnerabilities, and/or technical limitations that may be of interest (or even vital importance) to the reader. And with the continuation of this parameter, we stand to inform and educate users in a way that would otherwise not be possible.   — C M B J   01:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you did not do anything improper. It would have been better had you contested this before it was removed, but there is nothing wrong with contesting something after it is removed and you've not done anything improper during this process (ie you've kept things from devolving into name calling and flinging accusations) so there's no issue with you bringing up your grievance.

As for the arcade issue, we are trying to clean up the infoxbox and therfore with regard to having more infoboxes for arcade games you might have an easier chance at reducing the number than increasing it for PC games.

First I'll address the porting issue. The infobox addresses porting by release dates. The first release date is assumed to be the native system. If it isn't an inline footnote can be added next to it (and I've seen it done) to clarify, but the situation is so rare that it is enough to say chronological order is enough to demonstrate what a system was ported from. If there is concurrent releases, then its best explained in the prose how those systems relate and differ and modding they had to do with each engine.

As for the others, again, it biases the reader into thinking that if an engine exists for X then it will have all the same problems and flaws as Y. Readers won't assume if they see there is an Unreal engine that any patches have been made to address the buffer overflow issue. They'll assume Unreal=guaranteed overflow issue no matter what. They won't read into the prose, if what you said is true, that it gives them a snapshot overview and if it doesn't than its of no help.

Finally there is difficulty in sourcing many of the engines and its a problem because when there is no reliable sources (or sometimes when there is) people just put whatever they feel the engine should be. Given what you've said about engines being able to give the kind of info they can this is something then that would need to be worried about. This is why we have severly restricted some fields to assigned outputs, like |modes=.

The bottom line is that in a theoretical model where the engine was changed at all for any game then noting an engine might be fine. However, as almost every game modifies the engine to meet its needs and there are attempts to fix problems, it can give just as much relevant info as it can false info because, if what you claim is true (which i would agree), people assume one thing just on the name.陣内_Jinnai 16:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World is a featured-class article and it only mentions the Titan Engine in one sentence of its prose. The reality is that the prose of a game article is never really going to go into vivid detail about its game engine, let alone obscurities like buffer overflows and DoS attacks. And even with a casual reference to Titan Engine in the game article, it is still improbable that any useful knowledge is being communicated to the average reader at all, because few people are going to read an article in its entirety. However, in an infobox, it is likely that an interested reader will stop to examine and learn about a given game engine by clicking the link.   — C M B J   18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

it's a 2006 FA - It likely needs to be reviewed as standards were tightened in 2007 signifigantly. It may be now that without that kind of info it wouldn't be a FA. I will not say one way or the other though, but that is far from the best example.陣内_Jinnai 21:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but it still doesn't really mean much. The problem is widespread and evident in much of the general corpus:

• Battlefield: Bad Company (1 sentence)
• Battlefield 1943 (1 sentence)
• Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (2 sentences)
• Medal of Honor (1 sentence)
• Empire Earth (absent, despite being origin of respective engine)
• Caesar IV (absent)
• Immortal Cities: Children of the Nile (absent)

Besides, there is no real point in verbosely describing the uniform characteristics of the same engine in a dozen different articles. It is unforeseeable that this approach would be considered preferable in terms of WP:FACR, which requires that an article's content be concise.   — C M B J   05:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well first none of those are GA, let alone FA articles. Second, maybe that means the engine really isn't that essential to understanding the game as you make it out to be.陣内_Jinnai 17:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If the game shares common characteristics with all other games using the same engine, then it is just as essential to understanding the mechanics of the game as if the characteristics deviated from that of the game engine. The only difference is that shared similarities do not need to be reiterated as content forks of varying qualities throughout the project, whereas unique conditions must be explored and described on an individual basis.   — C M B J   20:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It has now been almost a month. Can we move forward with this?   — C M B J   21:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What forward action is necessary besides archiving the thread by someone uninvolved? As far as I can see there is no consensus /or road support to reinstate the field as is. I, personally, would support the field if a new proposal was made that it may only contain a notable engine, with its own article linked. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Revised proposal to reinstate the licensing parameter

Based on the aforementioned discussion(s), I remain unconvinced of the premise that a licensing parameter is so problematic that its very existence in an infobox must depend on restriction. With that said, however, I do favor the idea of standardization and uniformity, so I present the following rectified proposal for consideration:

Description	Parameter input	Parameter output 1	Parameter output 2	Example article	Default category
Games that are strictly sold on a commercial, for-profit basis	license=proprietary	License:	Proprietary	Starcraft II	Category:Proprietary video games, a new subcategory within Category:Proprietary software
Proprietary games provided to an end-user at no cost	license=freeware	License:	Freeware	SubSpace	Category:Freeware games
Proprietary games provided to an end-user at no cost, but which also encourage redistribution and limit functionality in some way	license=shareware	License:	Shareware	World Empire	Category:Shareware
Proprietary ad-supported games that are provided free of cost to an end-user	license=adware	License:	Adware	Zwinky	Category:Adware
Games released under licenses that are uncommon, complex, novel, or otherwise require human input	otherlicense=%userdefined%	License:	%userdefined%	N/A	N/A
Open source games of an unknown or unique license that complies with the definitions set forth by the Free Software Foundation or Open Source Initiative	freelicense=opensource	Free license:	Open source	N/A	Category:Free, open source video games
Open source games explicitly licensed under one or more versions of the GNU General Public License	freelicense=GPL	Free license:	GPL	Micropolis	Category:Free, open source video games
Open source games explicitly licensed under one or more versions of the GNU Lesser General Public License	freelicense=LGPL	Free license:	LGPL	BZFlag	Category:Free, open source video games
Open source games explicitly licensed under one or more versions of the BSD License	freelicense=BSD	Free license:	BSD	Microwar	Category:Free, open source video games
Open source games explicitly licensed under one or more versions of the Mozilla Public License	freelicense=MPL	Free license:	MPL	The City Beneath	Category:Free, open source video games
Open source games explicitly licensed under one or more versions of the MIT/X11 License	freelicense=X11	Free license:	X11	StepMania	Category:Free, open source video games
Open source games explicitly licensed under one or more versions of the Creative Commons CC-BY license	freelicense=CC-BY	Free license:	CC-BY	N/A	Category:Free, open source video games
Open source games explicitly licensed under one or more versions of the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license	freelicense=CC-BY-SA	Free license:	CC-BY-SA	0 A.D.	Category:Free, open source video games
Open source games explicitly licensed under one or more versions of the Artistic	freelicense=artistic	Free license:	Artistic	Simutrans	Category:Free, open source video games
Open source games explicitly licensed under one or more versions of the Affero General Public License	freelicense=AGPL	Free license:	AGPL	Ryzom	Category:Free, open source video games
Games released into the public domain	freelicense=PD	Free license:	Public domain	Golgotha	Category:Public domain video games, a new subcategory within Category:Public domain
Games released under free licenses that are uncommon, complex, novel, or otherwise require human input	otherfreelicense=%userdefined%	Free license:	%userdefined%	N/A	N/A

• Support as nominator.   — C M B J   23:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Some notes:

• "Proprietary" should be piped as "Commercial", as that is the video games industry standard term (and most used/recognised as seen by field's usage).
• "Open source" is really just a fancy way of saying "Free". I think "Free" is more recognisable by a general reader than "Open source".
• I am still not convinced that free software should be handled by directly giving just the license. There has to be a "Free" somewhere there, e.g.,

|license=free -> Free
|license=cc-by -> Free, CC-BY license
Otherwise, for a general reader GLP, CCBYSA, PD, etc. may as well be given in Latin. There is also no harm in giving acronyms ("GPL" vs "GNU General Public License") to avoid clutter (which is why this field was under question) and since those who wouldn't need to click the link to find out what the license means, already know what acronym it has. In essence, I oppose anything that spans more than 1 line. I suppose it couldn't hurt to be specific, as long as it is also consistent and brief.

• Otherwise, I do not see any big objections. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal amended accordingly. Do I have your support?   — C M B J   00:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"Proprietary" should still be called "Commercial".

Should we not use capital letters for "gpl", "cc-by", etc. in the wikitext? After all, readability for editors is also important.

Linking "Free" and "license" separately goes against mos:link as two links in a row. I think Free software link is enough.

I also like the idea of auto-categorisation from this.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the MOS:LINK issue. Not all commercial software is proprietary, so I'm going to leave that one alone. As for the capitalization, I'll adjust it for the instructions...but I think that the template can be compatible with both upper and lower case versions. And with regard to the auto-categorization, we're going to need to do some multivariable scripting so that the 'genre' parameter is considered during assignment. For example, Freeciv belongs in Category:Free, open source strategy games rather than the parent Category:Free, open source video games.   — C M B J   06:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I can see how commercial is not necessarily proprietary. Caps just feel natural and are the correct format, I don't think we need to complicate things with several values for the same output. "gp" should probably also be "GP". Finally, the genre field is not enumerated, it's custom user text, it would be impossible to auto-categorize based on that. I did not realize we have sub-categories based on genre for licenses. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The genre field could be enumerated just as easily as licensing. There aren't really that many genres, and the handful of games that span multiple-genres can be manually defined and categorized.   — C M B J   19:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the otherlicense=%userdefined% option should be dropped in favour of a vanilla Other with the license explained in the prose. - X201 (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My support for an enumerated method is exclusively dependent on the ability to bypass the bureaucratic process. But even if it were not, there is no reason to preclude users from providing custom input. Because ≥99% of articles will be using an enumerated option, a bot like H3llkn0wz has can be periodically used to monitor the handful of userdefined licenses.   — C M B J   20:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer other as well as it would encourage use of very technical jargon-y licensees by those who may have released it (or someone else who knows it) and updating their own page with an obscure license that really needs better explanation. The Infobox is meant to help the reader better understand the work at a glance, not confuse them.陣内_Jinnai 16:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that an other field is needed in one form or another to allow users to enter custom information. I like the idea of "otherlicense" and "freelicense", though I am fine with just "otherlicense" or something. In any case, most games don't need special cases. Regarding genre field, I think this is another discussion, as many games have 2+ genres. Also (my previous misspelling aside) "pd" should be "PD", or in fact "publicdomain". I don't think readability should be sacrificed for a couple of bytes/letters to type.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The advantage to having both 'otherlicense' and 'otherfreelicense' is to differentiate on the left column. We do use "pd" in a lot of our other templates, but I went ahead and made it uppercase for you. As for the genre discussion, we can accommodate multiple genres with a genre1= genre2= genre3= syntax.   — C M B J   22:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case we could have other free license and other non-free license as outputs. That's a compromise I'm willing to live with.陣内_Jinnai 20:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, the problem with a generic 'other' output is that it establishes a bureaucratic firewall that serves no practical purpose. There is simply no reason to assume bad faith of our advanced contributors, especially when far fewer than 1% of all articles will even utilize the parameter.   — C M B J   02:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If this aims at including that field for every video game article, then I'll have to object – the bulk of games still is commercially released and does not need this field as it is the standard case. The previous discussion was not only based on misuse but also on the fact that the license is unneeded in the infobox and makes more sense to mention in the article text. The overarching objective was to reduce largely redundant fields that have no place in the infobox. Prime Blue (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of the parameter should be encouraged by our documentation, but I have no objection to leaving it as optional at this point in time.   — C M B J   08:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the documentation is complicated enough as is. Adding a lengthy table to explain a field that would be irrelevant for most articles does not help. Prime Blue (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Licensing is relevant to every video game article, as every video game in inherently licensed in a certain way, even if not explicitly by the author(s). My biggest objection, for example, was the arbitrary and disorganized use of the field. A collapsible box for this field and a note, such as, "Most games are commercial and proprietary, if the game has a specific license, use the appropriate value from the table below." is perfectly fine. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind the re-inclusion of the field as much if 1.) it was not used for commercial games and 2.) if it was restricted to a few easy-to-use standard values. Prime Blue (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Prime Blue, though I'd also say that it could be used for articles with both commerical and non-commerical games as well. Those simple values could be elaborated in the body. I still say we can get by with:

1. Commerical (only needed when there are multiple releases of the same game under different licensees, otherwise it is assumed)
2. Shareware (covers any from of game released where some kind of payment is asked for, including non-cash payments such as postcards. It also includes any type of game where there is some type of deliberate annoyance to get you to buy, such as feature reduction, or annoying popups.)
3. Open Source (covers all license that have a basic open source licenses)
4. Adware (specifically for products where the revenue is suppose to come primarily from ads or whose purpose is product placement. If you can pay to have ads removed, it is shareware).
5. Public Domain (specifically for games released into the public domain for which there is no need for any licenese).

That covers all the broad categories. Specifics on each license can be discussed in the prose. The infobox isn't suppose to further confuse the reader with technical jargon.陣内_Jinnai 14:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As explained above, not all commercial software is proprietary software. The difference between the two is very important to recognize, as an open source game can be commercial. Further, not all open source licenses share the same goals. The term itself has become a bit of a buzzword in recent times, which has been increasingly (ab)used to promote products under restrictive licenses that deviate considerably from common open source ideals. But even in the case of genuine open source software, there are far too many instances in which licensing restrictions can preclude honest use. Take for example the open source games on this list. Many of them, such as Steel Storm: Episode I, are licensed in a way that precludes even us here at Wikipedia from legally displaying a full resolution screenshot. The same problem may or may not exist for other open source environments, depending on license. The distinction between various licenses is not superfluous--it is essential for a wide variety of intents and purposes--and it is one that should be ascertainable without digging deep into an article's prose.   — C M B J   17:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't combine the Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative as one, they are very different beasts. Palosirkka (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to splitting them up.   — C M B J   08:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

rollover issues with collapse

Dragon Warrior
File:Dragon Warrior sample.jpg North American box art
Developer(s)	Chunsoft
Publisher(s)	JP: Enix NA: Nintendo
Director(s)	Koichi Nakamura
Producer(s)	Yukinobu Chida
Designer(s)	Yuji Horii
Artist(s)	Akira Toriyama
Composer(s)	Koichi Sugiyama
Series	Dragon Quest
Platform(s)	Nintendo Entertainment System, MSX, NEC PC-9801, Sharp X68000 Super Nintendo Entertainment System, Game Boy Color, mobile phones
Release	May 27, 1986 NES JP: May 27, 1986 NA: August 1989 MSX JP: 1986 SNES JP: December 18, 1993 Game Boy Color JP: September 23, 1999 NA: September 27, 2000 Mobile phones JP: 2004
Genre(s)	Role-playing game
Mode(s)	Single-player

The template seems to have some issues with rollover such as used when there are numerous release dates. Specifically see Dragon Warrior. On my screen platforms text is overlapping the show text. I have tried to change the font size for the title, but it doesn't seem to be accepting smaller font size (i've set it down to 10pt).陣内_Jinnai 01:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Collapsible lists are only for port developers, and crowded release date and publisher fields – it should not be used for platforms. If there is an issue with overlapping, either increase the infobox image width by a few pixels (if this works, this is the best option as it will ensure consistent text sizes), or if all else fails, remove the "font-size:12px;" from "titlestyle". See Silent Hill 2 for an example of an overlap fix. Cleaned up the Dragon Warrior infobox here to show what it should look like with the established formatting ("title" field is not needed in the article itself). Prime Blue (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

ENginee

Should the engine be added to all video game infoboxes?Swmmr1928 talk 16:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Only if the game's engine has its own article. Otherwise, the field is left empty (but the engine can still be mentioned in the development section). Prime Blue (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Closure date

With the pending closure of major MMORPG Star Wars Galaxies, we could use a way to indicate the closure date in the infobox. Any suggestions? Powers ^T 15:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I fear editors will start speculating and adding WP:CRYSTAL in the field. The actual number of online games to which this is applicable is very low. Prose is the way to go, in my opinion. Although I do not object to the field if it will require proper sourcing and categorize articles for easy maintenance and detection of speculative/unsourced uses. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with H3ll on this score. The "life" of a video game or even its service is hard to define and will vary dramatically from game to game, so if it's that important it should be in prose or even the lead, but the infobox really doesn't need to support it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, basically share the opinion of H3llkn0wz and David, would best be kept to prose. The biggest issue of such an infobox field is the vandalism/edit warring/original research, and we have enough problems with the release date field already. Prime Blue (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

But given that we already include the release date, for a game with ongoing support via game servers, it's a little misleading to imply that the game is still active, isn't it? Powers ^T 17:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Release date has nothing to do with the current support status of a product; it's a historical factoid. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess the problem is that MMORPGs are more than just a product, they're also a service. Products have discrete release dates, but services have date ranges during which the service is active. For a service with known start and end dates, I don't see why the start date is more important than the end date. Powers ^T 19:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from with that view, but I'm not sure a large majority of the community would agree that its an ongoing service. I think the closest you could get is something like a novel or TV series where you list the range of dates from initial date through the last expansion or patch.陣内_Jinnai 21:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, really? Providing multiple server clusters, ongoing active content development, and active in-game community support isn't providing a service? Powers ^T 12:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is, but its nothing substantially different from customer support for traditional games. Typically there is a sunset on when customer service will answer questions, fix/replace defective/damaged games, fix bugs, etc on those games.陣内_Jinnai 21:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly it's substantially different. An MMORPG cannot be played after the service is terminated, while other games can. MMORPGs are dependent upon the servers remaining operational. Powers ^T 18:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There are often unofficial servers that remain operational, or in some cases the service is terminated but fan servers are explicitly allowed and endorsed to carry on. It's almost never a bright line. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What if we restricted use of the field to games that are provided as a service (such as MMOs) rather than as a discrete product? Powers ^T 15:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for new field in infobox template

As the the template is "indefinitely protected from editing", can I make a request for a new field in the infobox? Namely, website. See the equivalent field in use on existing video game-related templates here, here, or here. If this request proves to be controversial, then I hope to reach consensus on this talk page. —JeevanJones (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

External links should go in the external links section, per WP:EL. The infobox should only contain those things that are vital to the thing they are describing. A website that is often just promotion to a game is not vital information about the video game. BOVINEBOY2008 17:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd normally agree with you, but there currently isn't a specific template for an individual video game which is downloaded from the website (and thus vital). It is for such a game that I am seeking a change to the template. As I've shown in the above template examples, external links are used in infoboxes (especially for the official website of the game). I ultimately don't see any harm in the proposed addition to the template, as it would help more than hinder people reading the article. —JeevanJones (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's really not WP's job to help gamers find links where to download a game. If those links are not directly from the official site, it's not our place to replicate that functionality. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is our place to present vital information, however. I'd argue that in some cases, the website of the game is vital and merits a field in the infobox if it is. —JeevanJones (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If a website was to be linked from an infobox, it should be the official website that gives more information about the game (description, media, requirements, developer, news, community links). That is, not a Steam/OnLive/AppStore or any kind of retailer link. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. —JeevanJones (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've disabled the edit request. Its normal procedure to discuss changes and then add them if consensus is reached. - X201 (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Object - Games have multiple regional sites. Having to choose just one site for the Infobox, is just going to create more edit wars over "The correct site" being the one chosen for the template. Much better to let the External links section do what it does so well, and handle multiple external links. - X201 (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Even the External links section should not list all the links to regional pages - Wikipedia isn't a web directory. And even in the case of multiple regional pages, there is usually an intro portal where users can choose their region. If not, the obvious solution is to link the base domain, and that's that. The remote possibility of an edit war shouldn't be considered a downside to this proposal (edit wars can erupt over pretty much anything, so it's not really an argument, even). I support the adding of this parameter, because I believe it's crucial information, because it's supported by the relevant guideline, and because it can be annoying to have to click/scroll to the bottom to find it (video game articles are usually very long). — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Remakes

I'm curious about the thing, particularly this case. You see, there's a Classic 2000 HD-remake of the game which was released a year and a half ago. Its media are download (via Steam) and cloud computing (via OnLive). Its version is 1.06. But then there's a person who frequently edits that article, and he keeps saying that infobox should refer strictly to its original version, e.g. its platforms, its release date, its media etc. So I tried to settle a separate infobox for that edition in the same article just to figure out from him moments later that that's unnecessary and should be described in prose (WTF?). What's the consensus? Postwar (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Standalone official remakes (not re-releases) should be included in the infobox unless for some reason there is a separate article about the remake (there likely shouldn't.) It should be clear what aspects of the infobox refer to the remade version. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What the illustrious Mr. Masem said. Using bold dividers for versions or parenthetical notes are the most commons methods of distinguishing remake/additional info. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Target Release Date

How would people feel about adding a "Target Release Date" or similar field to the template? If the Diablo III article is anything to go by, it might cut down on a lot of reverting due to unofficial release dates being put in. Thoughts? – RobinHood70 ^talk 20:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Its not needed, There's a date of "Early 2011" and a reliable source, the developer themselves. "Early 2012" + the source is fine. An extra feild wouldn't solve the date change/reversal/vandalism problem. - X201 (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If future release date speculation is a concern, then how would a field specifically for future dates discourage that? If anything, people will be inclined to put something there for future patches, versions, or other trivia. We ought to get consensus that future dates are only to be added if reliably sourced, but that is already covered in WP:V, WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Designer field bad link

The Designer field title links to Game Designer, which redirects to Game design#Game designer. It should be fixed to point directly where it intends to. --Salvidrim! (t • c) 04:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirects are not an evil thing! Salvidrim! 00:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of engine field (again)

This was added back in inspite there being no consensus to do so last time. It was removed because it was being improerly used and the practice continues. There is no reason it needs to be in the infobox as it isn't critical info one would expect to read and often names are plopped on such as in the case of Chrono Trigger: Crimson Echoes which violate WP:OR since the term "Chrono Trigger engine" was never used to describe CT by a RS.∞陣内Jinnai 18:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It was re-added here. With an edit comment of "as per talk page", I can find no discussion about the Engine field on either this page or WT:VG around the December date of the change. There was no consensus to re-add it the last time it was discussed. I support its removal. - X201 (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

Remove |engine= and add a depracration category notice since this was added without consensus.

Code for adding deprecation:

• {{#if:{{{engine|}}}|[[Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters|{{NAMESPACE}}{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}

∞陣内Jinnai 19:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page at the time, you'll see a "Moving forward with..." section where there is a consensus established. Given that, I'm flagging the edit request as addressed for now. I have no particular opinion here, so if there's good reason to remove the parameter, feel free to reverse that. – RobinHood70 ^talk 20:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Two new sections for Infobox video game: "Voice actor" and "Portrayal"

New disscusion started here.--TudorTulok (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Have fixed link. - X201 (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

DRM Section

This template could do with a section on DRM or any other restrictions. I saw it was discussed at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_video_game/Archive_9#this_infobox_really_needs_a_section_for_DRM but the arguments against are fairly spurious. Pleasetry (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

All arguments brought thus far oppose the addition. Can you establish why this factual information is unambiguously notable and crucial to have in the Infobox (rather than in the prose)? Salvidrim! 07:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Has any of the other content in the info box been scrutinised to the same extent especially when DRM often has a definite impact on the games use and would be something people may be wanting to know about.

For example two threads bemoaning the fact that despite buying a DVD they now need a steam account and download.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056494850

http://www.senntient.com/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=35496

An ongoing 261 page thread on ubisofts DRM.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4811054957/m/6811098728/p/1Pleasetry (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If the very basis for your arguments are forum threads, I'm afraid you're not making a very convincing point. Salvidrim! 08:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume your capable of understanding the subjects in them and it's a good deal better than the arguments against.As I've asked before, what scrutiny have the other sections of the infobox gone through? Pleasetry (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please explain clearly why a game's DRM Status is as important, crucial and central as its genre, publisher/developper, release information or age ratings, and, most importantly, why a mention in prose, when the DRM is notable enough to warrant a mention, is not sufficient. Salvidrim! 09:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the field. It applies only to a select number of games, there are many kinds of DRM stretching quite far back, it's not as important compared to many other fields in an already long infobox, and most importantly this is usually original research as reliable sources would only pay attention to this if it became controversial or widely discussed. How many games of the minority that has DRM do you think we can reliably source on this? An ongoing Internet thread on the subject in general bears little relevance to why this field is at least as important as other ones. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Formally !voting on this. I believe Infobox fields should be for factual information pertaining to a majority of games, which "DRM" fails to do. Furthermore, there has been no explanation offered to show why a mention in the article's prose is not sufficient. Salvidrim! 09:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• I want to add that while I believe this proposal was done in good faith, the fact the editor has little to no meaningful edits outside of the Steam/DRM topic worries me about the true motivations behind this suggestion. Salvidrim! 17:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Information that should have been there,wasn't, and there does seem to be an awful lot of resistance to labelling DRM.I assume linking to "arguments to avoid" in your post below was ironic.Pleasetry (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is the evidence to suggest that this is the case and where is the evidence that the other fields in the infobox are more worthy?Pleasetry (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you are making a proposal for a change. The burden of evidence is on you -- please put forth evidence from reliable sources showing that "DRM status" is of crucial importance for a majority of video games (and not exclusively ones released in the last ten years, say). If you present a complete argument with sources to support your proposition, I'll be happy to reconsider my position. Salvidrim! 12:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You might also wish to review this essay on arguments to avoid, as one of your arguments seem to rely on other sections of the Infobox and your perception that they lack consensus, rather than on the change you are proposing. Sections should be judged on their own merits, not comparatively to other sections. I admit I fell for it earlier when comparing with other sections and take back that argument. Salvidrim! 12:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an AfD or notability issue though so WP:ATA doesn't apply. Things like "(not) useful" and "(not) as important as other information" are valid arguments. So being less important than "developer" is most certainly a valid argument if we had to choose between the two. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. Salvidrim! 16:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether to include or not include a field is determined by editor consensus. "Worthy" is not something that is absolute. It is what editors decide in the best interests of WP. So far I see more arguments against than for, and if anything a "no consensus". There's definitely no consensus for it and nothing has really changed majorly since last discussions so I see no reason to discount those arguments. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In addition, I believe this proposal is about adding a DRM field. If you believe other fields in this Infobox should not be there, I think that consensus should be established separately and independently of this one. :) Salvidrim! 16:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I was replying to User:Pleasetry with this one. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I assume this is related to [1]. That being said long ago I was for this. But in the end Steam, Direct2Drive, etc are storefronts with built-in DRM. If we list them, then in all fairness we need to list Game.Uk, Amazon.com, GameStop, Wal-Mart or any other retailer of a game. The fact that they are digital doesn't change the fact that they are a reseller. If this is directly about DRM then I still oppose, as aside from Ubisoft's rather strict DRM (which has been covered in numerous articles) none of these methods is entirely significant, and for many will not be of any use. For instance, I don't care that that Star Wars: Battlefront II uses SecuROM. I put my disc in, it works. It seems like specialized content better suited for Wikia Gaming. --Teancum (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Its the type of field that would be gamed/shoehorned with by editors, eg a game released on Steam with no other DRM would likely be still classified as DRM by the most persistent editors. It's not really battles that we want fought over here, and thus best to leave it out. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As Steam is DRM,as well as ubisoft etc, the peristent editors would be the ones doing the opposite of what you claim. Regardless I don't see what the problem with that as it would be like any other thing else on wikipedia.

I think you've got muddled up Teancum it differs from amazon and other online stores that in that they don't interfere with the game after you've bought it.

As for the other arguments, H3llkn0wz "It applies only to a select number of games" It applies to lots.

"there are many kinds of DRM stretching quite far back" There are plenty of other things going far back.I'm sure it's not a problem for them. As for DRM you can put them into general catagories or only mention the ones that are problematic.

"it's not as important compared to many other fields in an already long infobox" Says who?

"An ongoing Internet thread on the subject in general bears little relevance to why this field is at least as important as other ones." It highlights the issues raised and why they're more fitting to go in the info box than much of the other stuff in there.

Salvidrim "please put forth evidence from reliable sources showing that "DRM status" is of crucial importance for a majority of video games (and not exclusively ones released in the last ten years,"

Justify your over the top demand.No wonder you don't want this issue to be compared with the rest of infobox otherwise we would have to delete most of them if held to your standards. This sort of info is better in the infobox because it's short and the type of thing people will be looking for at a glance not buried somewhere in the main article unless your suggesting that a lot of games have a drm section in the main article.

The DRM issue has come up more than once before from different people and will most likely be raised again so there is a consensus for it and just because there's a few more people sitting here opposing it doesn't alter that fact.Pleasetry (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Your statement that "there is a consensus" is not only entirely false, it runs contrary to nearly everything posted in this thread. What I see is a number of editors bringing arguments against the proposal, and one editor failing to present arguments in favor of the proposal, and instead attempting to defeat and deconstruct the arguments of those opposing the proposal. In any case, you should not need to invoke a silent presumed majority if you can make a solid point by yourself, which has evidently yet to be done.

Perhaps you may wish to study things a bit more and amass more editing experience, then bring back this proposal when it has some ground to stand on -- perhaps then editors will be more receptive to the suggestion. Salvidrim! 03:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be overwhelmingly against this, not the other way around. Dream Focus 08:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it very biased that you would quote me on individual sentences, yet omit the most pressing argument to which the rest are closely related: "most importantly this is usually original research as reliable sources would only pay attention to this if it became controversial or widely discussed.". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see as how that would be something of interest to anyone reading the article. Dream Focus 08:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As others have pointed out, the DRM a game uses is not usually notable, at least not important enough to include in an Infobox. Unless you're trying to bypass it the DRM it is totally irrelevant, no one will even notice or care if they're playing a legitimate game as long as it works. It'd also be difficult to source and there'd be issues as to whether the digital distribution platforms would be considered DRM or not. There are exceptions where the DRM has been controversial (such as Ubi's) but they are a small minority and can be covered in prose. Яehevkor ✉ 11:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

DRM is of more interest to the article as not only is it notable it often actively interferes with people running the game,there is a variety of notable types of DRM on large numbers of games and claiming DRM is only of interest to hackers is little more than a cheap slur why I could just as easily claim that people who want to play down DRM are software company astroturfers.

You're also capable of understanding the difference between a download service and DRM so I don't know why you brought that up.
Once again some more arguments parroting the not notable line but not explaining why.
There's also plenty of reliable sources so the original sources argument is a non starter.
Pleasetry (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a long winded discussion here, we'll have to agree to disagree. Consensus is very much against you at this point. (and describing statements as cheap slurs or parroting is not best way to engage in polite discussion) Яehevkor ✉ 12:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose- per any number of the arguments against it on this page, but most notably Dream Focus's - (it's just not of interest to the general audiences that wikipedia is supposed to be written towards.) and Teancum's (If we list Steam, there's all sorts of other ones we should technically list.) I don't see it worth adding. Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with opposition--if it's notable, discuss it. Otherwise, it's not vital. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Add hProduct microformat

Please add an hProduct microformat, and remove the event microformat (which in any case has been broken by recent edits), by changing:

infobox vevent

to:

infobox hproduct

then:

class="summary" | <span style="font-size:111%;">''{{#if:{{{title|}}}|{{{title}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}''</span>

to:

| <span style="font-size:111%;">''<span class="fn">{{#if:{{{title|}}}|{{{title}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}</span>''</span>

and finally:

'''[[Video game publisher|Publisher(s)]]''' {{!!}} {{{publisher|}}} }}

to:

'''[[Video game publisher|Publisher(s)]]''' {{!!}} <span class="brand">{{{publisher|}}}</span> }}

No visible changes will be made. For background, see WP:UF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Has this (video game infobox microformat usage) been discussed anywhere per outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats? Also why is |publisher= classified as "brand"? Is there some uF specification we can refer to using it like that? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's being discussed here; and the publisher (e.g. "Lucasfilm Games") is the brand of the product in the same way that Apple is the brand for iPad. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Also, the documentation will need to be updated about hproduct - I'll leave that to you. Tra (Talk) 20:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Content delivery

Please replace [[Content delivery|distribution]] with [[Digital distribution in video games|distribution]] - More specific target. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That is not correct. This field refers to any kind of media, not just digital, such as floppy disks, cartridges, memory cards or optical discs. See also Template_talk:Infobox_video_game/Archive_10#Distribution_field/ —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree in theory, but the current link is already to Content delivery. Please take a look at that link. This is a direct improvement over that. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Content delivery is not necessarily digital content delivery. We shouldn't narrow the link down just because we don't have a better alternative and the article is incomplete. Digital distribution in video games is now the preferred link for the specific method of delivery instead of just digital distribution (and we should probably replace all instances). But it's still a subset of "content distribution" —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

•  Not done: as Hellknowz suggests, the link itself goes to the most appropriate page for this subject. The relative quality of that page is an indicator that it should improved, rather than that this template point to a better page on a slightly incorrect subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this is inaccurate. "Content delivery" is an industry term that refers to non-physical distribution, and it always has. That is why this field has two wikilinks currently "Media/distribution". Did anyone actually look at the page? I understand that literally "content delivery" could be stretched to mean physical media in generic English, but it is never used in this sense, and our current article correctly reflects that. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 15:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, ok, I see that unsourced OR was added to content delivery to directly contradict my edit request. So instead of using a more accurate target, we are changing the English language to accommodate this template? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 15:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I already placed {{cn}} for it. I might be wrong, but are you saying this is basically the same thing as digital distribution, except a synonym? To rephrase, is there a difference between the two; because honestly I always read the former as not being exclusive to online/network methods. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

style="float:right; width:264px; font-size:90%; text-align:left;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3"

Media/distribution

online

(edit conflict) Actually, they used to be separate links before the discussion linked above. So what happens when a game is available only via online distribution. That would make "distribution" and "online" both link to the same page? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, "content delivery" is a term used for non-physical media. It can concievably mean analog as well as digital, but no video game could ever be delivered by purely analog means, as the game itself is digital. I would delete content delivery if I could as redundant and unsourcable, but I have no doubt it would survive AfD as most definitions do. The only evidence I can offer is anecdotal, but if you plug in "content delivery" into google or google news you will come across dozens of pages using it in this context.

Personally, I don't like the field at all, I was simply saying that the digital distribution article was a more precise target. This should honestly probably be a seperate field. Media = 2 x DVDs, Distribution = Steam / Origin (instead of simply "online"). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is getting me confused. I did google "physical content delivery" before editing the page and it had some hits here and there talking mostly about how physical delivery is falling out. So I assumed that's what the article is about, otherwise it is completely redundant to online distribution. But if you are saying that's indeed the case, then we ought to merge the two. Then I guess I don't have any issues with this edit, save for the above redundancy. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I just did "physical content delivery" in Bing and had 40 hits. Then I did "online content delivery" and had 10,000. "Digital content delivery" gets 32,000. I would like to merge that article, and if you agree then I will do it.

As far as this template, I have requested at WP:BRQ for a list of articles that use the "distributor" field on this template. I cannot believe that more than a few articles have ever used this for a physical distributor. It would probably be best if this field were used only for online distributors like Steam and Origin, and the media field is only used for physical media. Most distributors are publishers or non-notable, and nobody ever reports on which company distributes the physical games. This field must have been copied from a film template, where distributor is actually relevant. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This field isn't for the actual distributor though, but for the method. Unless you mean something different, "distributor" would be individual companies that distribute the games. That's hundreds of retailers for CDs and DVDs as they are all essentially distributors. But the same is now also true for online distributors -- Steam/Desura/OnLive/Direct2Drive/Live/etc. So why list online stores if we don't list "offline" stores? For example, why is being on Steam more notable than being in Gamestop? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

In the physical software industry, the developer makes the software, the publisher gets it to the point where it can be sold to a customer, and the distributor gets the product from the publisher to the retailer. Most distribution is done by the publisher, unless they are a small company, and then they might use a third-party distributor. Navarre Corporation is one such company, and Riverdeep used to be one. Retailers are not distributors in that sense. Physical distributors are never relevant to a game. Like I said, this is probably a hold-over from a film template, as a film distributor is very different and important (they are the ones that get the film to movie theaters). A film distributor is like a video game publisher. Nobody cares how the physical video games are distributed. Brick-and-mortar retail stores are not distributors.

My suggestion is that we use this field for the digital distributor which is a different sort of thing. Digital distribution cuts out the middle-men. Since most games are available online nowadays, the digital distributor becomes very relevant, in a way that physical distributors never were. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you mean the middle-man. But if "the distributor gets the product from the publisher to the retailer", then there is no such thing as "online distributor". They are all online retailers that work directly with publishers/developers. So you are not proposing to list distributors, but online retailers. I guess my question still applies: So why list online stores if we don't list "offline" stores? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Several reasons. The first is that the "online" part of the media field is awkward, it seems like two things shoved into one. Second, the digital distributor is unique among retailers, in that the experience of playing is different depending on the storefront. For example, if I bought Mass Effect 2 from Best Buy, it would be the same game that I could get from Amazon, the same that I'd get at Walmart. But buying it from Steam versus Origin means that the game has different DRM, different installation methods, different access to downloadable content, possibly different update cycles, etc. That is why a digital distributor is more than just an "online retailer"; that's what Newegg.com or Amazon are. A digital distributor is not like a physical distributor or retailer either. A digital distributor actually changes the product they are selling. How many times have you seen an article or a netizen mention that a particular game is sold on Steam, vs. how many times you've heard anyone care about which physical store carries what?

Besides, many pages already cram this info into the infobox (like Limbo (video game)), it'd be nice to have a field for it. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess I see your point about online retailers being more significant than offline ones. But it still ends up as a list of places where you can buy the game. We don't discuss DRM or features or store-specifics in the infobox, we just list them. And what happens when a game is sold in many stores at once? Is a long list of places one can buy it really encyclopedic in the long run? But I digress from the actual field we're talking about.

The last discussion decided to keep |media= "media/distribution" field fixed to mainly "floppy disk", "cartridge", "memory card", "optical disc", "download", and "cloud computing" and not list specific ones. And I agree with that. |distributor= is what one can use to list the specific ones. I don't think I see the merit of semi-merging them when one is for method and other is for specific entity.

P.S. distributor list here. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that we un-merge them. Right now we have a "media/distribution" field. I'm saying that we have a "media" field for physical media and a "distribution" field for distribution platform. Currently there is no field where "Steam" is appropriate, but if you search through your list of results, you see "Steam" come up dozens of times. Older articles (the ones at the top) list valid physical distributors like GT Interactive, but as the results go on it starts switching to distribution platforms like Nintendo (for their Virtual Console), Apple (for their App Store), Valve (for Steam), etc.

I worked in video game shipping/receiving for years, and dealt with these distributors on a daily basis. These companies have no effect on the game itself or the perception of that game by anyone, anywhere. Hexen: Beyond Heretic is one example of a game that lists a valid distributor in the infobox, GT Interactive. Raven Software developed the game, id Software published and manufactured the game. The only thing that GT Interactive did was buy physical copies of the game from id and then resell them to stores. If a company is large enough, like Walmart, they can buy directly from the publisher because they can meet minimum order requirements, so the distributor often doesn't even enter the picture. So how is that relevant? Other than Hexen, can you name one game that was physically distributed by a company other than the publisher? Many games are, but that information is not notable, and nobody outside the industry ever cares.

As far as retail, can you name one game that was exclusive to Walmart vs Target, or one game that was sold at Best Buy but is now sold at Kmart? In comparison, how many games can you think of that are exclusive to Steam, or XBox Live, or Origin? Yes, there are several available distribution platforms, but most companies only go through a couple. It is not like a physical product, where they make a warehouse full of the same product and send it off to every store that will take it. There is no extra work to sell the game at 1 store or 100. Digital distribution, however, often requires the game to be modified for every distribution platform, and there is a point of diminishing returns. We could even add a "multiple" flag, so that it displays collapsed as Distributor: Multiple [show] or some such, if there are games that are excessive. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't mention specific distribution systems unless it is the only way to purchase/obtain that product on that platform. If this is the case, we mention that in the platform field (eg Xbox 360 (Xbox Live Arcade) or Microsoft Windows (Steam)). If there are multiple digital distribution means (on the same platform), then there's no need to fill this in. --MASEM (t) 05:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have reasoning? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because we're not a sales catalog. This ties back to the people that want to add OnLive to all the games it is on. For many recent PC games that aren't tied to Steamworks, there's like 20+ vendors you can get them from, and that would be inappropriate to include them all. --MASEM (t) 05:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I have two questions. 1) Why then, is the exact type of physical media relevant? 2)Why is there a distributor field? My suggestions were based on the way the template is currently designed, and the way it is being used. If the editors are only supposed to choose from a list of approved information, then we should set it up that way (Physical=yes / Download=No / Cloud=Yes). The reason the field says "media/distribution" is because there is no way to say that with one word, because they are two different things. We should change that field completely. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The physical media, at least on the PC side, will be part of the system requirements - eg, CD vs DVD distribution. Might affect some consoles as well. The distrubor might be a different entity from the publisher, but not necessarily the sales/store the game is from. It's rare we need it but it can happen in this industry. --MASEM (t) 06:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

When do we ever need it? Can you name one VG article where this is important? What does it tell a reader about the game? Please take a look at the readouts Hellknowz created. That field is being used for distribution platforms far more than physical distributors.

As far as media, if it is a requirement, it should be in the requirement field. Why would it matter if the game uses 2 DVDs vs 1? Why do we need to confirm that an NES game came on an NES cartridge, or a laserdisc game came on a laserdisc? For almost all consoles this is irrelevant, as there are not multiple types of physical media.

Why are we catering the infobox that appears on every game to the rare exceptions? Shouldn't we make the infobox work the way that we want it to, instead of just hoping that the editors figure it out? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"media/distribution" is two words because it used to be separate fields, but they overlapped so much that it was decided to merge. They may be slightly different and that's why they were kept separate at first. So instead of saying "|distribution=[[Digital media|Physical]] and |media=[[DVD]]" or "|distribution=[[Digital distribution|download]]", we just say "<nowiki>|media=[[DVD]]" or "|media=[[Digital distribution|download]]". But we never listed the actual distributor here, hence there is a separate field for that. Now I still don't agree that listing the online retailers is needed. What does that tell the reader? For example, Bastion can be bought from Steam, MS Store Online, LIVE, Gamersgate, Greenman Gaming, Onlive, etc., even Gamestop online. There may be some differences the developer needed to do to make the game available to different ones, but it's usually non-public info and it rarely impacts gameplay/reception. If it does, then that's what prose is for, not the infobox with a raw list. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Italic title

The "italic title = no" option is not working; see EverQuest Next. Any ideas? Powers ^T 15:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like it is, the title is not in italics. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's working for me too. Try purging maybe? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now. That field controls how the title at the top of the page appears (see EverQuest), but for some reason it doesn't change the title at the top of the infobox. It should control both. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you know I didn't even notice the page title. I'm still not used to seeing italics there, so the non-italic text looked normal. Yes, it should also affect the title in the infobox. Powers ^T 00:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please change the third line from

! colspan=2 style="text-align:center;" | <span style="font-size:111%;">''<span class="fn">{{#if:{{{title|}}}|{{{title}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}</span>''</span>

to

! colspan=2 style="text-align:center;" | <span style="font-size:111%;">{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{italic title|}}}}}|no||''}}<span class="fn">{{#if:{{{title|}}}|{{{title}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}</span>{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{italic title|}}}}}|no||''}}</span>

-- Powers ^T 22:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Anomie⚔ 03:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Language

{{editprotected}} Could someone please add a "languages" section, so we can note what languages a game has been released in. That's Bupkis (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how necessary that is. Since there's frequently common translation to numerous language, this field may get too large. Since generally the country of original and release will give a strong indication what languages are available, this seems duplicative. But thats not full assurance yet. --MASEM (t) 04:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking that if the translation is notable enough, it will have an inter-language-wiki link. Also, the link to the official page should have that info. Skier Dude (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition, in games where the language itself is notable, it should mentioned in prose. For example, Mario & Wario, a Japan-exclusive, is entirely in English; that is a noteworthy fact and should be mentioned in prose, not merely in the Infobox. Salvidrim! 07:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think its notable or necessary and I think it probably falls under WP:NOT "Don't list every possible detail" (or however its worded). As mentioned above, if its a notable translation (e.g. crowd funded or fan created) then it should be covered in prose. I'm also worried about the size implications, its less than a year since we dramatically trimmed the template because it was becoming bloated, this seems like a backwards step, and other fields that were trimmed back then have a higher merit value. I've disabled the Edit request as per the guidelines at WP:EDITREQ "consensus should be obtained before formally making the request" - X201 (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Games based on media

Could we get a field for the media on which games are based? There are several hundred video games based on media, so it's strange that there's no space for this information on the infobox, especially considering the fact that the film and television infoboxes do have a "Based on" field. Flax5 (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea. Salvidrim! 19:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sales field?

Will you add a 'sales' field?, for copies sold. It's a relevant measure of reception.--John S. Peterson (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it is difficult to get this number across all video games, it doesn't make sense to add it. --MASEM (t) 05:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

License field

I see that some open source games such as Wesnoth and Frogatto & Friends have a line like "| license = GNU General Public License" in the source for their infoboxes, but the license line does not display, presumably because it does not actually exist in the Infobox VG template. I went searching all over the web to find out what license Frogatto & Friends is under (GPLv3) only to find out that info was already hidden in the infobox. I think it is silly that a web browser such as Firefox has the software license in the infobox, but a game like Wesnoth does not. Let's include the license in the template, so that articles about open source games can include the license and all other video game articles can ignore the license field if they so choose. All fields are optional, right?--Skyfaller (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

See also Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 9#.22License.22 field and Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 11#Revised proposal to reinstate the licensing parameter. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Both discussion links are exactly the same, hehe! Anyways, I'm not actually against the information being in the article, but the Infobox is not the best place. Lede/development should be used. Salvidrim! 00:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Whooops, hehe. Fixed. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Salvidrim, license information is better suited to the lead and development sections. Salavat (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You also point out the reason for not having that information in the article/infobox "I went searching all over the web to find out what license...", If you have searched the web and can't find it, there will be no way for us to add it to WP as we won't be able to find a reliable source for it. - X201 (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I did eventually find the license (GPLv3) by going to their Github and poking around in the files. Surely the license included with the source code is a canonical reference for what license the software is under. See https://github.com/frogatto/frogatto/blob/master/LICENSE and https://github.com/frogatto/frogatto/blob/master/src/LICENSE --Skyfaller (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Recommendation: creating Template:Infobox MMORPG

Hello all. I create this note today to ask for assistance, or for a suggestion, regarding this topic and recommendation: the creation of Template:Infobox MMORPG. Why am I asking this? Simple: Template:Infobox video game does not contain a "defunct" or "retired" parameter. The "defunct/retired" parameter could be used to state when an MMORPG servers get retired and the game becomes "defunct". There could be a potential of other uses for a template such as Template:Infobox MMORPG, but that is the only example that comes to my mind (since it's the one that bothered me the most when I was working on a few articles for MMORPGs. Steel1943 (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Or, second option: we could come to an agreement to seek an administrator's assistance to add a "defunct" or "retired" parameter to the fully-protected Template:Infobox video game. Either option could work (since adding another parameter to the existing template, if done correctly, should not disturb the articles that currently use Template:Infobox video game). Steel1943 (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think either are needed. An extra bit of text at the top of the released field would do the job. Like this.

Infobox video game/Archive 11
Release	Service closed EU: 21 August 2012 Microsoft Windows EU: 1 August 2012 PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 EU: 2 August 2012

- X201 (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• This was proposed before and did not gain consensus (Template_talk:Infobox_video_game/Archive_11#Closure_date). So a new separate infobox is unlikely to pass. Regarding the field, my argument remains the same -- the number of games to which this is applicable is very low and infoboxes are generally for fields that appear in many if not most articles. Everything else should be in prose. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Release Date(s) wrapping

The width of this template, or the left column, needs to be adjusted to prevent wrapping of "Release Date(s)" for particular font/browser combinations. For me this displays as:

Release Date
(s)

Every article I've checked has the problem:

• Gradius (video game)
• SimEarth
• The Sims

I suppose that this may be due to a font rendering issue. I am using the default fonts supplied with Opera12. The heading renders properly using the default fonts of IE9 and Firefox14. aprock (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Add class to the developer/publisher/... <td>

Hello!

I'm using the Wikipedia API to parse some text from video game articles. It would ease me a lot if it is possible to add a class to information about developers, publishers, artists, designers, release date, platforms and such.

A short example how it could look from Super Metroid.

<tr style="">
  <td><b><a href="/wiki/Video_game_developer" title="Video game developer">Developer(s)</a></b></td>
  <td class="developers"> <!-- Here's my suggestion -->
    <a href="/wiki/Nintendo_Research_%26_Development_1" title="Nintendo Research & Development 1">Nintendo R&D1</a><br />
    <a href="/wiki/Intelligent_Systems" title="Intelligent Systems">Intelligent Systems</a>
  </td>
</tr>
<tr style="background:#f0f0f0;">
  <td><b><a href="/wiki/Video_game_publisher" title="Video game publisher">Publisher(s)</a></b></td>
  <td class="publishers"> <!-- Here's my suggestion -->
    <span class="brand"><a href="/wiki/Nintendo" title="Nintendo">Nintendo</a></span>
  </td>
</tr>
<tr style="">
  <td><b>Director(s)</b></td>
  <td class="directors"> <!-- Here's my suggestion -->
    <a href="/wiki/Yoshio_Sakamoto" title="Yoshio Sakamoto">Yoshio Sakamoto</a>
  </td>
</tr>
<tr style="background:#f0f0f0;">
  <td><b><a href="/wiki/Video_game_producer" title="Video game producer">Producer(s)</a></b></td>
  <td class="producers"> <!-- Here's my suggestion -->
    <a href="/wiki/Makoto_Kano_(video_game_designer)" title="Makoto Kano (video game designer)">Makoto Kano</a>
  </td>
</tr>

I guess this also could be used to help people that uses their own CSS-styles on Wikipedia.

Thank you.

Ragowit (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The idea is sound. Implementation would likely not happen the way you want it, as you're looking at the resulting HTML code, but we're starting from Wikitable syntax, and a complex set of templates to start. It is much much much much easier to do what has already been done on the publisher, in how the "brand" class is set on the span of the value of the publisher. I think this would still do what you want to do, possibly even easier as you should be left with just the HTML Value of what's in that span and don't have to parse a second time.

The only question remains as to how best to name the classes to avoid potential conflicts with other infobox (if that should be a problem). In other words, I wouldn't just have the class name for Developer as "developer" but "vg_developer". But I'm not 100% sure on that. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see the "brand" class. And you are right, this would still do what I want and it would be even easier to parse.

And you are thinking one step ahead, I like that! My recommendation is to do what you said, add a prefix "vg_" so it will be vg_publisher, vg_release_date, vg_developer and so on.

Ragowit (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to sound harsh or anything, but I have to ask who else besides you would use this semantic data? There are many different metadata syntaxes, and some are already included in the infobox. Why does this method, that will add lots of additional classes, be helpful to more than a few people? I'm not sure what you are referring to as Wikipedia API, but the API [2] does not produce HTML, that would be action=render [3]. Why don't you parse wiki markup through API? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I have no idea who else would use this semantic data. I haven't asked around. It would be helpful to more people, if I succeed in writing a script/bot/something that checks what's written on the wikipage and what's written on another page (allgame, ign, mobygames etc). Too find any missing developer, publisher, release date and such. I was thinking to use action=parse [4]. But I'm grateful for any tips on how to better parse a game related page on wikipedia. What do you mean by parsing wiki markup through the API?

Ragowit (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant do this [5] (which is the main purpose of API) and parse the Wiki markup language, instead of the rendered html. You can retrieve a whole lot of pages this way [6]. I suppose action=parse can work as well, but you cannot get multiple pages and I really wouldn't rely on HTML instead of Wiki markup. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will look into this!

Ragowit (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Field for price of game

Should we include a field for the price of the game? Based on reader feedback on articles such as Minecraft, it seems people want to know the price. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Basically, WP:NOPRICES (#5). The additional subtle context for the last sentence there is: if we start mentioning a price in the infobox, people will compete to find/update the lowest available price, out of either altruism or because it's their job. It ends with tears, every time!

Also: To make it an "encyclopedic" comprehensive coverage, we'd need to provide every historic "official/recommended" price, as well as actual-prices-that-are-usually-charged (if they differed significantly). Eg, imagine the "price" field in the infobox of WoW, or for a Mini Cooper. Or a book that sold 90% of its copies via Amazon during a site-discount.

Hence, not our job. HTH. —Quiddity (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Input

What happened to the input parameter? It's filled out in dozens of articles, but doesn't appear in the infobox. Was it removed? Why? It's an important aspect of many video games. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 20:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There was consensus to remove it in The Great Infobox Overhaul of 2010. It was only of use when specialist controllers were used, and by that measure if they are special, they need to be mentioned in the prose. - X201 (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

While the input parameter isn't very useful for consoles or home computer games it is definitely needed for arcade games, consider:

• 2-way joystick (Galaxian, Galaga, Defender)
• 4-way joystick (Pac-Man, Dig Dug, Donkey Kong)
• 8-way joystick (Xevious, Time Pilot, Bosconian)
• analog joystick (Food Fight, Sinistar, Tron)
• flight stick (After Burner, Thunder Blade, Zaxxon)
• tank sticks (Battlezone, Assault, Vindicators)
• twisty grip (Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back)
• trackball (Centipede, Millipede, Missile Command)
• spinner (Tempest, Arkanoid, Omega Race)
• steering wheel and pedals (numerous driving games)
• handle bars (motorcycle games, Paperboy)
• buttons (anywhere from 0 to 6, some games like Asteroids only use buttons)
• light gun (Operation Wolf, Terminator 2)

Not to mention arcade games which have specialized controls like the beverage taps on Tapper or the rotary joystick on 720°.

The input field really needs to be restored and considered an arcade game field like cpu, display, sound and cabinet. Asmpgmr (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Surely this would be mentioned in the actual prose though, if it's necessary to understanding how the game works. bridies (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What harm is it to mention this in the infobox ? Considering that cpu, display, sound, cabinet and arcade system are already there it would be consistent to list input as well. Arcade games use many different controllers as I've illustrated and this is an important aspect of them. Asmpgmr (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You say the input parameter is definitely needed for arcade games, but do not explain why it is definitely needed for arcade games. No understanding is lost and in fact confusion is introduced with some of them. And the majority of them are just variations of any generic kind of input, especially "buttons". The infobox and associated articles are not lesser for the lack of this field. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no confusion introduced whatsoever any more than there is with the other arcade specific fields. Console and home computer games wouldn't use this field and if it is such a big deal in regards to them then arcade games should have their own specific infobox template and the problem is solved. The arcade specific fields could be moved there and eliminated from the general video game infobox. That is a simple and straightforward solution. Asmpgmr (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion we shouldn't have those fields either. Wikipedia is written for the layman, and it should not have this jumble of technical information with no commentary. I'm not sure if arcade games use the same infobox template as home console/computer games, but if they do: then just having the fields encourages their needless use, as argued above. bridies (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written for everyone. Just because some people can't understand technical information certainly doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. As long as the information is concise, factual and not subjective it should be there. By your reasoning then articles on inherently technical subjects like particle physics wouldn't exist at all because most people don't understand it and that would certainly be wrong. Currently arcade games use the same template as other video games but I really think they should use their own separate infobox template and it should left to the Arcade Task Force to decide what is listed. Asmpgmr (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"Everyone" being laymen. For some topics, "like particle physics", it may be difficult to describe the basics to anyone at all, but not so with video games. bridies (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think this falls under the same argument against ratings above as not imparting useful, immediate knowledge about the product. The type of input is not generally a notable thing under any circumstances, but were it somewhat abnormal it would surely be described under a gameplay section anyway, i.e. "The user is required to navigate a race track by tilting their own body on a real world bike frame, with the in-game character responding to their movements". Not a great piece of prose, just an example. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't define everyone as laymen as that's simply not true. Personally I think the input should be mentioned in the infobox for arcade games. As for the ratings, this doesn't apply to arcade games but for console games I see no reason why that shouldn't be mentioned as well. Of course games before the ratings system was implemented wouldn't have them. Anyway I'll take this up with the Arcade Task Force and see about having a separate infobox for arcade games. Asmpgmr (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

For most articles, this means understandable to a general audience. bridies (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well input is certainly easily understandable and is an important aspect of arcade games since there are so many varied controllers and it makes sense to list this in the infobox. As for the technical parameters I see absolutely no reason not to list this information as is currently done for many arcade games. It is useful to those of us who understand it and is easily ignored by those who don't. Also I am very much opposed to any sort of dumbing down of information. Asmpgmr (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree to disagree then. bridies (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Shutdown parameter

Previous discussion

This template needs a shutdown parameter for online games who require server to play (primarily MMOs) when the server is shutdown. Basically this is the bookend to released=. --173.13.177.204 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This can be easily covered in prose. In fact it should be covered in prose and is an important part of the lead section. - X201 (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Same as last time, the scope is too small. While every game has a release date, very few have a closure date. Only online services have true closure dates (and even then, different regions/servers may close at different times). And infoboxes are for fields that broadly apply to many articles. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 October 2012

Please add ratings field, like in Infobox animanga/Game template.

Smeagol 17 (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Further up this page is a section titled "Propose removal of ratings section" where discussion of the Ratings section decided upon its removal. Feel free to start a new discussion if you wish to attempt to build consensus for its reintroduction. - X201 (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Link updates

Minor fix for the links: [[Game designer|Designer(s)]] -> [[Game design#Game designer|Designer(s)]] - since its part of the main article and we won't be creating an article for a small section, and [[Content delivery|distribution]] -> [[Digital distribution|distribution]] - since "distribution" is already used in the actual article title anyways. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Partly done:. There doesn't seem to be much to benefit from changing Game designer to Game design#Game designer per WP:NOTBROKEN, but Content delivery could foreseeably be turned into a disambiguation page or otherwise changed, so I have updated that one. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Propose removal of ratings section.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Ratings section removed from template.

---

This is not a field with purpose, its a list of ratings that hold relevance only to the host country and say nothing about the game itself in the same way Film Infobox does not carry film ratings. Unless something is notable about the rating, in which case it would be discussed in the body of the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know how movies are rated, but there are only a few big video game raters and a few smaller/specific ones. {{Video game ratings}} has the ones we use. These are broader than a single country. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Film ratings are exactly the same (to just make sure we are on the same page here I am talking about the age ratings, not critical ratings). They don't say anything about the game, just what a reviewing board decided it would need to be labeled as to be sold. Since the ratings themselves are only meaningful to the country they are used and even then meaningless in an encyclopedic sense, there is not any real reason to retain them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost -- you say "exactly the same" but then you also say "country". VG ratings are broader than just single countries and there are only a few major ones; most games never get rated past PEGI and ESRB. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what a rating provided by even a universal body adds to a video game article unless there is controversy about it, such as being refused a rating altogether. Doesn't seem any different than adding a price field, informing on the age restriction of a game in the infobox just doesn't display any kind of tangible benefit, whether there are 2-3 or a dozen rating bodies. And I can point to Batman: Arkham City, Sleeping Dogs and Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception as games that have SIX ratings, seven in Uncharted's case. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

All I was saying is that ratings are not country-specific and are a fair bit broader, so that argument did not stick. On the other hand, their usefulness I won't really comment on, as I don't really care enough about these rating systems to make an informed !vote on this. I won't miss them if they're gone. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This sounds familiar (similar topic based on the vgratings template). Just because WikiProject Films does it one way, doesn't mean we should as well.

It's specious to argue from exception. Given the fact that most games don't have a large number of ratings, that isn't a particularly valid argument. Arguing that they are not encyclopedic or useful is also a difficult argument to make, and I don't think you've made it, given that it would be trivial to comment on the game's mature content rating in a game's reception section, and that it's not in any given number of articles is not a reason to remove it from the infobox. Additionally, the WikiProject has guidelines on the field's usage to deal with the content, so it's not as if those couldn't be changed to deal with a perceived problem of length. --Izno (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Length isn't my issue (ba dum tish) it's relevancy. Unless it is about something being banned or given an otherwise unreasonable high rating due to certain specific content, all of which can be discussed in prose, there is no argument for listing what arbitrary age rating was given to a game in America, Europe, Japan, Australia or anywhere else. It's like knowing how much it cost at release. Was it expensive, cheap? Why is that less relevant? It just doesn't seem to offer any necessary information. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

But you haven't listed what makes it irrelevant. You still haven't argued persuasively against the point that it would be trivial to talk about it in the reception section; it's simply the case that we don't. Simply because we don't talk about it doesn't mean that it isn't relevant, for that very fact. You're providing the same argument that was shot down at the TfD for the VG ratings template, in essence, and that simply isn't the case here. Who ranks what doesn't seem relevant to you because you seem simply to think it so, whether it is or is not so. If anything, you should be arguing that it should come out of the infobox because it isn't covered currently in every single article, which then implies that it's useless. At which point I respond that correlation is not causation and that you can't possibly know what the user is looking for, and that there are plainly articles which do deserve to have that summarized, due to the content in the prose about censorship of some fashion.

You could be raising the same question about the system specs in the infobox, or even the artist or developers. Those people and that information is rarely discussed outside of GA-level articles. Or rather, system specifications basically are not discussed even at that quality of article, yet we provide the information. What makes them worth keeping that are good reasons?

In other words, I'm still not seeing an argument which cohesively argues for removal, and a number of reasons to continue to keep the field. Much as we might want to create processes which force behavior on editors to enable good practice, editors failing to read the guidelines and suggested usage should not be the fault of the field in this case, in my opinion. --Izno (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

On the flipside you're not raising a reason to keep it. I'm not saying it should be discussed in the prose in every article, I'm saying if something were notable about it, i.e. it was refused classification in Germany because of violence. I don't mean state what rating it had in prose because the rating would be as meaningless there as in the infobox. If you see that say Portal is a 15+ (I don't know if it is), what does that matter? You raise the artist and developer but those people are responsible for the creation of the product, and I can't handle 4 open discussions at a single time. Other things existing is not an excuse for the existence of something else, if you feel they are irrelevant raise an applicable discussion about them, I don't think the computer specs template is relevant either, we're not a tech support site. The rating only tells you what age a random group of people decided the game would be acceptable to view. And that kind of system has been questionable for a long time. So if I'm told that Portal is a 15+ the only thing that can happen is "Oh...well i don't think anything that bad is in it". Games receiving that rating now will be treated differently than those 5 years from now and 5 years ago based on what random group of people are running whatever organisation and whatever cultural things are going on at the time. So the ratings provide no context, no meaning, no relevance, theyre just a random number that a chunk of the reading audience probably doesn't even understand if its coming from a foreign country. I mean what the hell is CERO? Japan's? How is that useful on the English wikipedia? As I've stated, anything of significance (not the rating itself) should be discussed in prose if tehre was something notable or controversial about it, i.e. GTA:SA's reclassification/higher restriction over hidden content. An M in the infobox and then an AO with brackets stating (after re-release) doesn't tell the reader anything. And in that particular case it just looks a mess. EDIT and looking at that particular infobox with system specs in it, if you were to raise a comment for its deletion, I wold happily support you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've pinged WP:VG. I basically don't agree with what you are saying, but I don't think I'm going to get further than what I've stated. --Izno (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I support its removal, and broadly agree with Darkwarriorblake. This, along with damn near everything in the infobox, frankly, is trivia and a pain in the arse to verify. If it's mentioned in secondary sources, and there's some commentary, it should go in the prose. Otherwise, it shouldn't be anywhere; and one has to go looking for a primary source or something like Mobygames or similar just to include it. Izno said: You could be raising the same question about the system specs in the infobox, or even the artist or developers. Those people and that information is rarely discussed outside of GA-level articles. Or rather, system specifications basically are not discussed even at that quality of article, yet we provide the information. Yes, pretty much: there are a few other things to which this would apply and has applied (the input method was one of them, as was the sizes of the game cartridge). But some people do work in GAs and so forth, and this stuff is a nightmare: if you want a good reason other than redundancy, it's the difficulty of verification. These things tend to just get left without a cite in the assumption that it is uncontroversial or comes from the primary source, and I've seen things get changed as incorrect after years. I've also seen insistence at GAN that these things go in, and one ends up with a long list of non-entity personnel, apparently just because the infobox field exists. bridies (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I also support removal. This field was never discussed during The Great Infobox Overhaul of 2010, but I feel it should have been, and that the principles that Blake and birdies have raised, would have seen it retired back then. Its a nightmare to verify, not least because the Aussies keep changing their website file hierarchy, we end up linking to search results as well, which is not good. The infobox should reflect the prose of the article, ratings are only ever discussed when there is an element of controversy, otherwise they're never mentioned. They're not needed in the infobox. - X201 (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Support removal. The entire infobox could do with a look over tbh, such as the wikilinking of field names like Genre and I agree with Izno that the system information probably isn't necessary either, at least not in the infobox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the desire to remove this field. While I'm personally no fan of the ratings system which was created largely for reasons of politics but it does exist and every modern console and computer game has ratings now so why not list it for the games which are rated ? There are some people who do care about this information and it is the sort of thing which seems appropriate for listing in the infobox and should take up no more than 3 lines assuming the 3 major ratings systems (ESRB, PEGI, CERO) are listed. Asmpgmr (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand are important as well. Excluding them and including the non-English language CERO would seem a bit odd. - X201 (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Didn't mean to exclude them, I was simply unaware of their ratings system. I suppose CERO should be listed in the Japanese edition of Wikipedia. Asmpgmr (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If we were to include the ratings we would have to include CERO as well. This is merely the English language Wikipedia; we don't exclude things from non-English speaking countries, or consider them of less importance. bridies (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

How long should discussion occur before action can be taken on this? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

We could just try pinging an admin now (which has to be done in order to get it edited). IMO there's a consensus for it's removal, and no dissenter has addressed the issue of verifiability. bridies (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well merge/delete normally take 7 days before approval and its been 11 days (12 my time) since the discussion was opened and 7 since Izno pinged another task force, so I think those who would be affected have had a fair chance to participate. How would one ping an admin? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Use the "editprotected" template linked at the top of the page. I've never done it and don't have time to look into it now, but I think it's more or less just a copy-paste, and then provide a rationale. And then wait. Detailed instructions are linked up there anyway. bridies (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Administrator required to implement the above changes, discussion has been open for a fair period of time and interested parties were notified by Izno. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Question: Specifically, what "above changes"? When I compare the sandbox against the current version, I see very little difference; and the difference that is there is over six months old and appears to be completely unrelated to the above discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with regards to the sandbox, the above discussion is about removing the ratings field from the infobox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the ratings fields from the sandboxed version. Try now. bridies (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about Template:Infobox video game, right? The /sandbox shows no change since 5 March 2012.

@Darkwarriorblake: most templates with a /doc page also have (or have the facility for), a /sandbox page which is where proposed amendments are made in a safe place. See Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

OK I'm not supre clear on it, but following Bridies edit history I got [7] which he has edited today as he just said. Checking your link, the /Sandbox one, there doesn't seem to be a ratings field there. I don't know if the /Doc influences what is in the /sandbox version, but neither has a ratings field, so copying either would satisfy the discussion. NOTEI just tested it, /Doc does dictate /Sandbox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think my edit to the /Doc page might also have removed the ratings field from the main template (at least from being displayed)? I can't see it; maybe I've knocked the universe out of sync. Anyway, this is what needs done, but on the template. bridies (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Amending the /doc page merely removes it from the template's documentation and does not alter the underlying behaviour of the template itself. The documentation shown on the sandbox page is always the same as that shown on the main page.

By suggesting that the /sandbox page should be amended, I had in mind an edit like this. I am assuming that this is what is required. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's it RedRose. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bearing with me RedRose :D Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I spent my time finding ratings for a game only to be told that it's "unencyclopedic" and "useless"? That's bullshit! The only reason I even cared about adding in this field was because the article feedback hinted that people wanted to know the content ratings of the games so they would know if it is appropriate for their children. Check the Minecraft article feedback if you want to verify, but the ratings are far from being useless. Can it please be added back after consideration? - M0rphzone (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

We're not a guide to what is and isn't appropriate for people's children. bridies (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, its not a shopping guide, they have ratings on the box, on the websites that sell them, and if they don't, thats what teh critical reception/controversy section is for. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please don't remove ratings! i want to keep it because nobody will know whether it is suitable for children or adults. --85.210.126.149 (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, now they won't. People don't normally look for something that's not on the surface—unless some random person desided to look by clicking the edit button (and I kinda doubt that even people editing vg articles will notice.). —017Bluefield (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Website

I think there should be the ability to add a website link on the video game infobox. This would allow for a immediately clickable website link instead of having to use a search engine to find out where to play or buy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syberiyxx (talk • contribs) 01:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It's been discussed before, but the problem with game websites is that they do come and go. It's fine to put them as external links in the article, but its not proper in the infobox. Also, our purpose here is not to show people where to play a game or where to buy it; we're explaining the background and history and reception of such games. --MASEM (t) 01:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree, they're often more fleeting than even film websites. Even a big game like Arkham City, it's website hasn't been updated since before hte game was released, its pretty unprofessional and so not of much use anyway to a user compared to the game's article here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Release Dates

According to the infobox guideline, release dates to be added are decided by "Use the first public non-festival release in the game's country of origin, as well as any English-language release dates available.". Emphasis on English language, so does that not mean that the Japanese release date is irrelevant (I agree) and should not be present except where it is included in INT or Worldwide? Other countries too mind you, just using Japan as a common example I have seen. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I would think the original release in a non-English country is the actual first release date and we should definitely list it. Later English releases is what is important to English buyers, but actual release is what is important to development history. I mean the guideline says "as well as", meaning both original and later English. Other language later releases are probably not worth listing, unless there's something special about them. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean if it was released in [INSERT NON ENGLISH TERRITORY] first we'd list it but otherwise it is irrelevant? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes - so for most JRPGs, the Japanese release is included, for example. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, well I'd like to get into this a little more then because the guideline could maybe do with rewording. This "Use the first public non-festival release in the game's country of origin, as well as any English-language release dates available." to me at least, reads as the initial release. The guideline accounts for multi-format release and staggered release, but as far as I can tell it was written at least as early as 2007 word for word and isn't designed to cope with modern game systems where you get frequent re-releases, massively multi-platform releases (ps3 to iOS to iPad and Android), HD updates, GOTY editions, and such, and several game articles infoboxes are ending up flooded with extensive lists of release dates, made worse by the various release regions. So every single release then requires 1-4+ regional release dates if they are staggered release dates. I think the guideline could do with a modern update to deal with these situations. They CAN be hidden, but ideally basic information should not be concealed, especially in the infobox. Masem highlighted Myst as an example of this, but I would argue why knowing when it was released on the Nintendo eShop is important or Nintendo Ds/3DS (surely this is the same game that can operate on two different handhelds?). In addition it features an extensive list of both publishers and platforms, but none of the data is useful. The publishers are not defined so we can't tell who the original publisher which brought it to fame and glory was, nor what the other publishers contribution was in terms of format and the formats field makes it unclear what formats it was originally released for (the prose does in the lede and a specific re-release section which is why I would argue for these secondary dates/publishers to go there if they are considered notable). Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Developer and Publisher lists in the infobox should identify what system(s) (and possibly regions) that they worked on/processed; if that's lacking, it needs to be filled in.

Inclusion for dates for digital storefronts should only be used if that the first time that port of the game is appearing in that fashion. With the Myst example, yes, we don't need the eShop release date over the DS release. Similarly, (IIRC) God Hand, a PS2 game, should not have the release date of the PSN storefront version that's playable only on the PS3, because there's no real change in that title; on the other hand, the HD version of Okami is a new port and should get such a date. --MASEM (t) 00:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Well that's my argument at Arkham City, the Wii version isn't representative of the core game but it is a different game with a different title even if it's differences are mostly gimmicky, but the Mac version is just a port of the original versions. At least with Myst you can argue that it being a Mac game first and then on the DS, it must have been modified significantly in someway if only to compensate for the smaller screen (I can't say that is the case, I'm just assuming). The Game of the Year edition though is just a re-release of the game with the DLC on disc, and less than a year after the original release. It doesn't seem notable or necessary to list that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ports of a game to a different system - irregardless of new features - are considered a "new release" for purposes of putting it in the date. While I'm sure with shared libraries these days, 90% of the code is the same between ports, there still is port work to be done, and thus the port release is worthwhile to include a date. --MASEM (t) 02:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why work involved makes a release date notable, if they rebuilt it from scratch it's still the same game but on a different system, and a decade from now those later release dates (which can be covered in the prose) will be as relevant as the system specification details, and just taking up real estate in the infobox. Do you not agree at least that a GOTY version shouldn't be there? At that point it is seriously veering into shopping guide territory, there's no tangible benefit to knowing when the version with the DLC on disc came out in the infobox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming release

I would like to add the following line to the infobox here Tomb Raider. Some "upcoming" data will be welcomed in the infobox.

| upcoming version = Tomb Raider (2013)

| upcoming date = March 2013

Thank you.--TudorTulok (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• We generally don't include material on future events per WP:CRYSTAL. As per having these fields in infobox, they would be way less common than most others and a floodgate to original research and speculation or non-informative values like "TBA/TBD" years ahead of actual releases. Arguably, most series and franchises will have sequels. Although I can see how this may be valuable if strict criteria are enforced (such as, only for confirmed titles with set dates), judging from past experiences, I don't think this will offset the misuse or we will be able to enforce it. Infoboxes are for common facts, and in my opinion, this is best left for prose. P.S. I think you may have meant {{Infobox video game series}}, not {{Infobox video game}}. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

License field (2)

Previous discussions: Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 9#.22License.22 field and Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 10#Licensing parameter and Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 11#Revised proposal to reinstate the licensing parameter and Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 11#License field.

{{admin help}} Please add an optional license field. This is useful information and very suitable to be put into the infobox. For example Template:Infobox software has one and since games are a subcategory of software it is only logical this infobox too to include the license parameter. Since the template is protected, an admin is required to perform the edit. Palosirkka (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've disabled the admin help field in your post. Additions to the Infobox need to be discussed and receive consensus before requesting that an admin add them. The above discussion failed to achieve that, but you are welcome to try and build consensus again. For the record, my opinions haven't changed from the discussion above. The data would be hard to verify. - X201 (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

How would the data be difficult to verify? If no data is given, then the game is all rights reserved. It's very simple really. Palosirkka (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Licensing is not an overly relevant item in video games (as it is in software). An infobox should only include the most relevant items about the game. Licensing details are more appropriately listed in the development section of the article. Salavat (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is licensing not considered relevant (with respect to video games, which are a type of software)? Is there any reason why the discussion of software licenses should be avoided in video game infoboxes (particularly those of open source video games, where discussion of software licensing is especially relevant?) Jarble (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I just want to add for the record that I was about to make the exact same request. I also think a License field is desirable, not just for the Template:Infobox video game, but also for the Template:Infobox video game series. I was looking at the Touhou Project page and since it says "fan-made shooter series" I was curious about the license. I noticed license information is missing and wanted to discuss this on the Talk page there, but then I noticed that the template doesn't even accept the license entry. I checked The Battle for Wesnoth and noticed it was missing there as well. So I checked Skype and only then realized that apparently only software that isn't a game has a license field, because only Template:Infobox software supports it. I think that's weird, because games are also software. In my opinion, just because that particular software has its own template, the License field shouldn't be left out. I agree with user Palosirkka that the License field is useful information and very suitable to be put into the Template:Infobox video game. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I support adding a "License" field. It's a conspicuously absent field. Witness: Template:Infobox software has long included a "License" field. If the license data is "hard to verify", as X201 suggests above, then the license claim must be left out. Simple! Same criteria as any other Wikipedia content. It is not mandatory, but I suggest that the data is often easy to verify (as the broad use of the field in the Software infobox demonstrates) and is a notable and useful fact about a video game. I am uncertain how to proceed with a change request, but have asked for admin help to clarify. --Ds13 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed removal of requirements section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Requirements section removed from template.

---

Further to the prior ratings discussion, there are other improvements that can be made to the infobox. The system information acts in a similar way, more as a shopping guide than providing information since there is no gain in knowing that, for instance, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas needs an Xbox memory card with 38 blocks free, or 256mb of Ram, an 8X speed dvd drive or ATI X1600, NVIDIA 7300GT or Intel X3100 graphics card. It's incredible anachronistic information that has already lost a significant amount of meaning to all but the technical expert, and a technical expert is not going to be using an eight year old graphics card. It's purpose is questionable, and its abuse, as seen in the GTA article leaves teh article looking messy and unprofessional on the aesthetic side. I argue that knowing the specs of older or even modern games is redundant, time sensitive, acting as a shopping guide rather than encyclopedic information, and that if an argument can be made for the information being present, there is teh VG Requirements template that can be positioned somewhere more ideal and also hidden. This might also be the opportunity, per something User:X201 said in the ratings discussion, to address any other issues with the infobox and deal with them in one go. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Support With current consoles utilizing various forms of physical and cloud storage, this information is not useful and becoming irrelevant. Also this information seems to venture to WP:RAWDATA. Furthermore, featured content like Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare do not use this space. The Modern Warfare article does utilize Template:Video game requirements and it is worth noting that the template is only meaningful to PC distributed games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad.hutchins (talk • contribs) 04:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Support - Its a nightmare to keep accurate, is always being hit by drive-by-edits and seems, for me, akin to pricing/sales catalogue info. - X201 (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Support - Even to possibly suggest that unless requirements are critically discussed in the article itself, we shouldn't even be talking about them, and when we do where appropriate it should be prose based. But certainly support the removal in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 19:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Support. Only meaningful for PC, and really older titles. But as time passes, this info is hardly relevant anymore within as soon as a couple year since its release. If requirements were extra-high or somehow notable otherwise, that is prose material. Otherwise, this is indeed akin to a sales catalog. I agree it is useful to buyers, but it is not long-term encyclopedic. Plus, there is rarely a standard format for these, and cases where specific cards are being listed are just silly. This gives no real information to a general reader unless it is in very broad terms, but they never are. WP:RAWDATA sounds about right without any secondary source interpretation of what requirement mean for end users. But that kind of info can hardly be standardized for an infobox. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OK well this seems uncontroversial and has been open for 10 days, I will edit the Sandbox and then request an admin update the template. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Done I've made the specific change referred to; there are other differences between sandbox and live, which I've ignored. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks RR! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed addition interlanguage links

There are several non-English versions of this template that are not currently inter-language linked. If an admin would be so kind, please add the following:

• ar:قالب:معلومات لعبة فيديو
• ca:Plantilla:Infotaula videojoc
• gl:Modelo:Videoxogo
• hi:साँचा:ज्ञानसन्दूक विडियो गेम
• hr:Predložak:Infookvir videoigra
• la:Formula:Ludus
• lt:Šablonas:Žaidimo informacija
• nn:Mal:Infoboks dataspel
• sah:Халыып:Infobox VG
• sh:Šablon:Video igra
• simple:Template:Infobox CVG
• sk:Šablóna:Infobox Videohra
• th:แม่แบบ:กล่องข้อมูล เกมคอมพิวเตอร์
• tl:Padron:Infobox VG

Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

ar was already there, the rest went. Done. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sound Designer(s)

I would like to see the following line added to the video game infobox.

   | sound designers = *

98.194.228.96 (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Compared to other key people, this is not really a position that needs to be listed out in the info box. --MASEM (t) 03:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

To that, I would have to suggest that none of the credit fields be listed in the info box. 98.194.228.96 (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

People like the lead developer, writer, programmer, musician/composer, etc. are people typically highlighted by the press when any specific names are attached to games; I know that sound designers get mention, but rarely directly attached to an article. --MASEM (t) 01:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

New field: website?

I would like to propose that website be added to this template to allow external links to the given software, such as exists in Infobox video game series and Infobox software. Especially with self-published/on-line available games to be found by interested parties. Nutster (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been asked before and rejected; the problem is that official sites can come and go, and editors wanting to add this field otherwise turn to non-official sites, like wikis, to fill the space. We already do strongly recommend adding official sites as external links within that section of the article, but not as part of the infobox. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Template_talk:Infobox_video_game/Archive_11#Website, the external links section serves the purpose fine. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 9#Website_parameter, Template talk:Infobox_video game/Archive 9#Add link to the publishers' or games' website, Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 8#Official homepage, in addition to Darkwarriorblake's link. That's four different archived sections. While consensus can change, please search the archives before making suggestions to ensure that a new suggestion sufficiently answers previous concerns. --Izno (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree to add it reason being is because other Infobox such as Infobox software or Infobox OS or Infobox OS version include website but the website can come ago but you keepit so it is easer to find the website 110.234.176.32 (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on number of credits in the infobox

There is an ongoing discussion about the accepted number and nature of designer credits in this infobox. Please find the discussion here. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox video game

Hi could someone add this please

|{{#if:{{{website|}}}| {{!}} '''Website''' {{!!}} {{{website|}}} }}

110.234.176.32 (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

We just talked about why this is not going to be added, see a few sections above. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for removal of Version field

I believe the Version field needs to be deprecated or at the very least it's guideline reworded. It seems to fall into the same trap as previous proposals I've raised such as the Technical Specification field, where the data has little context or meaning and little use. Knowing that (and yes I have to use that article again, it's a poster child for this stuff) Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is versions 1.01 (PC retail), 2.0 (PC/PS2/Xbox retail), and 3.0 (Steam) does not enlighten me anymore than knowing its an M in America and I need a GeForce 2850 minimum to play it, and of course in this case it's just entirely redundant, the Xbox/PS2 are not going to be updated, the PS2 version never could be except by rebuilding the discs, and I'm not sure why PC is listed twice. I had a quick scan of the archive and it's raised here but only with one vote either way and Template_talk:Infobox_video_game/Archive_10#Deperecate_the_Version_Field where the arguments for keeping seem weak (IMO only). The occurrences where Version may be notable are so rare that it doesn't need an Infobox field (again not a shopping nor technical nor updating guide), and if it was that notable it would of course be discussed in prose and probably not as a version but an update, so a big game moving from Beta to release like Day Z (I assume I haven't played it but my understanding is that the current release is not a fully released game) and would be covered under Development or Release. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• I would agree. I've never had any reason to mention versions in the body of the article (usually it's irrelevant even when discussing updates); and in the rare cases when it's helpful, it doesn't factor into the infobox. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Agree as well, does little and leads to excess detail. If version information is important (a key patch that adds new functionality) this should be listed in the development section but needs not be quantified in the box. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• I don't agree, per hahnchen and Hellknowz's previous reasoning. --Izno (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  Which was? If it is something akin to the shopping guide stance already mentioned in my original statement and the last two field removals. We're not a technical guide. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  Did you read the previous RFC that you cited in your opening statement?... --Izno (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  I did and I laid out the argument against them in th e opening, whether an item is in beta or alpha is not something that goes in the version field, and if it was significant it would be noted in the body text. Listing whether or nto it is beta or now version 3.0 is irrelvant, meaningless and operating as a shopping guide, especially a numerical figure because unless you had previously looked at the article and rememebred the figure, how are you going to know itn has undergone a major revision? Hahchen mentions Counter Strike versions and separate articles and that the versionn field lets you know what version you are talking about? The article is about the entirety of the game, versions would be discussed therein, if it is notable enough then it would be disambiguated in a separate article, not defined by a figure of no meaning to anyone, feeding back into Wikipedia not being a technical guide, the same argument against the System Spec field. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

K, so it's been two weeks from my point and I count three for and 1 against, so if there is no objection I will request an admin make the change. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I will also like to add my support to the removal of the license field. I think version information only has a place in the body. Salavat (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• I know I'm late to this but, add me to the "Remove" total. Per your reasons and plus; the only time its important is in instances of games like (hmm what can I use as an example?...Oh I know...) Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas where the version change to remove the Hot Coffee access caused a new version to be released, but it is covered so much better in prose, in the Hot Coffee section. Far better than a number in the infobox. - X201 (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Query: Editing the sandbox I noted there are two seemingly unused fields that don't appear to be supported in the documentation: latest preview version and latest release version. Are these actually in use or old fields which were abandoned? If they're not in use I can get them removed at the same time as version because they appear to be doing the same thing but in multiple fields instead of one. According to the wikilink the field leads to Software_release_life_cycle, the field seems related to software like OS , Photoshop, whatever, actual applications not video games except in the loosest parts like going Gold or Pre-Alpha, which to me at least sounds like a verbal variant of the version field, and has seemingly been abandoned. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiblame + a bit of searching, dates the version tag to November 2005, latest release must have come sometime after that. Looks like a redundant bit of code. - X201 (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, both fields appear to be redundant and superceded by later fields, release and version, of which version is to become defunct. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Added edit protected request.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Done, see here. I didn't copy the sandbox verbatim, because it's got provision for |website=, see sections above and below. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

discussion about new changes

[8] One editor has decided to change things, without any apparent discussion and then gone around removing things from articles. Was there any discussion anywhere for this? Dream Focus 15:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

New Infobox layouts

I would like to suggest that they redo the style and use this style please

{{Infobox
| bodyclass  = 
| bodystyle  = 
| title      = 
| titleclass = 
| labelstyle = 
| image      = 
| caption    = 
| image2     = 
| caption2   = 
| label1     = 
| data1      = 

86.181.66.37 (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. I see no particularly valid reason for the lined color bars any longer and why this would not use the meta template {{infobox}} as {{infobox video game series}} does. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• • Because there's no specific request of how to make this changeover, and that this is beyond a simple fix, I've cleared thee editprotected template. You should probably start a larger discussion at WT:VG to suggest this change. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 March 2013

Please change the 'artist' title to 'art direction' or 'art director'. There are often dozens of 'artists' on a given game project. Please change the 'producer' title to 'executive producer'. There are often many 'producers' (aka project managers) on a given game project.

J E Conrad (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It is already implied the field is for lead roles. Also additional word would make the title span 2 lines, and infobox height is already a concern. Finally, there are half a dozen commonly used synonyms for the lead role (manager, director, producer, lead, executive, senior, etc.). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I'm disabling this request for know. Feel free to reactivate the {{edit protected}} template if you find a consensus for the change. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Homepage / Website

Especially non-commercial video games do not have a

• developer =
• publisher =
• distributor =
• series =

but they do have a HOMEPAGE/WEBSITE. Can we please add such an entry? E.g. website = example.org - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echinacin35 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 26 April 2013‎

The External Links section already covers this. I can't see a need for an Infobox field to replicate the task. - X201 (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Even a cursory search of the archives here will show request after request for this, another discussion did not need opening. Websites are temporary, often terrible and not updated, they don't need to be in the infobox. As X201 said, the External Links section suffices, and when it is obsolete, it goes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

License / Programming language

Especially non-commercial video games, are published under some license, and the programming language they are written in is known. This may not be important to potential players of the game, but may be important to potential contributors, etc. IMO this belongs into the infobox. Especially in connection with wikidata, this should be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echinacin35 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Both fields have been discussed before, try the archive search. I don't think anything has really changed since, except our standards for fields have gotten even stricter. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

De-Link / Rename "Media/Distribution"

First part: I think the terms in this field need to be de-linked. "Distribution" links to Digital distribution which is then linked in the actual field value when people add "Download" or something similar, so that particular link is redundant, the other links not only to an obvious term but one largely unrelated and exclusively referring to discs and/or storage devices and not say NES cartridges, and like the Digital Download link, people link to Optical disc or other articles directly related to the specific media relating to the game, making the field link "Media" redundant. Neither needs to be linked at all.

Second part: This does not seem like a field that requires two names, it needs one name that encompasses it's intent, to say how it was distributed. Perhaps "Distribution" alone will suffice? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with both changes. --Izno (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Relevant archives: Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11 czar · · 15:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

So per this and previous discussions and no reasonable opposition, I am going to ask an admin to go ahead with this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Website

Please add website so we can link the game to a website please Paladox2014 (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Been asked for several times before, but not done because game websites are notoriously variable. The External Links section works fine for this purpose. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

ok but why carnt we include the website in the infobox Paladox2014 (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not information that will always remain true, or may not exist for every game, or may have multiple websites for the same game. Website listings are what are supposed to be in External Links. See any of the sections above which have recently discussed this. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

ok Paladox2014 (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Version

Could we re add version please because it is used for showing the latest version for that game Paladox2014 (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

We removed this because it really only applies to a small number of games, and for an encyclopedia, not really an important field. If versioning is important, it should be described in the body of the article. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

ok Paladox2014 (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)