Video games Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles Template This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

Previous and next game in a series fields discussion

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

{{editrequested}} Can the {{Italic title infobox|{{{italic title|}}}}} be moved down to the bottom of the template text? If italic title=no, and a {{DISPLAYTITLE}} is on the page, as well, it puts a carriage return at the top of the article, leaving a blank space.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think this has already been done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broken?

There seems to be a typo or something broken in the template, as there is always some extra space at the bottom of the last row used. See the example -->
Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related to above. Hopefully fixed now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears fixed. Thanks MSGJ, I didn't see the talkpage note about the issue until today. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having reread this a couple times, I fear the current table will not get consensus as too many different highly specific licenses are involved even with all the best faith by CMBJ. However, we can mostly agree that restricted usage is acceptable. So I re-propose to firstly instate the "basic design" for the field and then discuss further expansion (i.e. |freelicense=) if we wish. I deliberately did not list categories yet (and that is a great idea that encourages this proposal) in order to finish the main proposal — to have pre-defined field values. So one step at a time.

Amendments welcome.

• Support this field design idea as before. This will completely remove all the license cruft and force users to select real, correct licenses. This can then further be applied to categorize the games. In future, the available field values can be expanded/modified when such consensus is reached. I believe the above selection addresses nominator's and supporters' desire to include the license field as well as preserve simple and non-specialist approach applicable to almost all games. For exceptions, there is also the custom input field. As mentioned above, a bot can in future check what values are most used/desired and we can adjust the field accordingly. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I have taken you up on your offer to amend the proposal by (1) clarifying the descriptions of the "open-source" and "free software" parameters in a more user-friendly way, and (2) reincorporating the automatic categorization model which should be very helpful to readers and editors alike. You can re-remove the categories if they're a deal breaker for you, but if categorical redundancy is the primary concern, we may just as well implement a genre1=, genre2=, genre3= series and integrate the two while we're at it.   — C M B J   10:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support adding auto-categorization, but just one step at a time to get a move on this. I would also support genre sorting by several fields and automatic categorisation as well, in a separate discussion. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can separate auto-categorization from this proposal if you really want, but I do not foresee there being much objection to such an uncontroversial win-win. On a side note, I have re-amended the proposal to preclude use of non-neutral terms, as well as to include public domain as per Jinnai.   — C M B J   23:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose-I think adding one for public domain should be done as that is a possibility of a well...non-license license. However, that part isn't really a major concern of mine as there aren't too many at this time.

I do not want to add the custom support it because of the custom field. It will be abused in the same way the current field is being abused and solve absolutely nothing for why we removed the field. People will simply use that to slap a specific license on their that's very technical and doesn't help the understanding of the item to the average Wikipedian reader. I want to make it clear I'm not against a notation of having another unusual license, just not one in the lead because people will essentially put stuff like beerware instead of shareware which is what it should be as beerware is simply a minor subset of shareware.陣内_Jinnai 17:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if there was no custom entry field? I suppose any "special" licenses can be discussed in prose? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My support is dependent on having a custom field, and Jinnai's opposition, though well intended, is a perfect example of why. He has not satisfactorily demonstrated why a bot cannot mitigate misuse that stands to affect only 1-5% of the relevant article base. His specific example of Beerware is not and never was anywhere close to being a statistically significant problem. There is absolutely no known empirical evidence whatsoever that misuse of the parameter in this form could result in any more than ten to twenty minutes cleanup work annually. Yet, despite all of this, an outside editor must still fight an uphill battle for months on end in order to gain support for something that is widely accepted elsewhere on the project—that's precisely the kind of intrinsically bureaucratic process that compelled me to take my position in the first place. And honestly, if we cannot even agree on the validity of existing statistical analysis, then I think that there's little remaining opportunity for us to reconcile our respective viewpoints. I will go ahead and try to initiate an RfC tomorrow, assuming that Jinnai and I reach an agreement on the terms.   — C M B J   08:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Still suggested to be used for commercial games. Prime Blue (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That could be done by simply having in instructions that leaving this blank means that the license for all works is proprietary commercial or the same as those already listed similar to how we don't list modes for games where the mode for all games is the same.陣内_Jinnai 23:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward with H3llkn0wz's willingness to reach a compromise, I propose that the above be added to the template. Automatic categorization is also a real possibility, but seeing as the extensive number of game engines may require a fair bit of code, I'll leave this for a future discussion.   — C M B J   10:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator.   — C M B J   23:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Moving from neutral to Support in this format. Only engines with an article, that can further the game's understanding by clicking on the wikilink. I can see how this is useful, as opposed to listing unknown, non-notable engines that do nothing informative for the reader. As a side note, there would be far too few members in each engine category to warrant auto-categorisation. We can, again, use a bot to scan for non-compliant field values. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm surprised there's no "Game Engine" parameter yet (I would have it output "Engine" instead). It would link all the Unreal Engine, id Tech and RAGE game pages nicely. However, here's a borderline case for that "full independant page" requirement. Carmageddon and a few other games use the Blazing Renderer engine, yet it is a pitiful paragraph on the developers page. It doesn't look likely for expansion. Should that be ignored, or linked to anyway? JaffaCakeLover (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would ignore that, since it's not a stand-alone article. There's not much info one can learn from that. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I wasn't active when the removal of this parameter was discussed in archive 9, but the engine is an important defining factor of a game. - hahnchen 11:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Proponent contends that a user-defined license parameter is an indispensable tool which, according to statistics, has presented a negligible maintenance liability to the project and would be even more manageable under current proposals.   — C M B J  
• Opponent contends that a user-defined license parameter is nonessential and an unjustifiable burden because of a problematic history including the use of technical terms, superfluous exhibition, and other general misuse. 陣内_Jinnai

Relevant information:

1. Consensus to remove license parameter
2. Initial proposal to reinstate license parameter
3. Bot-generated statistics on use/misuse of the license parameter in both Template:Infobox video game and Template:Infobox software
4. Continued discussion
5. Second proposal to reinstate license parameter
6. Third proposal to reinstate license parameter

Should contributors be permitted to manually specify licenses in an infobox under some circumstances?   — C M B J   22:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we added it? It is useful for free games as Hedgewars. Regards. emijrp (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the above discussion and accompanying RfC. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Since Template:Infobox has now been changed so that it allows italics, could someone change the code to reflect this please rather than using {{Italic title infobox}} (similar to how its been implemented at {{Infobox book}}, {{Infobox album}}, {{Infobox newspaper}}, {{Infobox play}} etc etc.)? Mhiji (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Just realised this template doesn't use Template:Infobox. Could someone convert it to an infobox first and then do this please?! Mhiji (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: You'll have to code this in the /sandbox first (I notice someone has started it) and then get consensus for the change. And it might be worth checking the talk archives in case this has been discussed before. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the distribution field was made following a discussion on archive 9 arising from confusion over the media field. But in practice, as can be seen at Template:Infobox video game/doc, instead of superceding the media field, it's just used to indicate whether a game is distributed digitally or retail. This is utterly, utterly redundant. The platforms usually indicate if it is digitally distributed, and when it doesn't, the distribution is trivial. Do we indicate that albums are now available on digital? That films can be streamed? No, because it makes no difference - let's get rid of it. - hahnchen 11:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the field labelled "Distribution" added here right? Not the "Distributor" one that sits below publisher. Gotta make it clear which of the two similarly named items is being talked about, one very important and the other not. If you're talking about the "distribution" field, then yeah, get rid of it. Is it even used anyway? -- Sabre (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original proposal was to limit the field to games where the distribution method is ambiguous (as we do with the media field if the media is ambiguous). Jinnai opposed, so the documentation currently dictates to use the distribution field in every video game article. And I have to say with more games using digital distribution, this is a good move – as it also makes sense for older platforms. While the media field becomes virtually redundant with the platform field as the media is a consequence of the console used, the distribution method is not as clear-cut and evident to people who are not familiar with the subject. Prime Blue (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the distribution method relevant at all? We can grab mp3s, stream movies, and download ebooks, yet I'm sure Wikiproject Literature would balk at a distribution field. When everything goes digital, the media field will become redundant, but this doesn't make the distribution field relevant. - hahnchen 21:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The distribution field is relevant because there are platforms where the distribution method is not clear to the reader (e.g. Microsoft Windows) and because "download" cannot be used in the media field since it is not a type of digital media. I don't quite understand what you mean by the last sentence, though: The physical releases won't go away just because there are more and more digitally distributed games. Prime Blue (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That a game is digital or retail is not relevant, it doesn't need a separate line on the infobox to define. If it is, just put "None (digital)" in the media field. - hahnchen 16:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you do for games with ambiguous media platforms that have received a digital release as well? "Cartridge, optical disc, none (digital)". Ew, no thanks. I'm still for limiting the distribution field to games released on platforms with an ambiguous distribution method (though this is something that should rather be discussed with Jinnai than with me), but I am strictly against the removal of the field. Prime Blue (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could get rid of it altogether, which is what I'm proposing. Or you could just put digital distribution into the media field, which we had been doing previously anyway, knowing that the reader will understand what it entails. Knowing that I can buy a game in a shop is not useful. - hahnchen 17:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that you do not find the field to be "useful" or "relevant", but it does not solve the problem as I do not share your opinion. You did not answer my question either. Prime Blue (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did answer the question. Just do what we did before. You need to justify this field. - hahnchen 23:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well we could just get rid of it, but it does have some benifit. I would rather not have this for systems where distribution method is always the same, FE: PS2. However, some newer and some older systems, as well as computers, use different methods of distribution that aren't quite the same. A cart isn't the same as a disc and a floppy disc isn't the same as a cd/dvd and none of those are the same as download distribution. FE: new consoles have disc and download distribution methods. Older systems, like the NES have often had computer peristalsis and thus different methods of distribution. Finally, there is now the concept of cloud computing which is not the same any of the above methods.陣内_Jinnai 21:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the distribution field is for though. It's not about a CD or floppy, that's clearly stated in the media field. All "distribution" does is specify whether it can be downloaded - this is not a defining factor of a video game, given that anything can be downloaded.

Cloud computing is fairly crystal ball, unless you're talking about browser games, in which case the platform usually dictates it. I don't think whether a game is on OnLive deserves to be mentioned in the infobox at all, unless its an exclusive. - hahnchen 23:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot we kept media field. I thought we were merging it into this.

With that said, there need only be 3 types listed here then:

• Physical - default assumed when its the only type. If multiple types exist, then it should be listed.
• Download - downloading the entire game.
• Cloud - having none or little of the game on your computer and accessing the resources through a central hub, usually via the internet.

By definition, all MMOs are cloud games because much of resources they do not host on their own PC. They just host the textures and stuff like that. It's not nessasarily cloud computing like many think of it where nothing is kept on the computer, but cloud computing by definition doesn't require this therefore its not crystal balling.陣内_Jinnai 23:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Different idea to prevent this from becoming a circular discussion: The distribution field contents do not fit the media field, but it works vice versa: Simply remove the media field and include its contents in the distribution field (replacing the "physical" option): New possible values would then be "floppy disk", "cartridge", "memory card", "optical disc", "download", and "cloud computing". Only use the field if the platforms leave this ambiguous (e.g. Microsoft Windows). Problem solved. Prime Blue (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]