Template talk:Infobox game

Suggestion

Here's my two cents' worth.

• Name - good as stated.
• Category - good as stated.
• Number of players - also good.
• Age range - This should only be stated explicitly for explicitly juvenile games. Games for adults usually don't have an age requirement other than the minimum intelligence demanded by the difficulty and strategy level.

Many games come with recommendations like "Ages 3-6". These are usually learning games which tend to bore older children and adults, although those ages could play technically play it. People will know this, so I don't think we need to say it explicitly. I'd say keep this for all games, adult and juvenile alike. The idea would be to mimic the stated age guidelines (if any) or to designate a reasonable minumum age. -- Netoholic 21:39, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course, for proprietary games, the obvious course of action is to quote the age range given on the box. This would be the same whether it's something like "3-6" or something like "12+". But for games that are public domain, there's no defined age range; moreover, different commercially produced sets of the same game are likely to give different age ranges. In any case, we would have to avoid guesswork or original research. -- Smjg (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Setup time - good as stated.
• Playing time - We should have a timescale with markers increasing at a roughly exponential rate, viz.: <5 min, 5 min, 10 min, 15 min, 30 min, 1 hr, 2 hr, 3 hr, 4 hr, 5 hr, >5 hr. Each game's duration should be stated as an interval from one marker to another, viz.: <5 min to 15 min, 30 min to 1 hr.

I don't like interval time because its often too hard to judge. Modifying my original proposal, I'd prefer less granularity in favor of a general scale, something like <5 min, 10 min, 20 min, 30 min, 45 min, 1 hour, >1 hr. Games that take over one hour are very hard to narrow down to a specific range, and the distinction will often not matter. -- Netoholic 21:39, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, but maybe ditch the 45 min classification. --Smack 18:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Difficulty level - Fine, but call this rules complexity.

Good suggestion. -- Netoholic 21:39, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Strategy level - This should be called strategy depth, and based on the following sole parameter: the number of layers of tactic and countertactic that the game affords. The scale should be something like this: None (there's only one right way to do this), Shallow (you can scheme a bit to improve your chances, but the other players can't do anything about it), Substantial, Profound.

Rules complexity:	----5
Strategy depth:	--3--
Random chance:	1----

I don't think people could gauge the levels based on your chosen words. Prefer something a bit more relatable. Perhaps a simple scale of 1-5 for all these "level" definitions? -- Netoholic 21:39, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1 to 5 could be done, but I think that if we adopt any arbitrary classifications at all, we'll need a sort of glossary page in the Wikipedia namespace, regardless of how we do them. --Smack 18:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Random chance - good as stated.
• Skills required - also good as stated. --Smack 20:02, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Has it been decided what the titles of the various levels of strategy, difficulty, etc. are? Or are the ones that have been chosen for the infobox'd games pretty arbitrary? 209.114.249.74 19:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

May I...

May I use this Infobox as a starting point for my own infobox?

Sure, go ahead. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:03, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

---

SoulLady MiLich27 (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

My $.02...

I know this isn't the best place to discuss this, but I didn't see a talk page. I just saw this infobox on the Cluedo page and, may I say, it's incredibly drab. Hues of gray? Games are supposed to be fun! Please see my Infobox for Arcade games as an example of something more colorful. Please come up with a different color scheme, but don't be afraid to use colors! :-)

Also, I'd like to suggest an additional item: Alternate names. This particularly would be useful for Cluedo, where it is known as "Clue" in North America. Most North Americans have never heard of a game called "Cluedo" and only know it by the shorter name. If a game has no "alternate name," the field can be left out (just like the image entry is). Thoughts? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:03, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Margin-bottom

The infobox hits the category box on short pages like Java (board game) so I've added 0.5em to the bottom margin.

Design and illustration credits

As a game designer and illustrator, don't we think it's important who designed and illustrated these things. (I do! ;-) ) I would think that would be a valuable bit of information to put in an infobox. --Yekrats 16:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would we be able to provide that information for every game? (not being sarcastic, I just really wouldn't know where to look for that) If the information were already part of the articles, your idea might be a possibility. -- Netoholic @ 17:06, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I love giving credit where it is due (for example, I hate it when mags don't credit people for illustrations), but I doubt this information is readily available. Also, most art for arcade games was produced by a group of people or a department, and most were not credited in the game. Unfortunately, their names are just lost.

Therefore, I don't think it's a good idea to add this to the infobox. The number of games for which we could find the artists is diminishingly small. :-( For the few games we can find this info, it should just be noted in the article text. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:41, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The website BoardGameGeek (http://boardgamegeek.com) has information on just about any game, with designer credits for about every game under the sun. (Some, naturally are listed as "uncredited" but most have been tracked down.) Designer credit is extremely important, can be easily tracked down in most cases. For example, see the BGG entry on Java.

I concede that illustration credit would be somewhat harder to track down, but I've found many at Funagain, an online game retailer. (According to the Funagain site, Java was illustrated by Franz Vohwinkel, a prolific game illustrator. --Yekrats 6 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)

I second the move to include designer in the info box. It is basic info that should be available for most games. --Millsdavid 05:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Me too, only I would call it Creator since it's a more generic term - that would allow you to state "Persians" in the case of chess. (I think design hadn't been "invented" back then.) -- Tintazul 17:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree — Designer (or creator) should be added to the infobox. Val42 20:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Using syntax I borrowed from {{otheruses4}}, I've been able to add "publisher" and "designer" as optional parameters, as well as making "ages" and "image_caption" optional. Percy Snoodle 08:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Age range

For commercially produced, proprietary games, one can put in the age range that is printed on the box. But who decides the age range of a classic board game such as chess, or a playground game such as Chinese whispers? For example, at the moment chess is "Recommended for 8 years or older". Recommended by whom? On the other hand, xiangqi has "Any" down here. It would seem that this attribute is largely, if not completely, a matter of opinion. -- Smjg 12:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

bggid

User:AmbientArchitecture recently added a bggid parameter. I'm uneasy about this for a few reasons:

• It's a duplication of effort, given the {{bgg}} family of templates.
• It's inflexible; many games have different BGG IDs for the different editions, and some articles cover families of games rather than the games themselves.
• There are a few wikipedians who regard BGG links as linkspam - see Wikipedia talk:Counter Vandalism Unit/Archive 3#HELP!. I'm not one of them, and I for the moment the consensus is against them, but promoting the BGG links outside the external link section might fuel their arguments.

I haven't reverted the edits; instead I've matched the style against the equivalent IMDB ID section from {{Infobox film}}, whose existence is probably the best argument in favour of the parameter. However, I thought it best to discuss it here to gain consensus about whether we really want this parameter in the template. Percy Snoodle 09:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the reasoning behind the 'sup' change, whatever that is? This again seems to radically decrease usefuless. AmbientArchitecture 14:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's to cover articles on multiple games, or games with lots of spinoffs. In those cases, set bggid to "template" and it'll take you to the bgg template in the exlinks. If there's just the one exlink, set bggid numerically as before, and it will work as it did before. No decrease in usefulness, just another mode of use. Percy Snoodle 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I see, now what you did originally -- and your arguments about "inflexibility" and "duplication" -- makes more sense to me. It's not really a different mode of use, but different functionality altogether. What your doing is more akin to citations or a jump to a list of references, while what I was trying to do was simply to provide the BGG ID for the game specified in the title of the article, along with a like to the corresponding article on BGG as a convenience. You should continue to evolve the latter as you wish (as bggxrefs), I've reinstated the former (as bggid) as I originally intended it. I've also reduced the importance of both by making them smaller and putting them at the end with footnotes, which seems more in keeping with some of the issues you brought up initially. (See Carcassonne for an example of both in use.) AmbientArchitecture 17:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I disagree with splitting them up (I understand why you did it, I just disagree) I've left them split; Either you or Grimhelm had restyled it so it no longer matched the IMDB style, and inserted whitespace that broke it on every game article; I've fixed both those issues. Percy Snoodle 09:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does it have to match the IMDB style? What's a "profile"? I'm really not following the motivations for your changes: they seem not to be guided by the desire to convey information. I made the BGG ID visible because it represents useful information about the game, but you've hidden it behind the word "profile"; my changes in formatting were intended to produce a result that was attractive and readable, yours seem motivated by the desire to match the IMDB style. If there's a reason that this has to follow the IMDB style, I'll leave it as is. Otherwise I'd like to restore the "= <bggid>" form that I had earlier. I'll still leave the formatting as is for the time being though to see how it works. But my feeling is that this organization of information (driven by the IMDB style) is inferior: keeping footnotes, external database IDs, and links to internal references all together "below the line" makes sense to me (though I can be talked out of that).

The reason I've gone for "profile" over some arbitrary number is that the BGG ID itself conveys no information - it's just the order in which the game was added to BGG, and is otherwise meaningless. As regards the rest, I think we've reached a compromise in the current version of the template. Percy Snoodle 10:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, though the number is still useful. I'll think about it. But something other that "profile" would be better. Profiles are for people, aren't they? Perhaps "BGG entry" or "On BGG" or something along those lines? AmbientArchitecture 11:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Profile isn't person-specific, and I dispute that the number is useful; I wouldn't object to "entry", though. Percy Snoodle 13:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Done! AmbientArchitecture 15:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the bgg stuff in this template is linkspam. I suggest we remove it. The proper place for external links is at the bottom of the article, not in the a summarization sidebar. --Micah Hainline 20:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel the same way about the IMDB links on {{Infobox film}}? Percy Snoodle 14:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We're told over and over again by zealous editors what Wikipedia "is not", and for games that list is so long that a standard link out of Wikipedia to something that is all those things seems essential for making Wikipedia useful in this domain, just as the IMDB link does for films. — Aldaron • T/C 15:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Though my opinions on the IMDB links on the film infobox don't really seem relevant to the issue BoardGameGeeks links in this info box, I think they would be better off at the bottom of the page as well. Even then, they should only be included if there is significant value for that particular movie. Let me say that I like the BoardGameGeeks website. It's a great source of information, a nice place to trade games, and I have an account on the site. I didn't come to wikipedia to see the BGG pages on a game though, I came to see the Wikipedia entry on the game. Having links to other valuable content makes sense, but they should be in a separate space, and we should be sure that each link is adding some real value to the Wikipedia article. If the BGG link seems lost in the shuffle of links at the bottom, by all means move it to the top of the links section, delete some less relevant links, or preferably both. I just don't think the link should be smack at the top of the article. It feels like it's saying "Hey, don't read this article, go somewhere where they have some real info." I'd hate to see Wikipedia start to become a portal site, where we redirect readers to other sites that are more focused on particular domains. People know where to look for more information. We're used to looking down in the links section, or hitting up Google. We have portals. We need an encyclopedia too. --Micah Hainline 05:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I disagree. Perhaps this is part of a larger issue, that should be discussed elsewhere: what exactly Wikipedia is and is not. There's been a trend (which experienced Wikipedians tell me is recent) that takes Wikipedia away from being a comprehensive resource and moves it in the direction of being very narrowly encyclopedic. This trend has resulted in the exclusion and deletion of a great deal of useful content in order to comply with "is not" guidelines. But that creates a problem for ordinary people who are just looking for a great source of information.

Wikipedia has the opportunity be that source of information by redefining what it means to be and encyclopedia and what it means to be a portal by being the best at both. But I don't imagine we'll solve that issue here.

The issue at hand though seems easy to resolve. If games articles complied with "is not" guidelines, most of them would be reduced to little more than an infobox and some outgoing links, and many would be deleted altogether. In that case, I'd argue that the BGG link is an essential part of the template for a game article, however it gets included, and that the infobox is a clean way of encouraging incorporation of that information. I would also argue that, regardless of what other content is in a game article, the BGG ID itself is in fact encyclopedic information, and should not only be included in a link in the game infobox, but actually presented there visually (instead of the current text for the link).

In short, the more I think about this, the more important I think the inclusion of the BGG ID is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldaron (talk • contribs) 16:20, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I would like Wikipedia, in conjunction with its sister projects, to be a comprehensive informational resource as well. I don't think we really need to solve all the larger issues with what should and should not be included in Wikipedia in order to solve this particular issue. I think we both agree that we should have a link to BoardGameGeeks in the articles, the only question in dispute is really where that link should sit. I see what you're saying about including it in a template to encourage people to include the information, but I think there are already templates to allow them to do that easily, and including it in this one pushes it to the top of the article, which is the only problem I have with it. I also disagree a bit about the number itself being encyclopedic information. It's just the internal database id for bgg's current system--one they have unfortunately exposed somewhat. The link itself should probably be sufficient I would think. --Micah Hainline 20:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone raise an objection at this point if I were to remove the link from the infoboxes of some of these articles, but make sure that every article from which I removed it had the boardgamegeek link at the top of the links section? The point Aldaron made about the German-style board games is a good one. I think the community of people that play German-style board games are really the ones that are interested in the boardgamegeek content. I am unconvinced that it belongs in the infobox rather than the links section for any game, but for things such as Chess, Go, or Monopoly it seem particularly inappropriate, and with the id field in the template for the board game infobox, these will inevitably crop up again and again. --Micah Hainline 23:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The boardgamegeek stuff is linkspam. Anyone who sees this is requested to not add it back to the infobox in Chess, where it is definitely not wanted. (This isn't any sort of accusation, just a request to not make WP:CHESS remove it repeatedly from articles in the project.) Quale 00:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the bggid is probably inappropriate for the Chess article. But it isn't linkspam in when used for other boardgames, especially German-style boardgames. — Aldaron • T/C 03:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the BGG link should remain. It is informational for someone who is seeking information on a game. — Val42 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that any time recently I add the bggid to an infobox, it does not show up on the page after I save. For an example see Avatar: The Last Airbender Trading Card Game. Was this disabled? Ive seen this sort of thing happen with the random chance entry as well, and I could not figure it out then either. Mathman1550 (talk) 03:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Thumperward made a bunch of edits that destroyed this field as well as some of the formatting, w/o discussion. It looks like he was trying rationalize the template a bit but dropped some fields in the process. I've asked him to fix it, but unless he (or someone who knows the intricacies of these templates better than I do) can repair this, we should probably revert. — Aldaron • T/C 15:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. It looks like even IMDB links are no longer tolerated in infoboxes, which shoots down the rationale for having the BGG link here. (Chalk another one up to what Wikipedia is not.) — Aldaron • T/C 15:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Down10 has recently been making some edits which Aldaron has brought to my attention as they break the look of the template in various ways for him. I have reverted some of these changes, though not all - some of them have been great edits, such as adding the template to the Game templates category. I think it would be a good idea for the two of you to discuss what you think should be done here, before more changes are made to the article. Percy Snoodle 08:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Percy's recent edits address most of my concerns. One concern that remains is that Down10's changes have introduced padding around the infobox image that creates too much whitespace, which is not only unappealing, but prevents that image from lining up vertically with same-sized thumbnails farther down the page on the right. AmbientArchitecture 12:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Complexity and depth

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games#how is rules complexity and strategy depth calculated? Percy Snoodle 13:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Random chance???

Listed in the info box is the heading "random chance" (Such as the text "random_chance= High" in Mordheim). This makes no sense whatsoever. I vote that this part be removed; it gives little information, if any and is confusing and makes no sense (random_chance= High or random_chance= Dice rolling???? What is that???). Thoughts? Spawn Man 04:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - it's original research and should be removed, so I shall. It's possible "skills used" should too. Percy Snoodle 09:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not OR (The fact that the random chance for Mordheim is High may be OR, but that is not relevant here.) There are plenty of boardgames that have some kind of chance rating on the box. There are games that have random_chance = None (eg Chess), which is relevant information and is normally well sourced. Some pages include the element introducing the random chance (eg Acquire has random_chance = tile drawing, Backgammon has random_chance = Dice), and such information is also easily sourced. HermanHiddema 10:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

For some games, it may be easily sourced, though I can't remember ever seeing a game article do so. However, most games that use the parameter have something like "high", "medium", or "low" - meaningless and OR. Those articles are improved more by removing that nonsense than the minority of sensible articles are harmed, and the sensible articles can very easily mention it in the prose. Indeed, most of them do because they link to abstract strategy game in their lead sentence. Percy Snoodle 10:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that editors do not properly source the random chance component of games is not the fault of the template. Removing random_chance from the template may be the easy way to remove unsourced material from a lot of board game pages, but is it the right way? IMO, board game pages that do not source this rating should either remove the random_chance component or reference it (eg: reference http://www.boardgameratings.com/game/2/ which gives Settlers of Catan a 'Luck' rating of 3/5) HermanHiddema 11:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but it makes no sense. If someone randomly said to you "Random chance. High." you'd be very confused... If anything like that is used, it should at least be renamed to something that makes sense. Spawn Man 01:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something like 'Luck' is a better term? HermanHiddema 11:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Luck: High" is no less a POV call than "Chance: High". The parameter would still cause more harm than good. Percy Snoodle 06:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, this is a good field for the infobox. In the two extreme cases, the amount of random chance in a game is pretty straightforward (War (card game), for example, is completely luck-based, while Chess has no luck component.) Between the two extremes, I agree that rating the amount of random chance between "low" and "high" is difficult, but could we not just list the luck based components? For example "dice-based movement", "initial card-shuffling", etc? Perhaps that's too long for an infobox entry... --216.86.105.213 (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to use Wikipedia templates within a scratchpad wikia?

I was trying to determine how to use the templates within the Wikipedia as part of a scratchpad wikia that some friends and I are working on, but so far I haven't been successful. Do I need to duplicate each template in the scratchpad (ideally I'd just like to point at the Wikipedia templates)? If they all need to be duplicated, is there an easy way to cut and paste them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrboeke (talk • contribs) 20:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Skills, Random Chance

Every single time I've seen a game infobox, the information in these two lines strike me as pointless and uninformative, and almost always WP:OR (except, I suppose, when the random chance level is none). Can we just remove these? None of the game articles attempt in the text to classify a random chance level for the game that I have seen; they simply describe the game and the level of random chance is thus described directly. Similarly, game articles talk about strategy but never about required skills; you would certainly never see a claim that "strategy" is a required skill for any game. This kind of line doesn't seem to exist in other infoboxes; rather, the most subjective lines are always at least backed up directly by text in the article. Instead of trying to correct individual articles, I think it's best to adjust the infobox. Mangojuice^talk 05:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly support removing these OR-baiting lines. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I also support removing these lines, and I would also include setup time and playing time, as these are equally likely to be OR. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the random chance and skills entries, but think we should preserve setup and play times if these are provided by the manufacturer. — Aldaron • T/C 15:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing the item in the template is not the right course of action. The fact that some pages use "High" for Chance means that THOSE articles have OR in them, that doesn't mean the template can only support OR in that part as you have already acknowledged (and has been stated above). There are plenty of articles where having "none" would be very useful, and I in fact have looked through games looking for ones with that tag on it. Having "none" is not often OR, and is very useful and editing a template to fix a problem on one article, while harming others seems counter-productive when we can just edit the articles which are using it poorly. If it MUST be removed the easy, but in my opinion lazy way, by editing the template, it should be edited so the line only appears if it is set at "none", or something equivalent. :) Chris M. (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Width field

I've added a width field to allow for control over the width of the box and improve page layout. — Aldaron • T/C 22:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Random Chance category

I was hoping that something could be added to this to categorize all games that have "none" in the "random chance" section. I personally would find this information extremely useful and I don't think I'd be the only one. The change would also be very minor. Comments? Chris M. (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

label_width added

I have added "label_width" to allow control over the width of the labels. Gerry (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Also added actor and voice-over for video board games. Gerry (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What is "genre"? What is "years active"

Could we get some guidance on some of the fields? I am trying to copyedit an article that uses this infobox, Axis & Allies: Europe 1940.

• Genre - what goes here? Is it "board game" or "wargame" or "board wargame" or "WW II game" or "Strategic-level game" or what???
• Years active - what is this? It is a game, it is not alive, it is not active by itself. Do you mean "Date of first publication to date it went out of print" or what?

Also the "random chance" and "skills" params seem kind of iffy - how are we supposed to know this? But that's a different issue. Herostratus (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Italic titles: opt-in or opt-out?

Currently the Infobox does not automatically italicize the titles unlike {{Infobox book}}, for example. However, game franchises like Monopoly should be italicized (see MOS:TITLE). User:StAnselm tried employing the {{infobox}} | italic title = parameter and defaulting it to "yes", thus giving all pages using this Infobox an italic title. However, traditional games like chess, Go, tag etc. should not be italicized. Both of these categories use this infobox.

There are two conflicting facts that I found out while browsing this template's list of transclusions (of which there are 1300+):

1. Most articles using this Infobox are articles about game franchises (copyrighted, commercial game titles), and should be italicized.
   1. Most of those in this category italicize the article title in the lead, but not the page title ...
   2. ... but some do neither.
2. There are a considerable amount of pages using this Infobox that should not be italicized.

I consider it more severe error that a page shows an italicized title when it should not (a false positive), than a case where the title is not italicized while it should. I successfuly identified hundreds of pages in the former category, and added | italic title = no to stop them showing the italicized title, but I have most certainly missed many articles.

I have to admit that it's technically more sensible to have the italicized title as opt-in than opt-out, and I have now changed it back so (ie. you must write | italic title = yes to get the italicized title now.)

If there is enough interest to clean up the transclusions of this template, we can try again later. I don't have the time and resources to individually categorize all the 1300+ transclusions of this infobox to those that should and should not be italicized.. --hydrox (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Label position

Should 'Other name(s)' and 'Synonym(s)' for the game appear at the top or the bottom of the infobox? I feel they should appear near the top, since they appear in the lead of the article. please discuss here if you don't feel this should be the case. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Author or Writer label/field

This infobox seems to be the preferred one used for gamebook entries. The problem is that it contains neither an author field nor a writer field (some gamebook articles have these, but they aren't displayed). Gamebooks aren't designed, they're written by authors: they're games, but more like "interactive novels" than something you design. (Gamebook systems on the other hand, like fighting fantasy, are designed. But here I'm talking about infoboxes on individual gamebook entries) Therefore I propose the addition of a writer field or at least an author field. If you feel that is not appropriate, please suggest an alternative to "designer", or perhaps a better infobox to use for all gamebooks. CapnZapp (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Line Developer field

In addition to the author field (which is useful for gamebooks), could we please have a "Line Developer" field, since this is also the template used for RPG game lines? The line developer, rather than the original game designer or book author, is the continuity person who steers the long-term success of the line, and it would be very helpful to present this in the infobox in a standardized way. Newimpartial (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Saying what is age appropriate is not appropriate

I have seen concerns about the "age range" parameter raised above but my opinion is that they do not go far enough. First, it is not clear what the source is when we list an age indiscriminately. Given that game boxes with age ranges and game boxes without age ranges are both common, it is perfectly valid to think that a statement like "ages=10+" was made up by a Wikipedian who decided to rate the game himself on the spot. Second, even if we made the parameter specify "age range as recommended by the original company", it would sound a lot like a piece of trivia. Someone who wanted to objectively decide what game to buy for her son or daughter would be much better off to read the prose in the article which describes the game's content. Film ratings are kept out of infoboxes and for good reason. Is this not an analogous situation? We should not be in the business of pretending that some universal parenting advice exists for all cultures, so I propose removing the parameter. Connor Behan (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is analogous to film ratings and so even if the age range is estimated by the editor, it's pretty harmless. However, it would be much better to show the source for the information. Age ranges are not just listed on the box, but also by gaming sites and reviewers and they are all reasonable sources. Bermicourt (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox: "Other name(s)" vs. "Synonym(s)"

The infobox for this WikiProject currently has a parameter named |other_names= ("Other name(s)") and |AKA= ("Synonym(s)"), their descriptions say "Other name(s) for the game" and "Game name synonym(s)", respectively. So what exactly is the difference? Should the latter param be removed? Lordtobi (✉) 18:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Weird. It does seem like "synonym" is a strange choice of word for alternate game names and titles. Ibadibam (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree, this is a strange way to use the word synonym. I think Other names makes much more sense and we should consider migrating usages of AKA to other_names. ThisPageDoesNotExist (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Manufacturer should be moved down

It seems odd that the "Manufacturer" tag is as high up as it is, since it is often just a company paid by the actual developers to get the cards on paper. For example Secret Hitler was developed by Goat, Wolf, & Cabbage LLC (a collective of three designers), but the manufacturing was done by Breaking Games, which is unrelated to the company. Yet, it fills the top spot in the infobox, just below the image. Why does it? Shouls it be moved down? I think yes, and it best fits just above distributor. There should also be a parameter to denote which company developed the game (as is here GW&C LLC). Lordtobi (✉) 09:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Add a "region" field?

Was going to propose merging the four-line {{Infobox mancala}} infobox here, but this template doesn't have any kind of equivalent to the "region" field. This seems quite glaring for traditional boardgame articles like Shogi or Go (game), which use this infobox but don't mention in there where the game originates. Should this be added? --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Random chance and OR

Can we please update the documentation for this template to make it explicitly clear that the Random chance field should not be populated unless a source can be provided, either along with the value or in the body of the article? Otherwise it seems to be an OR magnet. Or is there a common understanding that any editor can delete the value for this field if they're satisfied that the value provided isn't verifiable? DonIago (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

If editors delete everything they aren't satisfied with, there'll be little left of most articles. Clearly it is better if parameters in infoboxes are cited, but harmless parameters like this one should not be deleted on a whim unless they're obviously wrong. Bermicourt (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

That seems to fly in the face of WP:V, and nobody's suggesting that editors should be able to make deletions just because they're not satisfied with what's there. DonIago (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

short description

Today the short description is "Game". I see this overridden on a lot of articles. Is there any interest in constructing a dynamic short description that might require fewer overrides? —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Parenthetical plurals

I have removed the parenthesized "(s)" suffix from the labels that used it. For example, "Genre(s)" is now simply "Genres," "Skill(s) required" is now simply "Skills," and so on. "Publisher(s)" is now "Published by," which works for both the singular and plural. The "(s)" construction, known as a "parenthetical plural," is visually and grammatically awkward, and most style guides recommend avoiding it (AMA Manual of Style, EIA Style Guide, Lawyer's Style Guide).

—Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Complexity and Strategy

I see a lot of Infobox Games have the unsupported tags: complexity and strategy. Please could we either support those tags or hire a kindly bot to go round removing them. Slimy asparagus (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

parent_game

Using the |parent_game= parameter gives Parent games (plural) in the infobox. Was this intentional or in error? Sciencefish (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Only a single image in the infobox

Should this infobox be changed to allow two images, one for the logo and one for a photo of the game? The Monopoly (game) article no longer matches the example at the top of this page, as it includes the logo rather than the board. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. A similar issue has come up with tête-bêche books such as The Statue of the Sorcerer & The Vanishing Conjurer where two images needed to be combine into one.Sciencefish (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've today added a "logo=" field so that commercial games can use two images if desired. Existing articles that use the "image=" for a logo won't be affected. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Also |logo_alt=, |logo_caption=, |logo_link= and |logo_size=. I have added these to the list of valid parameters — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought I'd caught that but must have been pressing the wrong button. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The tracking category Category:Pages using infobox game with unknown parameters seems to be OK now, although my watchlist does not yet reflect this — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 19:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"Designers"

First off, please make this field say Designer in singular when a single data is detected.

Second, please unlink Designers. It looks off and that's not how we do it. If an article wants to explain by linking to a page like Game Designer that's fine, but this way it is unavoidable. Please delink.

Especially since for Infobox RPG (which is a redirect to Infobox Game) you're linked to video game design, not tabletop roleplay design.

Plus, Game Designer is not its own article - it is currently a redirect to Game Design. This is just not useful.

CapnZapp (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Missing parameters

I have added some parameters to the documentation: italic title, ages, logo_alt, logo_caption, logo_size, alt, image_alt, image_caption and image_size.

In passing, I see that {{{logo_link}}} and {{{image_link}}} seem to be incorrectly coded as alternatives for the logo/image name rather than as article links, but I have not dared to correct the template code.

Also, {{{subject_name}}} seems to accepted as an alternative for {{{name}}}, which seems rather strange to me — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 17:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason to use italic title = yes? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 17:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)