Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Ugly.

Why did you turn the template into an ugly one? "Cleaner"?! What?! It's harder for the eyes to follow without clear, colored borders. --nlitement ^[talk] 18:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea is entirely for consistency across Wikipedia. Look at other infoboxes across the project, such as films, software, characters (VG characters is on the agenda to update as well), books, they all use this theming. The colours and borders are only a small price to pay for consistency. Unless you want to try to convince all the other Wikiprojects to adopt the old style. The change isn't just cosmetic either, the code (which is more important) has been updated and modernised. -- Sabre (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This looks usable I guess, better than McBride's edit, but it certainly looks dull. I think that the Infobox and the Navbox should share design and color scheme, does anyone else? In addition, the code that makes the Navbox operate which the Infobox and pages needing multiple Infoboxen could benefit from greatly. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It might just be me, but I think it looks OK (and occasionally great) on new titles, but it doesn't look right on articles about old video games (70's, 80's). - X201 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Show us an example, I can't understand how it would look okay for one game and not for another. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That depends on what do you mean by 'consistency'. Last time I checked, infobox wiki templates in other languages don't share the same design. Also, thanks to the new design, release dates info now becomes invisible! Jacob Poon 23:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Poon (talk • contribs)

Change the value "release" to "released". --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you have "Developer" wikilinked to a disambiguation page? Anomie⚔ 19:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The category "Arcade System" is not in bold like the rest of the categories. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the developer issue, and arcade. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Arcade System is still not bold for some reason. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Figured it out. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Splendid. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the wikimarkup and re-added the protection tag. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this change the box art size, or is it going to stay at the 256px size? Salavat (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The template's overall dimensions have not changed, and from the video game articles I've looked at since the change the maximum recommended size for the cover art or poster should still be 256px. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This new version looks too bland, makes it harder to read (especially long infoboxes with lots of info), and shouldn't have been changed without consensus, I say it should be changed back. Also, the 256 is only the maximin size, not the size that should be used. TJ Spyke 11:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Um... generally, 256px is always used for the infobox, eg from Fantasy VII to Halo 3 to Golden Sun. David Fuchs ^(talk) 14:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's "generally always" used? ;) An image 100 px wide would be better displayed at 100 than 256. Pagrashtak 17:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If there's an article with an Infobox 256px in width and it's using an image 100px in width, then someone needs to upload a better image. Pictures should be low-res, but not THAT low res. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesomeness. That's one less inconsistent infobox on the project. Many thanks. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This one is actually easier to read than the grey version (and doesn't look like a plastic tombstone, hurray), but there's still the issue of multiple fields one on top of the other (no spaces) being harder to read, the gap between the name of the field and the content of that field can be quite large and it gets a bit jumbled. Would it be possible to add a couple of dividers like the 'information' one in Template:Infobox character, since nobody seems to be disputing that one? That would make the world of difference to infoboxes filled with info. One above System requirements (the hardware section) and another above release dates was what I was thinking. I don't know if anyone else will feel the same, but would the platforms section not be better right at the top of the infobox as pretty much the most important at-a-glance info, or lower down with the other hardware details? Someoneanother 23:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The only concern I would have with dividers like the ones you described is that it adds more length to an already giant infobox. What do you mean by the gaps though? Between the mode(s) and the next section, or between the mode(s) and the listing to the right (to use an example) -David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Horizontally, where the name of the mode does not fall close to the information within it, for instance the gap between 'developer' and 'Capcom' in a Capcom game. When the template is being used to its fullest there can be sections where the name of the mode doesn't go near the content for several lines. When I look at the information, I see two seperate columns but they aren't lined up perfectly horizontally, imagine a large spreadsheet with the criss-cross lines removed, suddenly it becomes a bugger to read. The lines are going kinda diagonal and I have to keep refocusing. Point taken about infobox length, but even a single divider above hardware/software (controllers, platform, system requirements) would help to cut the columns in half and make it less awkward to read. It'd isolate those parts of the information and by the time you've seen a few of them you'd know whereabouts different modes were by their location compared to the divider. By the sounds of it this wouldn't ruin what Chris has set out to do, make the templates inconsistent etc., but it would be a small concession that would make a lot of difference to me personally. There's nothing wrong with my eyes, if it's having that effect on me it must be murder for someone with less than perfect vision. Someoneanother 01:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(remove indent) Looking again, you could actually put mode(s), Engine and platform(s) further down then make a 'technical' divider, something like -

• Developer
• Publisher
• Genre
• Release dates
• Ratings
  • (technical divider)
• platform(s)
• Modes
• Engine
• System reqs.
• Input methods.

That way the divider actually divides it closer to half-way, leaving arguably the most immediate points of interest above and the more technical stuff below. The game engine will be important to many, but it's out of place with publisher and developer and probably not as important for the average reader. The platforms are important, but they fit in with the technical side and if they're listed just under the divider you can locate them in a heartbeat. Better idea? Someoneanother 01:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some rhythm and flow to the Infobox that isn't there yet, alternate color dividers could supply that flow. As for an Infobox being too big, define. If the Infobox is longer than the article then chances are that article needs to be expanded. If that doesn't work then the [Hide] command needs to be inserted into the code like a Navbox, the current VG Infobox Hidden template look so bad that it should just be scrapped, and the additional functionality made part of the VG Infobox. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What I mean by being too long is that it often (I should say almost always) disrupts the flow of the main body text because everyone crams in every minute detail. Visually, it’s a bit distracting beyond the point where it should be distracting. David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest then? Infobox, for me, translates into a box with information. And yeah, when I write articles I will use as many of the Infobox's categories as possible to be as complete with my information as possible, I'll even put references right in the box. If you think that there are too many pieces to this Infobox then perhaps you should start proposing the removal of some of them. Between a full-sized picture and the use of every category, however, this Infobox's maximum length is still only just outside the common length for graduation from a stub to a full article. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with users above who mentioned that this should not have been changed without proper consensus. This "new" version is much harder to read, not so much for the lack of colour but the lack of anything at all to seperate the information, which makes things difficult for really long infoboxes. I say bring back the dividing lines or something please! Aat least then it's actually readable. I'm all for modernising the template, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And I'm sorry, but making it white and bland only so it can be "consistent across Wikipedia" is a not a very compelling reason if you ask me. .:Alex:. 16:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: odd-numbered rows shaded slightly darker

I suggest that odd-numbered rows have a slightly darker background color than the rest of the template (including even-numbered rows). This will make it a bit easier to distinguish adjacent rows. Unfortunately, I know of no way of technically achieving this, as there's no way of knowing beforehand exactly how many (and which) fields will be used, and which of them will be omitted. SharkD (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, Just like alternating rows on Navboxen, I like this idea. All one needs to do is lift the said code from that template if there are difficulties programming it in. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree that a subtle thing like this will be suitable, but as you said there is the issue of which ones would show. David Fuchs ^(talk) 17:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There isn't an issue with the Navbox code, if I read the problem correctly, no matter how "fat" a line is the colors alternate correctly. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Anything which doesn't mess up the template but does go some way towards dealing with the textual sludge. Since the infobox has been changed several people have turned up and said it's difficult to read without the separating lines, as predicted. It needs sorting, somehow, without overcomplicating the code or going against general consistency. Someoneanother 22:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• I will point out that while this is nice, the variability of what info can go in the box (eg, certain fields are optional) makes this a bit trickier. We need to create a second template that is used as a base that takes no named arguments as to create the alternating colors, then have the other templates basically create a call to this template, stacking the arguments as they come along. Not impossible, and I will look into what "features" I can make for the base infobox as to provide some better control on the display. --MASEM 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The Orange Box
Developer(s)	Valve Corporation EA London (PS3 version)
Publisher(s)	Valve Corporation
Distributor(s)'	Electronic Arts (retail) Steam (online)
Engine	Source engine
Platform(s)	Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360
Release date	Microsoft Windows & Xbox 360 (retail): NA: October 10 2007 EU: October 18 2007 UK: October 19 2007 AU: October 25 2007 Microsoft Windows (online): WW: October 10, 2007 PlayStation 3 (retail): NA: December 11 2007 EU: December 11 2007 AU: December 20 2007
Genre(s)	First-person shooter, compilation
Mode(s)	Single player, Multiplayer
Rating(s)	ESRB: T-M PEGI: 16+ BBFC: 15 OFLC: MA15+
Media	Steam, DVD-ROM, Blu-ray Disc
System requirements	1.7 GHz processor, 512 MB RAM, DirectX 8 compatible video card, Windows 2000/XP/Vista
Input methods	Keyboard, Mouse, Xbox 360 Controller, SIXAXIS controller, DualShock 3 controller

See the example to the right (commons image to avoid nfc problems) for a working alternating color approach to the infobox. --MASEM 15:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note replacement with a slightly better version of the alternate color template. --MASEM 22:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice one Masem. - X201 (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you ditch the white line between columns? -- Sabre (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It would rather difficult to do (It looks like I would have to set border-width on each cell for the table.) --MASEM 22:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks great, lines through columns included, I think this will be a definite improvement with all articles using the box. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice, I agree the space between the columns is annoying, but more importantly can we make the categories bold to differentiate them like in the regular box? David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Naaah we can't have that (yes, real easy to fix :-) --MASEM 00:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's better! I like it. It's much easier to read than the current blank white one. .:Alex:. 17:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Inquiry on the parameters

The "Picture format" parameter directs to Aspect ratio. Most Wiki-articles on modern games use this parameter to show the display resolution of the game. Should the parameter be changed, or should all current articles' mistaken entries be cleared (and a "display resolution" parameter added)? Even so, would we then only need to specify such a parameter is for native, maximum supported, all resolutions, or a mix(native for console, maximum for computers)? Documentation on the use of the infobox's parameters is severly lacking. Jappalang (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The lack of definition, I suppose, is because it might never have been discussed at length, and this was probably inserted before the template was protected. Challenger 1983 (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Release/Released (new)

(removed edit protected)

from

! Released | {{{released|}}} |-

to

{{#if:{{{released|}}}| ! Released {{!}} {{{released|}}} {{!}}- }} {{#if:{{{release|}}}| ! Release {{!}} {{{release|}}} {{!}}- }}

Did you read the discussion the last time that you added editprotected? You were asked by Pagrashtak to explain your idea. I've removed the editprotected. You can put it back on after concensus has been reached on the proposed changes. - X201 (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't the same request, secondly isn't that pretty obvious? For a future game that hasn't been released yet, it seems a little strange if it says "Released" in the infobox. --MrStalker ^(talk) 19:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Change it to "Release date"? Non-tense specific wording. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that its actually been explained in words rather than unclear code (no, it isn't pretty obvious), that does make sense. However, it doesn't need a new field for it, it just needs a wording change. "Release date" in place of "Released" should do it. -- Sabre (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I know what this and the previous section "If current time is greater than release time, then 'released', else 'release'. means - yes change it to Release Date, no need for ifs and extra fields. - X201 (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

changed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Release dates have vanished across the project since the syntax changed from 'release' to 'released'. Can this be remedied somehow?Nevermind, I must've come across a couple of articles that hadn't been updated in quite some time. Challenger 1983 (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So, we have to change all articles that have "release" to "released"? Can a bot do it or something? --Mika1h (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of the width parameter

The width parameter has never been used. Please remove the if statement in the infobox style sheet. - hahnchen 19:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, It does get used, it's there for when the game title goes one or two characters over the first line and looks bad at 256px. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And what text size and resolution is that? I don't even think the width should be expressed in pixels. - hahnchen 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to change the font sizes for the titles in these cases? SharkD (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Programming language field

How about having a field for the programming language(s) used in the making of the game? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that fall under "Engine"? Something a comma could cure (Game Engine: Engine name, Language) --AeronPrometheus (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. I just know for my part that I'd love to know what programming languages were used. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be too much information. Many games are programmed in one language, use another scripting language, and also use one or more markup languages for displaying data. SharkD (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Platform link

{{editprotected}} Simple change. [[Computer platform|Platform(s)]] to [[Platform (computing)|Platform(s)]]. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This has already been denied by an admin just last week because of WP:R2D - X201 (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How does that apply? This is simply changing where the link is pointing, not like going from [[Platform(s)]] to [[Computer platform|Platform(s)]]. It is correcting the link location. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the link provided by X201 properly, then you will understand why the request has been denied and why the link exactly applies to this situation. In future, if the link you want to fix only bypasses a redirect, there is no need to change the link. By changing the link, you are causing more strain on the server, making performance worse, rather than better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryboyles (talk • contribs) 10:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the section many times and can not figure out how this applies. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand it, is that you should not link a redirect to the direct page, but I do not see anything about changing the direct link for text. I would think that this would cause less strain on the server, because right now it is going, text > redirect > correct link, while changing it would get rid of the middle part and make it, text > correct link. I understand that changing from redirect to redirect > correct link is worse, but how does changing, not creating, the invisible link make it worse? I don't mean to be a pain, but I would like to understand how this works. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the OP. [[Platform (computing)|Platform(s)]] is the better link. 1) It is more logical, as it more closely reflects usage of the term within the template. 2) [[Computer platform]] does not, in this case, indicate a redirect that might become a separate article at some time in the future. 3) Changing the link does not introduce additional invisible text. 4) WP:R2D says nothing about direct links causing more strain on the server than indirect links. In fact, it claims the opposite. Further, it specifically asks users not to worry about server performance. SharkD (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:R2D does say specifically "Do not change links to redirects that are not broken". The link works, there is no need to change it. -- Sabre (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It says that so you don't link a redirect to a direct link, not so that you don't change a redirect. "...such as those involving unprintworthy redirects, the better option is to edit the visible text rather than change where the link is pointing," so changing the link would be somewhat adhering to this since the invisible link is obviously unprintworthy, since it can't be seen anyway. I have to see a reason why this link shouldn't be changed. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done WP:R2D makes an exception for navigation boxes, and infoboxes are the same idea. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Error report

All articles with release = instead of released = doesn't show the release date any more. --MrStalker ^(talk) 16:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

First edit on 27 January is the guilty edit. Looks like it was missing from the copied over code. - X201 (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional: I've just thought. Rather than support two fields {{{release|}}}{{{released|}}}. Could we standardise on one of them and schedule a bot to edit articles with the other form in? - X201 (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care one way or the other but please add support for both until issue is cleared. There are a lot of articles right now with no release dates. I can't believe more people haven't brought this up. --Mika1h (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, could someone please sort this out asap DemonCleanerUK (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done I've made the change to the template to allow both "released" and "release" to be used for the release date parameter. --MASEM 14:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Release date

{{editprotected}}

From

! Release date
| {{#if: {{{released|}}} | {{{released|}}} | {{{release|}}} }}
|-

to

{{#if:{{{released|}}}|
! Release date
{{!}} {{#if: {{{released|}}} | {{{released|}}} | {{{release|}}} }}
{{!}}-
}}

This will prevent "Release date" from breaking and make the field optional. --MrStalker ^(talk) 21:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the Release date should be optional: this information can always be found (even if it's limited to just some year and not a specific date). --MASEM 15:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done While 'release date' is a valuable piece of information and should be included wherever possible, it is not vital. Happy‑melon 11:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. I think "release" should be required. SharkD (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)