Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Requested change to code

According to Help:Table, HTML and wiki <td> syntax should not be used. However, isn't this being used in this template? Could the coding be changed to remove <td> and such from it?--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 18:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Easy. Have a look at User:thumperward/infobox CVG (example). Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There was stiff opposition to a change from the table appearance when that was first attempted and so it was reverted. Its hardly been long since then, I doubt opinions have changed much. I'd wait a little while longer before trying to bring this through again. -- Sabre (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

HTML table syntax is disfavored in articles, but it's sometimes better for templates. It makes much less fragile template code than the tricks (like {{!}}) that are needed to use wiki tables and conditional syntax together. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That assumes the infobox is actually edited regularly. No objections were raised on the last discussion about the actual syntax, because in projects with fully-protected templates nobody ever looks at the syntax. On this occasion I pointed out my revision for the sake of informing the inquirer; I have no hope nor enthusiasm for persuading the project as a whole to evolve. Chris Cunningham (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

My experience with editprotected requests is that infoboxes are edited too regularly, and the syntax is sometimes so opaque that it's hard to figure out how to make even minor changes. Using HTML instead of wiki tables is a nice way to simplify the syntax; I wish more people used that method. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That assumes that editors have knowledge of HTML table syntax. In this day and age, it's possible for people to have maintained a website for years without ever having had to look at an HTML table. If you look at the proposed code layout, it's no more complicated (and quite a bit more compact) than raw HTML. Which is one of the reasons I use it in any infoboxen I can. Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

These protected templates are only edited by a few admins, and from my experience with several of them it's safe to assume those few admins know HTML, or will at least avoid editing the template if they don't. The code you wrote above is simple enough now, but in my experience infoboxes suffer from feature creep; in six months, there would be nested conditionals and other complications. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with such protectionist thinking, but as I've already given up on improving this infobox it doesn't matter much to me. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Update below. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit Protected: minor wording change

{{editprotected}}

Per discussion here, please add (s)'s to the columns for developer, designer, publisher and distributor. A sandbox based on the latest version is located here, should you really want it. -- Sabre (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That was fast. Thanks. -- Sabre (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I was looking through requests when yours came in. The sandbox also helped, since I didn't have to spend too long pondering what you were asking for. You will almost always get a faster response if you have a sandbox version already made. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

De-cruft the table syntax

{{editprotected}}

This removes all the old, crufty HTML syntax from the infobox and makes all attributes optional (for situations where the developer is unknown, for instance). Makes it easier to maintain the template in future, as well as making the source a lot clearer. Minimal change in presentation.

Not going to copy the whole source in here: it's available at User:Thumperward/infobox CVG; just needs copied across verbatim. Tested and working flawlessly on a variety of game data. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Disabling for now—all parameters shouldn't be optional. For example, every infobox should have a platform. This has been raised several times at the VG WikiProject, and we always keep the same basic required fields. Update your sandbox version then re-activate the edit request. Pagrashtak 15:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got some other questions—you appear to have added a name parameter that doesn't do anything beyond the title parameter. What is the purpose of that? Pagrashtak 15:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Accidental hangover. Happy to make the required attribs required again if that's all it takes. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Reactivating. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't put "Unknown" for a required parameter—it should be left blank. You should also leave the color unless there is consensus at WPVG to change. Pagrashtak 16:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. (that's it partially re-crufted, but I've already maligned the project's predilection to mauve.) Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the variable column sizes, it will give articles less consistency. Should the width be expressed in absolute terms in px? That was due to an edit request above to make the image sizes fit better (whereas, we should have just changed the image sizes). - hahnchen 12:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly there isn't consensus quite yet. Please feel free to re-enable the editprotected request when there is. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Released/Version

Now that we have a "latest release" and "latest preview", what should be done about "released" and "version"? I suggest two things:

1. "released" be changed to "date", in keeping with the new naming scheme. (Should be simple to fix using a bot.)
2. "released" and "version" be compacted into a single row, where the release date is contained in parentheses after the version number, like how "latest release version" and "latest release date" work.

However, this raises some issues:

1. In many articles, "released" and "version" don't coincide. E.g., "released" refers to the first release date, and "version" refers to the latest version. Pairing them would lead to incorrect information.
2. Should "released" and "version" refer to the first release of the game (maybe a development release with a version number lower than 1.0 in the case of open-source games), or for version 1.0? What if version 1.0 of a game was never released (e.g., the first release was v.1.0.1)?

SharkD (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Few request

I have got few request to make. I would like to ask if this is good idea to add in the template. Here are the suggestions. 1. Can we add this :- preceded by and followed by. 2. Is it possible to remove system reqs in lieu for this Template:VG Requirements. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Preceded and Followed have been discussed several times, and consensus is to not include them. Why would we need to remove system requirements? If you want to use {{VG Requirements}} in an article, then simply don't use the parameter in this template. Not every article will have requirements so complex as to require the separate template. Pagrashtak 17:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. I thought of adding preceded and followed by because of this [1]. That is not the first time that is happening. Many games nowdays have expansion and sequel so i though preceded and followed by is a valuable asset. Well i know regarding about sys req. Simply adding sys req in that template is making it look so ugly and adding sys reqs in VG reqs makes it look clean.--SkyWalker (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is that preceded/followed is not always clear-cut due to spin-offs, and disagreements over whether to follow release schedules or plot chronology. Series pages and navboxes already present this information, and in a greater context, so there is no great benefit to added to the already-large infobox. See The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask for an example of why the requirements parameter is useful. Pagrashtak 17:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Language

id:Templat:Infobox CVG, Infobox CVG Template in Indonesian Language Azmi 07:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Done - X201 (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Colours

I request to make this infoboxes colour changable, you know how you can allow or disallow colours on an infobox to be changed. How about it. Mythdon (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To what purpose? Anomie⚔ 02:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If a video game has a notably associated color. Mythdon (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The template needs less colour, not more. Colour in infoboxes is rarely helpful unless it has an obvious and direct relation to the subject. Letting people change it would just result in people adding arbitrary colours everywhere, like they do with navboxes. Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of the template is that it's a standard. All infoboxes are equal. We haven't had any readability issues with the current colours If it were editable I can see readability problems arising for people with colour-blindness and other eyesight problems. - X201 (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Templates are used to make things codified and clear, not to look pretty in particular uses. -- Sabre (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Link to Computer platform

The link that "Platform(s)" links to within the template (Computer platform) currently redirects to Platform (computing). Could this be corrected? Thanks in advance. 210.50.189.21 (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain. Do you just want it to avoid the redirect or are you suggesting that it links to somewhere else? - X201 (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Avoid the redirect. 210.50.189.14 (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} For the reasons given above - In the Platform section of the Infobox please change the link [[Computer platform|Platform(s)]] to [[Platform (computing)|Platform(s)]]
Thanks - X201 (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Decline per WP:R2D. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image size?

For all my images uploaded, i have uploaded them as 256px which i was told, its the size to use. It does work better with the infobox. But just recently TJ Spyke changed the syntax guide to 250px, i was just wondering which is correct.

The main reason for my query to TJ Spyke's change is the message i got from Ecksemmess, which points out how 256px is better. See my talk page for details.

I would like to know which is correct "250px or 256px", personnally i prefer 256px. Salavat (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Originally, 250px was used pretty much everywhere in the CVG space. It's only been pretty recently that people have been suggesting 256px. The only reason that is, is because whoever wrote the "example infobox" used 256px. This was in fact wrong, and stretched the infobox slightly and instead of correcting the guideline, we changed the infobox from a relative em width to an absolute px width, as requested here. (I previously alluded to this at #De-cruft_the_table_syntax) - hahnchen 13:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that until further notice 256px is still the size? If so ill change the syntax guide back. Salavat (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

257px instead of 256px?

New discovery, 256px is unbalanced, 256px leaves 4px of white on the left and 3px in the right. 257px is better, it only leaves 3px each side and it doesn't stretch the infobox. Should the syntax be changed to 257px?

An example of this i have uploaded here. (might have to zoom in to see what i mean. Salavat (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if there isn't any opposition to my requested change from 256px to 257px in the next 24 hours, I will change the syntax guide on the principle that 257px is the best size for the infobox. Salavat (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is specific to your browser. On my screen, it has three pixels on either side. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok then problem solved, thanks for commenting, no one else seemed willing to comment, which browser do you use? Salavat (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

CSS class

Would anyone object to me changing this template from class="infobox bordered vevent" to class="infobox vevent"? I think it would significantly help those who are visually impaired. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Any chance of a couple of examples so that we can see the difference? - X201 (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is one example. If you want to create others, just subst the template invocation it twice and then change the class in the second copy. I'm neutral on this change. Anomie⚔ 13:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, im going to have to oppose, it just doesnt look right, sorry. Salavat (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change; to me, the benefits of having this template consistent with the other high-use templates like Template:Infobox Officeholder were too important to leave it as it was. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a hasty alteration, given the comments fielded within this discussion. Personally, I don't follow how it "would significantly help those who are visually impaired" compared to the prior layout. This particular rationale should have been singled out for further explanation. D. Brodale (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, This looks like the old InfoBoxen, which doesn't look all that great. This does nothing to increase readability in fact it makes the text boxes a smaller space to worth with. Please revert this, it adversely effects hundreds of articles. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want it consistent, then do the whole thing to match up with other templates like Template:Infobox Film and Template:Infobox Officeholder (ie, the grey colour scheme). The not-quite-either version looks horrible (especially if a caption is used under the boxart). It makes it less consistent with other templates (as many other templates also used the bordered coloured version), not more. Removing the borders also makes it harder for those who are visually impaired as the clear section breaks have been removed, so the exact logic for this move completely escapes me unless its meant to be an incremental change towards things like Template:Infobox Film: if that's the case, go ahead and fully match it up with colour schemes and other appearance elements in one move. -- Sabre (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this change. Consistency adds nothing across these varied subjects. The VG infobox has the title within a box, whereas Template:Infobox Book has the title on top of the box, so what? I think the new layout looks worse, with the coloured boxes looking out of sync with the box art, and the lack of cell borders makes it harder to separate the information into discrete sections. Why even ask for opinion, if you were going to make the change anyway? - hahnchen 18:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this change. How, exactly, would it benefit the visually impaired in any way? Green451 (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I cannot find any other infoboxes that are formatted your way, including ones you have worked on. Why single out this one? Green451 (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that we're ever going to get a template which matches the rest of the project. Quite why this particular project is so attached to mauve escapes me.

If it ever does happen, every other computer-related infobox I can find uses an identical, clean, modern layout which is easy to copy. I keep a tidied-up copy of the current VG infobox style at User:Thumperward/infobox CVG just in case. Chris Cunningham (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Because apparently enough people here are so set on the flippin' purple and borders, the rest of the project be damned. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and be polite to others. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused—MZMcBride asked if there was opposition, got one neutral, one oppose and no support, then made the change anyway. Why even start the discussion if the outcome is not going to sway your behavior? Pagrashtak 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I'm all for change in regards to making it consistent with the other infoboxes (using grey rather than the horrible green shade used in the last attempt), its just that this particular change has made a mess of the infobox, as it makes the original style (blue and borders) less coherant and generally uglier while not making it any more consistent. Make the full changes to the infobox, using the right color schemes (again, grey, not pale green) and leave it a couple of weeks for everyone to see it in full action for a decent amount of time, and only then revert it if there is still major opposition. My issue isn't with making it consistent, its with this bastard child (for want of a better phrase) of the grey borderless infobox used elsewhere and the blue bordered one previously here that this one change has created. Make the changes properly, or don't make the changes at all. I personally think its worth attempting to give it the full revamp (once more, with the standard grey used elsewhere, not that awful green!) and giving a longer time for feedback and evaluation.-- Sabre (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, For Sabre's suggestion above, and the reversion of the most recent edit that crippled the flow of the infobox. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted back. As to Sabre's idea to make the infobox consistent and grey, I started a thread at WT:VG here. David Fuchs ^(talk) 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected disabled. David, you could've done a partial revert, but oh well. I guess this at least got people involved. : - P --MZMcBride (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You should still get rid of the pointless if statement in the width setting. Should width be specified in px? - hahnchen 10:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually liked the version with the white borders. Sure, there was a tiny bit less space, but it looked much less ugly. Oh well... SharkD (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Release/Released

{{editprotected}}

If current time is greater than release time, then 'released', else 'release'. --MrStalker ^(talk) 16:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Disabling. Which release? JP? NA? PAL? re-release? How can we code this since the release date is not one simple date passed to the infobox, but is usually found in {{Vgrelease}} or with extra text? Pagrashtak 16:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

First release date/version

{{editprotected}} I suggest a "first release version" and "first release date" for software with an extended life cycle. I've added the necessary changes to {{Ivg test}} and tested it to make sure it works. You can see it in action, here. The modified code also makes one additional change: "released" is hidden if "first release date" is present, though it is still required (and automatically added, as per the current behavior) if "first release date" is not present. Eventually, I would like to see "released" and "version" phased out. However, I made my changes in the express interest of backwards compatibility. SharkD (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I also pluralized "Genre" to "Genre(s)". There are many games which are placed in multiple genres (see Space Rangers (video game) for an extreme case). SharkD (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Opose - the infobox is cluttered enough with out having even more sections. Its supposed to be a brief snapshot of important infoat this rate we might as well do away with the prose altogether and just have one mega sized infobox. One quick question, why add the edit protected request before the discussion? - X201 (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please work out an agreement on the template, and place another editprotected tag if there is an agreement for a change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)