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 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 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Especially non-commercial video games do not have a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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