Template talk:Infobox video game

Target Release Date

How would people feel about adding a "Target Release Date" or similar field to the template? If the Diablo III article is anything to go by, it might cut down on a lot of reverting due to unofficial release dates being put in. Thoughts? – RobinHood70 ^talk 20:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Its not needed, There's a date of "Early 2011" and a reliable source, the developer themselves. "Early 2012" + the source is fine. An extra feild wouldn't solve the date change/reversal/vandalism problem. - X201 (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If future release date speculation is a concern, then how would a field specifically for future dates discourage that? If anything, people will be inclined to put something there for future patches, versions, or other trivia. We ought to get consensus that future dates are only to be added if reliably sourced, but that is already covered in WP:V, WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of engine field (again)

This was added back in inspite there being no consensus to do so last time. It was removed because it was being improerly used and the practice continues. There is no reason it needs to be in the infobox as it isn't critical info one would expect to read and often names are plopped on such as in the case of Chrono Trigger: Crimson Echoes which violate WP:OR since the term "Chrono Trigger engine" was never used to describe CT by a RS.∞陣内Jinnai 18:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It was re-added here. With an edit comment of "as per talk page", I can find no discussion about the Engine field on either this page or WT:VG around the December date of the change. There was no consensus to re-add it the last time it was discussed. I support its removal. - X201 (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

Remove |engine= and add a depracration category notice since this was added without consensus.

Code for adding deprecation:

• {{#if:{{{engine|}}}|[[Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters|{{NAMESPACE}}{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}

∞陣内Jinnai 19:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page at the time, you'll see a "Moving forward with..." section where there is a consensus established. Given that, I'm flagging the edit request as addressed for now. I have no particular opinion here, so if there's good reason to remove the parameter, feel free to reverse that. – RobinHood70 ^talk 20:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Designer field bad link

The Designer field title links to Game Designer, which redirects to Game design#Game designer. It should be fixed to point directly where it intends to. --Salvidrim! (t • c) 04:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirects are not an evil thing! ­Salvidrim! 00:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Two new sections for Infobox video game: "Voice actor" and "Portrayal"

New disscusion started here.--TudorTulok (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Have fixed link. - X201 (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

DRM Section

This template could do with a section on DRM or any other restrictions. I saw it was discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_video_game/Archive_9#this_infobox_really_needs_a_section_for_DRM but the arguments against are fairly spurious. Pleasetry (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

All arguments brought thus far oppose the addition. Can you establish why this factual information is unambiguously notable and crucial to have in the Infobox (rather than in the prose)? Salvidrim! 07:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Has any of the other content in the info box been scrutinised to the same extent especially when DRM often has a definite impact on the games use and would be something people may be wanting to know about.

For example two threads bemoaning the fact that despite buying a DVD they now need a steam account and download.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056494850

http://www.senntient.com/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=35496

An ongoing 261 page thread on ubisofts DRM.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4811054957/m/6811098728/p/1Pleasetry (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If the very basis for your arguments are forum threads, I'm afraid you're not making a very convincing point. Salvidrim! 08:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume your capable of understanding the subjects in them and it's a good deal better than the arguments against.As I've asked before, what scrutiny have the other sections of the infobox gone through? Pleasetry (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please explain clearly why a game's DRM Status is as important, crucial and central as its genre, publisher/developper, release information or age ratings, and, most importantly, why a mention in prose, when the DRM is notable enough to warrant a mention, is not sufficient. Salvidrim! 09:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the field. It applies only to a select number of games, there are many kinds of DRM stretching quite far back, it's not as important compared to many other fields in an already long infobox, and most importantly this is usually original research as reliable sources would only pay attention to this if it became controversial or widely discussed. How many games of the minority that has DRM do you think we can reliably source on this? An ongoing Internet thread on the subject in general bears little relevance to why this field is at least as important as other ones. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Formally !voting on this. I believe Infobox fields should be for factual information pertaining to a majority of games, which "DRM" fails to do. Furthermore, there has been no explanation offered to show why a mention in the article's prose is not sufficient. Salvidrim! 09:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• I want to add that while I believe this proposal was done in good faith, the fact the editor has little to no meaningful edits outside of the Steam/DRM topic worries me about the true motivations behind this suggestion. Salvidrim! 17:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Information that should have been there,wasn't, and there does seem to be an awful lot of resistance to labelling DRM.I assume linking to "arguments to avoid" in your post below was ironic.Pleasetry (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is the evidence to suggest that this is the case and where is the evidence that the other fields in the infobox are more worthy?Pleasetry (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you are making a proposal for a change. The burden of evidence is on you -- please put forth evidence from reliable sources showing that "DRM status" is of crucial importance for a majority of video games (and not exclusively ones released in the last ten years, say). If you present a complete argument with sources to support your proposition, I'll be happy to reconsider my position. Salvidrim! 12:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You might also wish to review this essay on arguments to avoid, as one of your arguments seem to rely on other sections of the Infobox and your perception that they lack consensus, rather than on the change you are proposing. Sections should be judged on their own merits, not comparatively to other sections. I admit I fell for it earlier when comparing with other sections and take back that argument. Salvidrim! 12:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an AfD or notability issue though so WP:ATA doesn't apply. Things like "(not) useful" and "(not) as important as other information" are valid arguments. So being less important than "developer" is most certainly a valid argument if we had to choose between the two. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. Salvidrim! 16:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether to include or not include a field is determined by editor consensus. "Worthy" is not something that is absolute. It is what editors decide in the best interests of WP. So far I see more arguments against than for, and if anything a "no consensus". There's definitely no consensus for it and nothing has really changed majorly since last discussions so I see no reason to discount those arguments. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In addition, I believe this proposal is about adding a DRM field. If you believe other fields in this Infobox should not be there, I think that consensus should be established separately and independently of this one. :) Salvidrim! 16:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I was replying to User:Pleasetry with this one. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I assume this is related to [1]. That being said long ago I was for this. But in the end Steam, Direct2Drive, etc are storefronts with built-in DRM. If we list them, then in all fairness we need to list Game.Uk, Amazon.com, GameStop, Wal-Mart or any other retailer of a game. The fact that they are digital doesn't change the fact that they are a reseller. If this is directly about DRM then I still oppose, as aside from Ubisoft's rather strict DRM (which has been covered in numerous articles) none of these methods is entirely significant, and for many will not be of any use. For instance, I don't care that that Star Wars: Battlefront II uses SecuROM. I put my disc in, it works. It seems like specialized content better suited for Wikia Gaming. --Teancum (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Its the type of field that would be gamed/shoehorned with by editors, eg a game released on Steam with no other DRM would likely be still classified as DRM by the most persistent editors. It's not really battles that we want fought over here, and thus best to leave it out. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As Steam is DRM,as well as ubisoft etc, the peristent editors would be the ones doing the opposite of what you claim. Regardless I don't see what the problem with that as it would be like any other thing else on wikipedia.

I think you've got muddled up Teancum it differs from amazon and other online stores that in that they don't interfere with the game after you've bought it.

As for the other arguments, H3llkn0wz "It applies only to a select number of games" It applies to lots.

"there are many kinds of DRM stretching quite far back" There are plenty of other things going far back.I'm sure it's not a problem for them. As for DRM you can put them into general catagories or only mention the ones that are problematic.

"it's not as important compared to many other fields in an already long infobox" Says who?

"An ongoing Internet thread on the subject in general bears little relevance to why this field is at least as important as other ones." It highlights the issues raised and why they're more fitting to go in the info box than much of the other stuff in there.

Salvidrim "please put forth evidence from reliable sources showing that "DRM status" is of crucial importance for a majority of video games (and not exclusively ones released in the last ten years,"

Justify your over the top demand.No wonder you don't want this issue to be compared with the rest of infobox otherwise we would have to delete most of them if held to your standards. This sort of info is better in the infobox because it's short and the type of thing people will be looking for at a glance not buried somewhere in the main article unless your suggesting that a lot of games have a drm section in the main article.

The DRM issue has come up more than once before from different people and will most likely be raised again so there is a consensus for it and just because there's a few more people sitting here opposing it doesn't alter that fact.Pleasetry (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Your statement that "there is a consensus" is not only entirely false, it runs contrary to nearly everything posted in this thread. What I see is a number of editors bringing arguments against the proposal, and one editor failing to present arguments in favor of the proposal, and instead attempting to defeat and deconstruct the arguments of those opposing the proposal. In any case, you should not need to invoke a silent presumed majority if you can make a solid point by yourself, which has evidently yet to be done.

Perhaps you may wish to study things a bit more and amass more editing experience, then bring back this proposal when it has some ground to stand on -- perhaps then editors will be more receptive to the suggestion. Salvidrim! 03:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be overwhelmingly against this, not the other way around. Dream Focus 08:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it very biased that you would quote me on individual sentences, yet omit the most pressing argument to which the rest are closely related: "most importantly this is usually original research as reliable sources would only pay attention to this if it became controversial or widely discussed.". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see as how that would be something of interest to anyone reading the article. Dream Focus 08:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As others have pointed out, the DRM a game uses is not usually notable, at least not important enough to include in an Infobox. Unless you're trying to bypass it the DRM it is totally irrelevant, no one will even notice or care if they're playing a legitimate game as long as it works. It'd also be difficult to source and there'd be issues as to whether the digital distribution platforms would be considered DRM or not. There are exceptions where the DRM has been controversial (such as Ubi's) but they are a small minority and can be covered in prose. Яehevkor ✉ 11:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

DRM is of more interest to the article as not only is it notable it often actively interferes with people running the game,there is a variety of notable types of DRM on large numbers of games and claiming DRM is only of interest to hackers is little more than a cheap slur why I could just as easily claim that people who want to play down DRM are software company astroturfers.

You're also capable of understanding the difference between a download service and DRM so I don't know why you brought that up.
Once again some more arguments parroting the not notable line but not explaining why.
There's also plenty of reliable sources so the original sources argument is a non starter.
Pleasetry (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a long winded discussion here, we'll have to agree to disagree. Consensus is very much against you at this point. (and describing statements as cheap slurs or parroting is not best way to engage in polite discussion) Яehevkor ✉ 12:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose- per any number of the arguments against it on this page, but most notably Dream Focus's - (it's just not of interest to the general audiences that wikipedia is supposed to be written towards.) and Teancum's (If we list Steam, there's all sorts of other ones we should technically list.) I don't see it worth adding. Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with opposition--if it's notable, discuss it. Otherwise, it's not vital. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Add hProduct microformat

Please add an hProduct microformat, and remove the event microformat (which in any case has been broken by recent edits), by changing:

infobox vevent

to:

infobox hproduct

then:

class="summary" | <span style="font-size:111%;">''{{#if:{{{title|}}}|{{{title}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}''</span>

to:

| <span style="font-size:111%;">''<span class="fn">{{#if:{{{title|}}}|{{{title}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}</span>''</span>

and finally:

'''[[Video game publisher|Publisher(s)]]''' {{!!}} {{{publisher|}}} }}

to:

'''[[Video game publisher|Publisher(s)]]''' {{!!}} <span class="brand">{{{publisher|}}}</span> }}

No visible changes will be made. For background, see WP:UF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Has this (video game infobox microformat usage) been discussed anywhere per outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats? Also why is |publisher= classified as "brand"? Is there some uF specification we can refer to using it like that? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's being discussed here; and the publisher (e.g. "Lucasfilm Games") is the brand of the product in the same way that Apple is the brand for iPad. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)