Template talk:Infobox video game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Infobox VG)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Wikidata tracking categories[edit]

We have a pair of categories defined here at Category:Articles with infoboxes completely from Wikidata and Category:Articles using Infobox video game using locally defined parameters that IMO should categorize based on parameters which the templates allows us to pull from Wikidata rather than all parameters in the template. --Izno (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Added in this diff by @Mike Peel. -- ferret (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Izno and Ferret: Ideally all parameters should be fetchable from Wikidata. I'm happy to help with parameters that aren't yet fetched from Wikidata, or need improvements in how they are fetched. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: At this time, only five or so fields are not pulled. We don't pull image because they are almost never free and on commons, though I suspect we could add it for the few that have it. (Most cover images are fair use and on enwiki). The remaining fields relate to CPU, graphics, sound, etc, for arcade machines. If you know suitable hardware related properties we can use, that'd be great to get those finished. The final unimplemented field is the release field, which is not implemented due to issues with trying to address the current consensus on which dates and regions to list, as well as how to output platforms. That field needs to be discussed separately from any other efforts. -- ferret (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Ideally, yes. But as ferret describes, some properties aren't particularly available at present. And then there's release date. I'm mostly interested in removing the categories' reliance on release date, since that's a) the most important field still un-implemented here and b) may never be implemented to pull from Wikidata. --Izno (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I still think the best solution is a stop gap to pull "earliest" available date. This will still require a custom module to handle since Module:Wikidata has nothing suitable. Easily done, if we can agree on that solution. Unfortunately ANY date output field requires supporting a df parameter too, but that's a nit. -- ferret (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I've made a few edits this evening to the documentation (to match the formatting I've been using in other Wikidata infoboxes), to the template to add wikidata support for the image and caption where available (matching code used in other infoboxes), and to the tracking categories so that locally-defined images cause the article to be included in Category:Articles using Wikidata infoboxes with locally defined images (and if it's only the image that is locally defined, then the article will be included in Category:Articles with infoboxes completely from Wikidata). Please let me know if I've caused any problems with these edits. It would be good to change the code from Module:Wikidata to Module:WikidataIB at some point, as that module has extra functionality (particularly with suppressing lines fetched from Wikidata). I'll look into the other parameters that could be fetched from Wikidata another eve. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: It would be good to use the sandbox to make further changes and test them, but I see there's a pending change there at the moment. Should I set up a sandbox2 for now, or will the pending change be made live soon? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Planning to move the sandbox live week of JanuaryJuly 17. Feel free to overwrite it, it's not a difficult change to repeat. -- ferret (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: We have to wait a half year for that change? :) --Izno (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. :) -- ferret (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Sandbox is all yours. -- ferret (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Revised version[edit]

@Izno and Ferret: I've put together a revised version of the template at Template:Infobox video game/sandbox that uses Module:WikidataIB, which supports using preferred Wikidata values, not showing rows from Wikidata through suppressfields, and only fetching referenced Wikidata values through onlysourced. I've added support for the rest of the parameters through has parts of the class (P2670) -> video game arcade cabinet (Q1349717)/arcade system board (Q631229)/sound chip (Q1418253)/video display controller (Q1852898) -> instance of (P31), as well as CPU through CPU (P880) (although as this is noted in the current infobox code, perhaps there's a reason why this isn't used?), and release date through publication date (P577) (although I understand this needs discussion, this looks like the most natural property to use, and perhaps setting a preferred value would resolve Izno's concern above). I've also added support for references from Wikidata (which can be disabled through refs=no). I've also added support for a embedded parameter, so that other infoboxes can be embedded in this one if needed, as well as some tidying of the wikitext formatting. Please have a look, test it in your favourite articles, and point me towards problems! :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Note in the current version the formatting (Lowercasing labels except for first character) and shortvalue in use for mode and genre. Not sure if WikidataIB has that function. RexxS added it to Wikidata for us. The purpose is to display say "Single-player" as the link label, rather than "Single-player video game". Likewise with genres, "Adventure" instead of "Adventure video game". Regarding P880 for CPU, we had identified that property but left it out since we were missing a solution for the rest of the arcade fields at the time. -- ferret (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: Can you point me to an example article that uses shortvalues so I can see it in action, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I've raised the question about short names at Module_talk:WikidataIB#Short_names. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
As a test case, see Space Invaders, also a sandbox version fetching the data through a QID (useful for sandbox/draft articles). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Banished (video game) and Space Run are both nearly entirely Wikidata. Only image, caption and release date I think, which we previously didn't support for Wikidata. -- ferret (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Please do not add support for image, caption, or release date. The former two will almost-never be appropriate to get from Wikidata and the latter still does not have a reasonable implementation route. We need to talk about that but I haven't seen a dedicated thread on this page about how to do so. (You should treat this comment as an explicit "consensus against" comment.) --Izno (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
As for embedding, we already have that functionality in the "universe" parameter. Please establish consensus for that suggestion/request. --Izno (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
What "universe" parameter? -- ferret (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I was thinking of Template:Infobox video game character. --Izno (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
That aside, I'd like to see consensus for that parameter still. --Izno (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a possible solution to the open source game snafu though. Embed infobox software for the few fields they want? I'd also like to see the arcade fields moved out/split. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
It's up to you all to decide. I've found the embedded parameter useful elsewhere, so I tend to add it by default. Fetching images and captions are also normal for the infoboxes I work on, hence why I added them too. But I don't work on video game articles, so it's up to you. It's easier to remove features than to add them, so I'll leave them in the sandbox until you come to a conclusion. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I personally have no issue with them. I think in our case they will very rarely be used, due to almost all our infobox images being ineligible for Commons (mostly fair use stuff), but there's no reason not to fully implement. As for release date: I pretty much find myself in the camp of "if you don't like whats coming from wikidata, specify local value", which will be the case in 99.9% of articles anyway. -- ferret (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to encourage users to go to Wikidata, find that Wikidata has uploads disabled, inevitably end up at Commons, only to upload non-free files. No-one wants that. I think that's a pretty significant reason not to implement. For the few articles it is relevant, we can specify the page locally. As for release dates, I simply want a new section with an invitation extended to the typical editors to see if there is even a basic implementation of release date that we can make that will have easy and obvious consensus. --Izno (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@Izno and Ferret: So, where are do things stand here? I think I've found a solution to the release date issue - try using {{Infobox video game/sandbox}} at Banished (video game) and see this Wikidata edit. The formatting could be improved, though (particularly if multiple release dates are applicable), but feedback on the data format would be useful first. Aside from that, I think you need to decide on the approach you want to take with the images and embedded parameter. It would be nice to merge the sandbox into the main template soon, though, once we resolve the outstanding issues. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Formatting needs work for sure. If you can feed into Vgrelease, that would be best. Or, as an alternate idea: Wikidata-enable {{Vgrelease}} when no parameters are supplied. If no |release is supplied in the infobox, transclude a default VGR. Note, you'll need a df parameter. I recently converted VGR to a module. You might find some useful parts in Module:Video game wikidata too. I'd also perhaps suggest just using "platform" as the qualifier, instead of "applies to part". Note that current formatting is essentially Vgrelease by itself for single or all the same platforms. If platforms differ, it's the platforms in bold, line break, then vgrelease for those platforms, followed for subsequent platform groups. See Half-Life 2 for an example of a "full, complex" format case. -- ferret (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, that's getting a bit too complex for me right now (I don't follow the acronyms, I don't currently speak Lua, and it's getting late). I've made a few more changes to the sandbox code for the release info, though. Would it be useful if we rolled out the rest of the code soon (leaving out the parameters in dispute), or should we wait until these issues are resolved? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm personally ok with the changes outside of the release field. Switching to WikidataIB brings new function without changing the default behavior we already have, from what I can tell. You'll need to update the documentation to reflect the new parameters available and how to handle the arcade fields. WP:VG/WD may need updates as well to reflect WikidataIB usage and how to suppress fields, source only, etc. I will look into making a sub-template for releases when I have some time. Our formatting expectations are extremely specific and I'm just not sure we'll be able to solve it. I will likely take the topic to the broader WP:VG talk page later. -- ferret (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not okay with the image/caption changes, nor the release change. The others seem fine. Please start an RFC about these things. --Izno (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: The image/caption change has been live for a while. Should that be undone? I'll make the rest of the changes, leaving out the release change, later today. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Izno and Ferret: OK, the new version is now live. Please let me know if there are any problems. I've left the image and caption code in there for now, but it can easily be removed if needed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Please make sure you update the template documentation for the new fields. I think you might also need to add the WikidataIB fields (suppress, qid, commons, ref, source only, etc) to the valid parameter check. -- ferret (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: Done, thanks for the reminder! Mike Peel (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Added a few more parameters to the check, and synched sandbox. We still need some documentation on the WikidataIB fields. -- ferret (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: The WikidataIB documentation is now there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The addition of the logo (data1) seems to be cluttery overkill, e.g. see Grand Theft Auto III. The problem is that the infobox now displays two different images, one above and one below the caption. This is alike the Infobox company template, but does not quite nail the point. I suppose this was meant to include a screenshot of sorts, but our guidelines here even say that we should not include those there. Could it be removed again, please? Lordtobi () 09:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    Oops, I had forgotten that I'd added the logo code. As it wasn't discussed here, and it seems to be causing problems, I've commented it out. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    Well, uh, let's just say I don't see the point in having the logo in either way. Per our doc, we would only use a logo as secondary replacement for a missing cover, and "avoid [...] multiple images (per WP:FUC #3)"; plus I wouldn't say that the logo besides the cover (which in 99% of cases already includes the logo) is utterly pointless. Unless I'm not proven mistaken, I believe it would be best to just knock it out again. Face-smile.svg Lordtobi () 12:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    The only logos that were being added were those on Wikimedia Commons - so the Fair Use Criteria don't apply there. Or, you could argue that the logo should be shown instead of the fair use image. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: A few editors have stated that blank local values no longer suppress Wikidata, which was how Module:Wikidata functioned. Is that to be expected? My "go" vote on this was based around expecting the existing suppression to work, that is, there would be no change to current data pulls, just more available functionality. This is most commonly brought up in regards to the engine field. Please see WP:VG/WD and let me know if those instructions for suppression are no longer valid. If not, we may need to fall back, in part or whole, for a wider discussion. -- ferret (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: I thought that way of coding it would support blank local values suppressing wikidata, but apparently not. I've modified the code so that this now works. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: That appears to have worked to suppress engine at Wolfenstein 3D. -- ferret (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - new issues?[edit]

Please add new issues here. The inclusion of a logo, and non-suppression of blank local values, have been fixed. -- ferret (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Dissident93 voiced on WP:VG a concern regarding the Commons link now given at the bottom of the infobox. This wasn't discussed, so I guess it should be? Lordtobi () 15:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems out of place and doesn't really relate to the infobox specifically, so I don't see why it belongs there. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not directly part of the major change, which was switching to Module:WikidataIB. I have removed it pending further discussion. -- ferret (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Can there be a way to suppress citations from Wikidata? The ones on Dota 2 are either outdated or not even relevant to what it's being sourced to. This is not to mention that infoboxes aren't supposed to have citations anyway, as they are all preferred to go in prose. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dissident93: At the moment, refs can be disabled per article by setting refs=no. We could make that the default if needed, however my understanding was the opposite of yours - that the infoboxes should have references in, and it's bad that we have so many unreferenced infoboxes at the moment... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No, any well written article doesn't do that, and should have all of its sourcing in prose instead. And if an article doesn't have that, it most likely will not have any sources in its Wikidata either. And even if we need citations in the infobox for some reason (it's not forbidden), then I'd personally rather it be local, because Wikidata is shared by all the Wikipedia languages, and perhaps a non-English one uses one we considered non-reliable, making this more of hassle than it helps. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it would be fine to default to refs=no. It's good to have the functionality, even if we don't normally use it. -- ferret (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, the default is now 'refs=no'. Set 'refs=yes' to enable in any given article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Programming language[edit]

Can someone please add a field for the programming language (as in Template:Infobox software)? Might be useful for certain games, especially if they are written in exotic or custom languages. -- (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

This has been proposed before and basically there is no consensus to add this very rarely sourcable field. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
For 95% of games, it's either going to be unknown (and therefore unsourcable) or in some sort of C language (and if most of them are, why do we need to point this out?) For the games that aren't, it could simply belong in prose. The engine is more relevant to the game anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I thought primarily of older games, i.e. from a time when they were written in things like BASIC, Pascal or assembly. For newer ones its usually C++ anyway. The scripting languages used might be interesting and sourceable though. -- (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Not wrong, but that still would fall under the example of them being either too common to even warrant being mentioned at all, or you need to see the code yourself and verify it as its not stated anywhere, which kind of falls under WP:OR. And for the games that don't fall under these two examples, the engine its using is almost always considered more notable and/or relevant, as it has to use a language anyway. So for example, Half-Life 2 was written in C++ and allows for Lua scripting, but all of this is handled by the Source engine article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Improve formatting to be on pair with other Infoboxes[edit]

Could it be possible to improve the formatting of this Infobox, with a better formatted title, and maybe with automatic field separation in categories? (not limited to only those 2 improvements). To explain myself better, Here is an example of a page using the television Infobox (used in 40,000 pages). Here is another example. I think it's important to have this widely used Infobox (used in 20,000 pages) visually and categorically robust like the rest of the popular ones. ~ posted by Genoskill (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  • What, like a colored box where the title is displayed? I don't see how that would improve anything. The film infobox also doesn't use special formatting there, so I don't see your point, unless I misunderstood. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Unwanted Wikidata results[edit]

Astroneer: the previous version (18 August) had no Wikidata references (it had a probably unnecessary "edit on Wikidata" in the infobox, but no values were taken or sourced from Wikidata). Since then, the only thing done to the article was adding one cat with no impact on Wikidata or the infobox[1].

The Wikidata item for the game also hasn't been changed since June, so that also can't explain the difference. So it must come from either this template directly, or an underlying template.

The problem is that now the modes "Single-player, multiplayer" and the platforms "Microsoft Windows Xbox One" are sourced to Steam, Wikidata Q337535. That it is useless to get the Wikidata number for Steam instead of the enwiki link is a different issue (dependant on CiteQ, which is up for deletion anyway); that Steam is a shop and not the kind of source we want here is partially a problem of Wikidata (they shouldn't allow it) and partially a problem here (which Wikidata source should we port to here, and which not). But that this template adds Wikidata sources a) even though the values are locally added, not through Wikidata, and b) even though the actual value (i.c. XBox) is not even included in the Wikidata item, is a huge problem: basically, you are now taking local values and adding Wikidata sources for the same field, without any consideration whether they have the same value. This is a big nono of course. In general, when we have locally added values, like here, for these fields nothing from Wikidata (values, source, ...) should be imported. Fram (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: This was already addressed, page needed a purge. Refs=Yes was the case when the template was first updated to the new module, but it was changed to Refs=No as the default, following similar feedback. -- ferret (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. If we now could also get rid of the "edit on Wikidata" for infoboxes where nothing is shown from Wikidata anyway, like in this case... Fram (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fram: I think its more valuable to always have that link, than to have it missing when values are being pulled. Will explore options though. @RexxS and Mike Peel: Do you have any ideas for causing {{EditOnWikidata}} to be hidden if Module:WikidataIB provides no values on a given page? -- ferret (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Doing it automatically may be hard, having a "nowikidatalink=yes" parameter may be easier. Fram (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the benefit of removing it. Even if nothing currently shown in the infobox is from Wikidata, that doesn't preclude adding info to the infobox by editing it on Wikidata... It would be possible to enable the 'noicon' parameter, which doesn't show the edit on wikidata link at the bottom when the pencil icons are present, if that would be better. (See the documentation at Template:EditOnWikidata for details.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Sandbox is synched to prod and ready, give it a go and let's see how it would look. -- ferret (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: I've added the code to the sandbox, give it a go and see what you think. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Fram: I need to test, but my understanding is that this parameter Mike has added to the sandbox, noicon, works like thus: If set to yes, WikidataIB does not output edit icons, and the "Edit on wikipedia" displays at the bottom. If set to no, WikidataIB will put little edit pen icons next to Wikidata values, and the link at the bottom will be hidden. Does that fit what you're looking for? Which would you prefer as a default? -- ferret (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a good solution, and the current can stay as the default as far as I am concerned. Fram (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fram and Mike Peel: Implemented as Mike wrote it, with default of noicon=no. This means the pen icon will be shown next to values populated from Wikidata. If none were, then no icon or link will be shown. Alternatively, setting it to yes will hide the pens, and display the single Edit link at the bottom. This might be preferable for infoboxes that are entirely Wikidata, as the pen will be displayed repeatedly. (Like so)-- ferret (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Prequel and Sequel[edit]

It would be really nice if someone changed the infobox to contain an option for prequels and sequels, thanks.

XCoduster (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Won't happen, they were previously removed. See Template talk:Infobox video game/GameSeries. -- ferret (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes a game isn't either (a spin-off), so how would they be handled? A series navbox for the more notable ones normally exists on these pages, filling the same general role. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Note that navboxes don't appear on mobile devices, while infobox content does. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
While that's a shame that it doesn't (due to technical reasons?), my opinion on the matter hasn't changed. Even in the navboxes, games are listed in non-subjective chronological order and not on prequel/sequel status. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Dissident93: See phab:T124168. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Not personally an issue for me as I don't browse/edit Wikipedia on mobile devices, but it's still good to know. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Add a game version information[edit]

Hello everyone, I was wondering what are the opinions around here about adding a "game version" info for the games.
It would be great for knowing the game state of a title, such as an "Alpha" game, a "released" game, etc.
Do you guys think it will go well with the wikipedia arts? I know maybe a lot of games won't have a game version explicitly stated, while others will.
For example the Sims will be a game with a very complicated game version to keep track of, specially because they release minor patches now and then, and the GVs are horrible.
On the other hand, games like C&C Red Alert 2 will have only one game version as the game is no longer under Development (Last version is 1.006[1]). And Indie games such as Rimworld, will be able to state the actual Alpha version they are in.
Finally, games like Assassins Creed, have they any game version at all?

Frenchiveruti (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

We had a recent discussion on this with the consensus being that they are not appropriate. Versioning is a technical detail that doesn't mean much to the general reader. Key updates and patches can be noted in the text if they are the subject of note. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Major release updates are normally covered by reliable sources and the info placed into the development section. Just including the gameplay version number tells a reader unfamiliar with the game nothing; the same generally happens if you want to list alpha or beta status. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)