Template talk:Infobox video game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
 

Few update suggestions[edit]

  1. Could Do not list people with titles such as "Character designer" or "Environment artist" (these should be described in the article's development-related section) be removed under the artists credit field documentation? We've been including character designers in a number of FA/FAC articles (Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VII for example), and nobody has ever removed them due to the reasoning stated here.
  1. If a single person is credited as "Lead programmer", list that person; synonyms for this position include "Main programmer"; could be updated to read If a single person is credited as "Lead programmer", list that person; synonyms for this position may include "technical director". Technical directors are a more commonly credited role in recent games, and a "lead programmer" isn't even credited in a number of these titles (mostly smaller/indie titles). "Main programmer" was removed as it's obvious that they're the lead guy, so we don't have to state that here.

Hopefully this shouldn't be controversial, as it's been our de facto MO for a while, so it should be official here. I've got more suggestions, but decided to wait until this one is decided upon first. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Anybody opposed to this? I would have done this myself by now, but I lack editing rights. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    Seems logical to me. Gonna get to that right away. Lordtobi () 17:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
     Done Face-smile.svg Lordtobi () 17:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Engine wikidata[edit]

A lot of games (e.g. sequels) have presumed or even verified statements that a game reuses the "engine" from a previous title, yet this is done in a trivial manner that comes down to ubiquitous code reuse rather than a modular framework implied by a game engine product. Most devs do reuse and extend existing codebases to create new games but this is rarely discussed in the context of being an engine. The current usage guideline for the infobox basically says to only fill out the engine field for standalone engine products. Yet even if you omit this field, the infobox will automatically pull any engine entry from wikidata, without any regard for the usage guideline here, and people entering wikidata may or may not care for the difference between a recycled codebase as an "engine" and an engine product. Can we just not use wikidata here or have a way to disable it on a case by case basis? Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata ist a Wikimedia project like any other, so we would rather want to fix these entries at Wikidate rather than having us prevent issues while keeping other Wikipedias with this issue--that's not the sense of Wikidata. So, if you come across such an issue (regardless if on Wikipedia or Wikidata), please fix it immediately, building a workaround is fairly unnecessary. Lordtobi () 10:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
If possible, fix Wikidata (Within their policies and guidelines). If Wikidata cannot be fixed in a manner inline with English Wikipedia expectations, specify an empty engine parameter to suppress wikidata. See WP:VG/WD#Preventing Wikidata values for more. -- ferret (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

missing fields[edit]

Hi, several fields which exist in the good infobox software (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_software) are notable missing in this box: website, license, first vs current release. Adding them would lead to more consistency & I think these fields of the general software box help makign the video game infobox better fitting to the whole range of video games, e.g. also open source, community driven and indie games. Shaddim (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

They were deliberately removed from this template as a result of discussions here and at WT:VG. -- ferret (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Can you please link to these discussions? I think it was a mistake. Shaddim (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Since this is brought up every couple months, may be we should find the primary discussions and put them in a "commonly proposed fields" header or something? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure we used to have an FAQ - X201 (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh yeah, there's Template:Infobox video game#Field changes. Though it's not complete. I searched "website" and nothing came up, so I assumed there was no FAQ of sorts. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Searching the archives here for "license" I found several instance of discussion and also re-inclusion of the field. The removal argumentation was basically that for the many commercial/propriatary games (the majority, but not overwhelming) the field would offer no benefit. Therefore, the proposal was then (and also now) to have an optional field which would be just be filled in case of deviation from the standard: share, freeware, open source, public domain etc. About the "website" field, I thnik I remember as the original argumentation against it that these websites go away after some years often, but due to the webarchive this counter argument it not valid anymore, the URL is now archived and has value. ("release date" differentiation might indeed not important enough for the infobox and can be represented in development/history sections ... on the other hand country specific release dates are deemed important enough for the infobox)Shaddim (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem with optional fields is that newer editors will want to fill in everything in infobox fields, including redundant optional fields, leading to infobox kudzu. If there was a solution that limited what license fields could be used that would assure the field did not show up in you average non-free commercial game, that might work, but then the problem is that the number of potential license fields is not very limited, and thus difficult to narrow down. The website might be archived by archive.org but a lot of the functionality may not be there since archive.org doesn't capture javascript or the like. (And with release dates, we strive to keep those limited to major regions - NA, EU, AUS, and JP and avoid country specific unless there is a good reason to highlight that) --MASEM (t) 14:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
re. websites "this counter argument it not valid anymore" You've picked the wrong place to make that claim. This project has lost more references due to whole websites vanishing from web archives without notice, than any other project on Wikipedia. Websites still vanish without trace, even from web archiving sites. - X201 (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, what cases do you mean? robot.txts added later? Also, as far as I know the webarchive contemplates about changing the handeling of later added robot.txts (the stuff is still archived but just not delivered) Shaddim (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
If the site had been once indexed by archive.org prior to the addition of a robots.txt, then robots.txt was added, then as up to a few months ago, archive.org respected that and blocked access to the cached versions. (This was a problem with 1up.com sites, iirc) But now it will ignore that later-added robots.txt and show the cached stuff. However, if robots.txt was on the site all along, archive.org never cached the site, so those sites that are no longer active are gone to the ether. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thanks for the infos. This means that now even more websites are archived. From my practical expierence I would guess with the old behaviour that 20 to 30% of websites were blocked, now even some more are available. So the majority is findable in the archive.org, so a website field would offer in the majority of cases a benefit. Shaddim (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
But that still leaves us the case of that 20-30% sites being gone forever, editors want to fill in the blank (it's a natural draw to include something) and these then get filled with fan sites or wikia or other sites not associated with the original but considered the defacto site with the absence of the original. And that's not good, that's infobox kudzu again. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, this seems to be minor/cosmetic issue. all the fields have not a 100% perfect fill propability, encouraging infromation only 100% "true" (overall, to remind anyone, our goal is verfiabilty not truth). The release dates are notoriously shaky and should be removed from the infobox with this argumentation. Shaddim (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Release dates should always be sourced in the body of the article (and they don't need to be exact particularly from pre-5th gen type games, a "1998" release date is acceptable as long as it can be sourced). And I do agree that we shouldn't want to fill in all the empty lines, but new editors do do that, its a natural human thing to want to provide something they know where there's a field for it, and it is hard to ween editors from doing this. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Can you show cases where this became a serious problem? Many other info boxes have optional fields and I'm not aware of any serious problems with that approach. About novice users, I would be happy if would have again many new users, regardless if the fill out some fields not perfectly... Shaddim (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
It's difficult to remember specific cases since the parameters have been removed for so long but I do know website, as well as the preceeding= and succeeding= parameters were no end of trouble. But even today, I can point to Nintendo Switch and the attempt roughly once a week to fill in the generation= infobox line despite the comment there that we have no way to classify it yet. It happens far too frequently to be a problem to consider. --MASEM (t) 20:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the exmaple but this example seems to be more about "correct filling" in general of fields and not a weakness of "optional fields". Also, the {{Infobox information appliance seems to be filled with too much stuff. The case here is different: our box has to few fields, some crucial ones are missing which are needed to address significant segments of the video game ecology. There is already the practice that sometimes authors use therefore the general software box instead, can that be a wanted solution? I guess not. Shaddim (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The other side of the issue is that video games no longer are treated with the same type of careful attention to such detail as software; yes, back in the days of DOS and UNIX gaming, video games and software overlapped heavily in the sense of tracking version numbering, licenses, etc., but very few games today that matters anymore. We could add these fields, but they would only apply to a small fraction of the games out there, as noted the potential for well-intentioned misuse is far too high to justify supporting that small a fraction of games with those fields. We want editors to write these articles for the non-gamer, and most of those details you are asking for are more geared towards the gamer side, which is another reason why they were removed. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I would argue what I'm asking for is exactly for the non-gamers: licenses are not in-game trivia but real world aspects. The same for the games' websites, which have far greater importance for a scholar who wants to learn about context and history of a software than a gamer. Shaddim (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, with the license, of the games published up to today, a tiny fraction have something other than a standard commercial license, so this field doesn't make sense in the larger picture, and incorporating a parameter that is only used by a small fraction of qualifying topics really doesn't make sense. In terms of websites, I looked back at past discussions, and the consensus there is that, beyond their tendenancy to disappear after a few years from a game's release, is that most are written from the perspective of gamers and consumers interested in the game, and not non-gamers; there is more effective information about a game from the video game journalism side which has in-depth interviews, etc. When a game's website does have useful information like developer's blogs, those should be integrated as references or external links in the article to highlight them. As such, they don't provide any value short of being something akin to a catalog page of where to buy the game, and thus not appropriate as an infobox piece. --MASEM (t) 19:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Just putting in my two cents that so far, I agree with Masem on the above points. -- ferret (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not convinced so far... but if there is a consensus I will not resist but use the software infobox in cases where it makes more sense. About "small fraction" : have we amechanism for extracting hard numbers out of our categorization? E.g. how many of our games are freeware/free-to-play or open source? Currently I would do it manually over category content counting... Shaddim (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
We have somewhere in the realm of 500 open-source video games; juxtaposed to many times more than that. --Izno (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I counted 760 Freeware games. I counted roughly 18.000 games overall from the year lists. 1260/16740 7.5%. Which is small but not insignificant. Also, don't we have better tools at hand? I thought wikidata was meant for such things?Shaddim (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
A note: we cannot group "free to play" alongside "open source". Free to play is not a license issue, that's a cost; a free-to-play can be covered by a commercial license. So it doesn't make sense to group those together.
Category:Open-source video games has a total of 479 according to Petscan. The total number of games under Category:Video games by year is 26,163. So we're talking 2% of all games. That's trivial to include. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox open source video game[edit]

One potential solution would be to create a hybrid {{Infobox open source video game}} template. New users would most likely never encounter this template (since it would be used so infrequently in articles about commercial games), but "experts" would know about it and most likely use it correctly. And I don't think creating one extra template would cause a big maintenance issue. SharkD  Talk  21:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, potentially a subtemplate (I think the anime infobox uses this approach) for games that are treated more like software rather than games ala Nethack or Dwarf Fortress. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
{{Infobox_animanga}} for reference. --MASEM (t) 03:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Could be a solution possibility. But on the other hand, we have already the general software infobox, which addresses all problems already fine for freeware and open source games. And multiple games already use the general infobox, so maybe better stick to this solution and not adding a third approach... and maybe marking the commercial/proprietary games as exception from the general software case with an own box is maybe not a bad idea. ;) Shaddim (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
{{Infobox software}} is missing several fields, however, such as "Genre" and "Mode". These are important and specific to video games. SharkD  Talk  02:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
the software infobox has "genre" (written then "type") which can cover "Mode" too, as e.g. "Single-player & multiplayer Real-time strategy" Shaddim (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Can I go ahead and create this template? SharkD  Talk  01:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned above and in discussions prior, non-standard license video games make up only a small percentage of the games. We don't create a field for licenses because it's not standard info compared to other fields. Making a new template is the opposite - giving prominence to the tiny subset. All it does is bypass this template's consensus to not include licenses. At best, the current template would have a license field for only non-standard-proprietary ones. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
There seems no consensus (anymore? ever? this topic crops up regularly), as there are improvement solution proposals from several authors on the table, to address also the other ~10% of games. I can say I have a problem in marginalizing these parts of the gaming ecosystem, every thenth game, as not being worth being properly addressed in the info box. But on the other hand, I'm fine with using the general infobox. Shaddim (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not marginalizing, it's pretty much the opposite -- it's giving undue attention to a small subset with a specific characteristic. If anything, we should list proprietary licenses, because those are the common ones, not the open source of similar. But it's unsourcable. We don't even list things like graphics or controls in infobox -- which almost every game has. So listing something not even a third of the games have has always been excessive. The infobox already had many fields once that were hardly ever used or misused heavily. We don't really need to go back to that. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hence why if we can create an optional sub-infobox like the animemanga one that is only needed for the small number of cases but don't otherwise influence/affect existing ones, that's a possible solution. I know where Shaddim is coming from in that one could arguably just replace the infobox vg with the infobox software for those games where there may be more value as a software entity than a game, but the vg infobox is arguably better for documenting all aspects of a video game. An optional box that editors have to manually add would help resolve the lack of this information for games-as-software as well as limit how much infobox kudzu we'd get from inexperienced editors. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I guess I just don't see why open source video games are special to warrant their own infobox so they can have a license field when none of the other kinds of games would have one. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Hellknowz, creating a sub infobox for such a minor problem is pointless. Discuss anything necessary in the body text. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
every thenth game is minor? also, this is about more fields (website!)...and the general software infobox has no problems in providing these fields. Shaddim (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing where you are getting 10% from; my checked showed less than 3% of game articles are freeware or open-source titles. If it were something like 10%, you'd have a point, but it's definitely not that high. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
see my calculations above 7.5% for FOSS + freeware. And from the historical perspective, the proportions for software were different before 1990 (Public domain) and for software/games from that period we would nee also a license tag. Shaddim (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@Hellknowz: Quote: "If anything, we should list proprietary licenses, because those are the common ones, not the open source of similar." That's quite literally marginalizing parts of the gaming ecosystem. Not sure why you are having a hard time understanding this. SharkD  Talk  23:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Because all games have licenses. Because being in minority is not by itself notable. Only listing open source games because we think they're special or different -- that's marginalizing. That's like deciding that we'll only list budget for indie games, but not for other games. Even if 10% are open source, that's 90% we are ignoring then. What makes a "regular" proprietary license unworthy of inclusion when it's by far the most common? If someone can back up the reasoning with industry sources that discuss open source licenses but not "regular" licenses, then there would be precedent. But besides occasionally mentioning open source games, the media mainly covers IP licensing and who owns and buys what. And this license field proposal isn't even about IP. P. S. Ping doesn't work unless you add a full sig in the same edit. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not a matter of *whether* we include the license. It's a matter of *which* template we use to show the license. As templates like {{infobox software}} already do this. And I'd rather not put *both* infoboxes in each article just because one WikiProject is whining about having to do so. SharkD  Talk  11:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It is important to note that WP:VG is not the only WikiProject having a stake in these articles. There are also Wikipedia:WikiProject Free Software, Wikipedia:WikiProject Software and Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing. We shouldn't base our actions simply on the fact that it's inconvenient for WP:VG. SharkD  Talk  11:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree, I have the feeling too that the field selection in infobox VG is catered too strongly to the gamer audience, ignoring the software aspects. Shaddim (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Isn't that the point? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Not really. The audience of Wikipedia is not just limited to gamers. And WP:VG is not the only WikiProject on Wikipedia. SharkD  Talk  19:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources coming from for the contents of the licence field? Everything in the infobox should be a reflection of sourced info in the prose. - X201 (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

primary sources are fine for non-controversial, non-personal, verifable facts. (this complete binary "reliable" source thing went out of control in the last years). Also, why do you think this is harder to back up than other fluky gaming related fields like "genre"? If I would start to look if the given genres in the game's infoboxes are being backed literally by "reliable sources", we would have a hard time with many, many articles... as many conventions and disagreements exist here and are NOT the one we use here.... Shaddim (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Most open source software is hosted at repositories like GitHub or SourceForge. Descriptions of licenses are readily available. SharkD  Talk  23:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Another alternative[edit]

What if we were to have a "license" field that would only accept certain terms (eg "public domain", "open-source", "freeware") and not display if none of those terms were used. And particularly making sure "commercial" or the like is not one of the allowed terms? In otherwords, we are treating the assumption the game is commercial by default by not displaying it (the case for most games) and only showing when it is non-commercial? This is by far the simplest and least disruptive approach (grandfathers all uses). We'd just need to set what are the allowed license fields. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As much as I think license field is fluff that's irrelevant most of the time and--when relevant--should be in prose, I wouldn't oppose it if enough editors think that non-standard licensing is an important point to cover in the infobox. Restricting it to specific cases and requiring it to be sourced would be a compromise I can get behind. But the infobox doc should be very clear that it is consensus to highlight "non-standard" licensing (as a side point "commercial" is not a license; at best we could broadly call it "proprietary" in that private individual(s) or corporation(s) have full rights to the product by whatever internal IP rights agreements they have). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a better proposal, but what games are considered something other than commercial? Can somebody make a list of games that would even use these fields? If it's not a substantial list (say at least 50 games), then I have to question the purpose of this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
As I noted above, Category:Open-source games has 479 members. I haven't counted things like freeware or the like, but we're talking somewhere between 2 and 10% of all video games. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The vast majority of articles on open source games have shitty sourcing and aren't notable anyway. It's just that nobody can be asked to go through and AfD them all, so that figure should probably be <1%. We don't need any more fields especially for a trait that reliable sources don't even cover significantly. And to add, for the suggestion above, we absolutely do not need a separate infobox/subinfobox like {{Infobox_animanga}}. {{Infobox_animanga}} is a giant clusterfuck that goes completely against WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@The1337gamer: There are plenty of articles from reliable sources discussing open source video games and engines. For instance IGN says, "Some of the most rewarding PC games out there were built by indie developers using open source code." You can see the important distinction these articles are making is not genre, or country of origin, or game mode, but the software license. So, yes, there is significant coverage. SharkD  Talk  19:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I seemed to have missed that, but I agree with 1337 as well. How many notable games are included there? Can you name one well known title that is without looking through the category? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
well, while freeware and FOSS gamign does not get the broad coverage in magazines (as there is no /little money involved) gaming for free is a big thing world wide. Freely downloadable games, while good statistic is hard to find, is downloaded million times and played by millions. Also, we should not forget the sharewawre games of the yesteryears.... this was big and everywhere. We should not get stuck in the bubble created by the commercial content industry, there are other notable (e.g. notable by impact on people's life) domains too. Shaddim (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC) PS: as well documented examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_for_Wesnoth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_Story and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Trust_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_Cave_Adventure
You increasingly sound like you're trying to right some great wrong. --Izno (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Not really, its about fine-tuning the balanced representation of the whole video gaming landscape we have already in WP (well, the infobox VG could be a little bit broader but we have the generla software infobox). Freeware, shareware and open source are notable part of it, I think there is no serious discussion about that. Shaddim (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks like discussion is dying out, but FYI, I'm also against the addition. It doesn't affect enough articles, in my opinion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The category is sufficient for identifying these works. The open source status isn't important enough in our articles that readers should expect it to be covered in the infobox. Keep it simple. Also almost every article I open in Category:Open-source video games is a candidate for redirection if not outright deletion. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 04:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Displaytitle error[edit]

Note that the automatically-set displaytitle in this tempalte causes a Warning to be displayed at [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.46.133.56 (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed - X201 (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Distributor[edit]

I'm not entirely advocating this, but I've been pondering it and wanted to see what everyone thought. Distributor is a field that has long caused issues, and in modern days become more and more antiquated as digital distribution has become a bigger player. Should we even have this field? In most cases, we've already slapped a rule that when it matches publisher, hide it. And in the rare cases beyond that, it is almost always unsourced and unmentioned in prose. Beyond that, is this field of any true encyclopedic value? -- ferret (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree it can be very muddied and misused, but I also think particularly for some indie games that if there's a retail version, the existence of a distributor field will quickly tell us that a retail exists, and avoid having the previously removed "distribution" field. It shouldn't be there for digital-only games, and shouldn't be there if the publisher also distributed. A question to consider is how this affects games pre-digital era, how many had distrubitors that weren't publishers? --MASEM (t) 15:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Honestly from a reader view point, I would find "distribution" (Online, retail) much more useful than "Distributor". Readers don't know the arcane rules we have for this field such as "Only if it doesn't match publisher" and "Only if brick and mortar". In your example of a distributor field indicating that an indie game has a retail version, only us in the know will understand that. And because we only populate it if publisher is different, it doesn't reliable demonstrate "Retail version available". The reader is left without a clear understanding. -- ferret (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, we voted to remove the type of game's media a while back, and I find this to be pretty similar to that. Does a game being digital only actually matter? Any retro game would already be assumed to have been available at retail (as are most modern AAA games still), so I'm not sure how much this actually helps. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I said before that it should be scrapped Template talk:Infobox video game/Archive 14#Regional publishers. The infobox's purpose is to summarise key facts in the article. Retail distribution is rarely mentioned because it's not really significant or covered by reliable sources, especially these days with the prevalence of online and digital distribution. Also the field is constantly miused in more than one way. I frequently see Steam, Google Play Store, GOG, etc because people assume it includes digital store. I also frequently see stuff like Marvel, Disney because some people assume it means license holder. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd argue in favor of removing it as well. For the vast majority of games, both retro and modern, the publisher doubles as the distributor. And for the rare games that do use a separate distributor, that info could just go in prose instead. It also causes a lot of issues too, per 1337's comment. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ha, I just removed this field on The Witcher 3 as superfluous. The distributor doesn't matter, there's no award for best distributor, you have the people who make the game, and the people who put the game out there (which is nowhere near as important), but the people who print the discs or upload the data or whatever? Not important at all, and incredibly region specific. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with its removal. It's only caused issues in my experience. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I started this, but to be clear, I'm also in favor of removal. As to the cases noted above, see this diff that @AdrianGamer just reverted. -- ferret (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
    These cases where uninformed users put licensors in place of the distributor are actually not that uncommon, and they often also come in mass-additions from singular users. Although I am rather neutral on this, I think deletion would ultimately resolve this problem, but we should likely put up a bot that removes |distributor=—or all deprecated fields in general (I often see |media= still used in old articles). Lordtobi () 12:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
    There should be no articles with Media parameter. Category:Pages using infobox video game with unknown parameters is currently empty. -- ferret (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
    Was this recently cleaned up? Because I know for a fact that I've had to manually remove the field in some of the more obscure retro game articles within the past few months. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
    November 2016, by @Zackmann08. See template history, you'll spot where they cleaned up depreciated parameters and removed them. -- ferret (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
    I don't think that category tracks articles with unknown parameters if the entry is empty. e.g. Alpine Ski has a media field but the entry is empty so it doesn't show in the category. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
    That's because it has ignoreblank=y set. If we remove it, the category will populate with blank fields. Since the category is empty, we can try that. -- ferret (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with its removal either. As Dissident93 previously explained, it's not practical to have an infobox field that is only used in very rare instances. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)