proposed by Angelbo, moved here by Percy Snoodle
{{{Title}}} | |
---|---|
{{{Image}}} {{{Caption}}} | |
Date of release: | {{{Date}}} |
Publisher | {{{Publisher}}} |
Chief designer | {{{Designer}}} |
System | {{{System}}} |
Genre | {{{Genre}}} |
{{{Title}}} | |
---|---|
{{{Image}}} {{{Caption}}} | |
Chief designer | {{{Designer}}} |
Publisher | {{{Publisher}}} |
Publication date: | {{{Date}}} |
System | {{{System}}} |
Genre | {{{Genre}}} |
{{{Footnotes}}} |
Moved to WikiProject RPGs/Goals. Jonas Karlsson 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Would it be useful to add optional lines for supplements, like the role-playing game(s) it is used for? That way, we could add infoboxes to a articles about sourcebooks and supplements, too.
How shall we handle games with multiple editions. So far I use the data of the first release (like release date and publishers), but on the other hand, the images are of newer editions, most of the time. Should we list various release dates? (Something like "1986 (1st edition)<br>1990 (2nd edition)<br>1997 (3rd edition)")
At Bunnies and Burrows I added two infoboxes, because I felt this were two very different releases. Such a thing would not be practical for normal situations. -- Genesis 11:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I want to add some guidelines to the infobox front page, but I first want to check with you people if you think it's ok. First of all, I think it would be best to remove the right-hand descriptions, as it shouldn't be very hard to figure out how to fill out the box anyway. Right now it's a pain to have to remove descriptions from fields you're not filling out and stuff. My proposed notes on usage:
What do you think? Is tips & tricks ok to have in the usage section? Are RPGnet and Amazon trustworthy enough (I would say they're trustworthy enough, though not infallible of course)? Should we add something to the list?
Also, we should specify if genres should be just the categories, or if it's ok to freeform and write anything that comes to mind. I would say the latter, as it can add more information than the rather blunt categories can. Jonas Karlsson 18:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The WikiProject notice was removed on 2nd April by User:Paxomen, with the motivation that it's useful to editors and not readers. I want it back, as I think it's good to make people notice the project and maybe become editors if they're not already. I'll wait a couple of days and then put it back if no one objects. Jonas Karlsson 14:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest adding an optional 'conversions' field, for RPG systems that started out in one system, but have been officially converted into several others. This would include such notable games as Deadlands (which has been converted officially into d20, GURPS, White Wolf's Storyteller, and Savage Worlds), and Traveller (GURPS and d20) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Primalchaos ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
In my quest to make infoboxen look consistent and pretty I'm planning on re-working this one. The most important change is that unknown attributes won't be shown at all: they won't have "unknown" in them. This is consistent with other infoboxes. Is this acceptable? Chris Cunningham 13:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
proposed by Angelbo, moved here by Percy Snoodle
{{{Title}}} | |
---|---|
{{{Image}}} {{{Caption}}} | |
Date of release: | {{{Date}}} |
Publisher | {{{Publisher}}} |
Chief designer | {{{Designer}}} |
System | {{{System}}} |
Genre | {{{Genre}}} |
{{{Title}}} | |
---|---|
{{{Image}}} {{{Caption}}} | |
Chief designer | {{{Designer}}} |
Publisher | {{{Publisher}}} |
Publication date: | {{{Date}}} |
System | {{{System}}} |
Genre | {{{Genre}}} |
{{{Footnotes}}} |
Moved to WikiProject RPGs/Goals. Jonas Karlsson 22:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Would it be useful to add optional lines for supplements, like the role-playing game(s) it is used for? That way, we could add infoboxes to a articles about sourcebooks and supplements, too.
How shall we handle games with multiple editions. So far I use the data of the first release (like release date and publishers), but on the other hand, the images are of newer editions, most of the time. Should we list various release dates? (Something like "1986 (1st edition)<br>1990 (2nd edition)<br>1997 (3rd edition)")
At Bunnies and Burrows I added two infoboxes, because I felt this were two very different releases. Such a thing would not be practical for normal situations. -- Genesis 11:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I want to add some guidelines to the infobox front page, but I first want to check with you people if you think it's ok. First of all, I think it would be best to remove the right-hand descriptions, as it shouldn't be very hard to figure out how to fill out the box anyway. Right now it's a pain to have to remove descriptions from fields you're not filling out and stuff. My proposed notes on usage:
What do you think? Is tips & tricks ok to have in the usage section? Are RPGnet and Amazon trustworthy enough (I would say they're trustworthy enough, though not infallible of course)? Should we add something to the list?
Also, we should specify if genres should be just the categories, or if it's ok to freeform and write anything that comes to mind. I would say the latter, as it can add more information than the rather blunt categories can. Jonas Karlsson 18:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The WikiProject notice was removed on 2nd April by User:Paxomen, with the motivation that it's useful to editors and not readers. I want it back, as I think it's good to make people notice the project and maybe become editors if they're not already. I'll wait a couple of days and then put it back if no one objects. Jonas Karlsson 14:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest adding an optional 'conversions' field, for RPG systems that started out in one system, but have been officially converted into several others. This would include such notable games as Deadlands (which has been converted officially into d20, GURPS, White Wolf's Storyteller, and Savage Worlds), and Traveller (GURPS and d20) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Primalchaos ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
In my quest to make infoboxen look consistent and pretty I'm planning on re-working this one. The most important change is that unknown attributes won't be shown at all: they won't have "unknown" in them. This is consistent with other infoboxes. Is this acceptable? Chris Cunningham 13:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)