![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I started a list of them at User:Andrevan/To Fix and with the help of K1Bond007 it's huge. Anyone looking for something to do should take a look. Andre ( talk) 04:45, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and to this project, and I have a few questions :
I've had this discussion with many people, but I thought I would make it open to others and gather more input. For the infobox, should we really include "media"? First off, the point of the infobox is to give a little overview-like blurb on the game. That being said, I feel the media section is unneeded especially for games that are multi-platform. If you have a game that is for GameCube, it obviously uses GameCube media, theres not going to be a surprise there or anything. If someone wants to know what GameCube media is then they should head over to the article on GameCube, not an exclusive game to find out. As it is, most articles don't even list a more specific media type, it just states "DVD", which really tells you nothing. If the game is for GameCube, Xbox, and PS2 then we have to mention all of those, this takes up a lot of space and like the previous example is pretty useless.
The only time I would actually consider "media" useful is on a computer game because at least there it has a large possibility of being different. Half-Life 2 for example can be on CD, DVD, or as a download through Steam. This is something thats worth mentioning in the infobox.
So I figure we have three options.
Opinions? K1Bond007 21:28, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
What would the correct stub be for video game companies? Would it be the {{corp-stub}} or the {{cvg-stub}}? Or maybe both, I'm not sure if that's allowed but as of this post it's been done on a couple such as GameTek and Takara. Just wondering because there's a bunch of companies such as Cybersoft and Video System that don't have a categorized stub (or any real content for that matter). -- TheDotGamer 10:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
The infobox template currently forces the font to render in a size that is illegible to me and any other people with poor vision. This should be fixed so that it renders at the same size as the other text, or at least has it's size calculated relative to the normal text size.
Darrien 01:27, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
I've been cleaning up History of computer and video games as best I can, but have run into a conundrum with the pre-16bit consoles. The concensus I've seen so far is that the 16-bit era is the 4th generation, the 32/64bit the 5th, the so-called 128bit the 6th, and the next round of yet unreleased consoles the 7th. Assuming the first generation is made of the hardwired electronics like the Magnavox Odyssey, Coleco Telstar, and Pong home version, that leaves 2 "generations" spanning the 8-bit CPU based consoles. The obvious split would be before and after the 1983 crash, but so far the divisions seem to be along the lines of technologies, and that split would put some technologically superior machines like the Colecovision before simpler ones like the NES. Then there's articles like this [1] that expand the crash and the years surrounding it into an extra generation. Our own List_of_video_game_consoles groups the 2600 together with the earliest machines. So the whole thing is a bit muddled. Or you could simply bag everything not hardwired and running an 8-bit processor under one generation, pushing everything after down one number. But I'm not sure if machines before the NES and Sega Master System can really be included as part of an "8bit" group, as I think the concern over "bitness" only came into being when the two were compared to their 16bit successors. I suppose the question is whether the generational divisions are on power/technology, or time periods. -- 24.114.252.183 07:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I came up against the issue of how to represent storylines for Starcraft. If you look at that article, parts of the storyline are very detalied and others...arn't. I took it upon myself to try and come up with a way to do it, but then realized this is something that should be done as a whole for all computer games (or most, at least). I have a few sample entries on User:Alasseo/Starcraft Story but here's the main idea:
For articles with seperate storyline pages, I would have it arranged:
==Campaign== ===Mission name=== Mission subtitle, base location, ect. <h4>Breifing</h4> This would be a summary, "Kerrigan gloated over Raynor.", not a word-for-word transcript, "'I ownzed j00 Raynor!!!!1' Kerrigan said". <h4>Mission Objectives</h4> *A Bulleted *List For missions with changing objectives, I don't know if they should go in the next section or this one. <h4>In Game Story</h4> Same as breifing, with the possiblity of having mission objectives, and being much longer for FPS like Renegade. Or non existant, like for Doom.
I would have a simple synopsis for each campaign if the story wasn't long enough to get its own page, or there was just one campaign, ect. However, I'm new to all this so if you want to sit back and laugh for a little while at how naive I am..go ahead. I won't mind. Really. Alasseo 09:20, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. I'll move what I've got so far over to wikibooks, and work on breaking down the Brood War: Protoss part of StarCraft here. -- Alasseo 09:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
should we do something like this, or has it already been done? Thanks in advance, Drizzt2
Thank you Bond, sorry for all the questions, but is there a master list of games article. Like every video game ever made? Drizzt2 01:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Computer and video game genres over how to organize the genres. I feel its important enough to mention this here to gather more input, suggestions, alternatives, or thoughts from other participants of this project for the article than just myself and User:Slike. Thank you. K1Bond007 05:03, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
I co-opted the Template:Infobox Videogame, which was being used on a few pages, to serve as a prototype for a possible templatized version of our infobox. (See X-COM: UFO Defense for example.)
The template makes it easier to add the infobox to an article, it doesn't clutter the top of the article's source text as much, and it makes it easier to tweak the format. On the downside it doesn't have the flexibility of the raw infobox and it's designed for the lowest common denominator (i.e., no PC- or console-game specific fields, "Rating" instead of "ESRB rating").
I think it would be a convenient way to spread the infobox lovin', but not a replacement for the current infobox. It's important that anyone interested look it over, comment, and hopefully we can produce an official version. Thoughts? -- Mrwojo 23:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
First, I agree that before we really begin to use the template we should iron out and be sure of all the fields because once we actually use it, it'll be a PITA to make field changes. Design changes are a different story. I think as far as console games go there really isn't a need for "media". If it's a GameCube game its going to use GameCube media (and more often than anything none of these are ever written the same) and if it's a multiplatform game then you gotta list them all out and most of the time, it looks like this: Xbox DVD, PlayStation 2 DVD, GameCube DVD - and thats just sad especially since it's sitting under "Platform" that says it's on Xbox, PlayStation 2 and GameCube.
I think it is possible to have optional fields, however, I've been unsuccessful with the templates I've created. I'll look into this more because if this is something that we can achieve then that'd be great. -- Update: Take a look here for optional tables. I think we can do something similar. Template talk:Peru region table. K1Bond007 03:29, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
I changed the format as suggested and made Media optional as a test. See Cadaver (computer game) for an example (no Media). Optional fields makes editing the template more difficult, but that's relatively minor compared to the advantage. The template now looks more like a replacement than a supplement with these changes.
Here's possible list of fields, nothing new:
-- Mrwojo 15:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good news: K1Bond007 has found a way to fix the whitespace problem with optional fields. I updated the template to use optional fields again and it seems to be working fine. -- Mrwojo 03:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think it's fair to at least take a vote to see if anyone disagrees with making the template our official infobox. Assuming the "vote" passes we would use the template on all future video and computer game articles as well as over time, convert the old manual infoboxes to the template. Since I haven't seen anyone really against this, this could be a waste of time, but in fairness and in part because we essentially voted on the last one, I think this should be done before proceeding. K1Bond007 18:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Support:
Disagree:
Comments:
Yes, it's fine now.
Darrien 04:36, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
I was considering including some prologue text contained within a game's manual. Would this be ok? Subtlesnake 21:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Although I consider this to be a much better version over the old infoboxes, there are a two issues that I only noticed now that I've tried to replace existing boxes:
Sorry for dropping so late, but it's been months since I've last edited a infobox from scratch, and couldn't remember most of the problems I had back then. wS 13:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I didn't think this was worth starting a new topic over so I'm putting this here: What do people think about an optional "current/latest version" row in the infobox table for PC games? I don't think it could hurt any, since it'd be optional. –
Quoth 10:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Interesting Google trivia: If you Google a game name with the words release date, it gives a good guess for you. I found this by searching for "Tribes Aerial Assault" release date. I was further surprised to see the sole source for "The Dig" release date. ;-) -- Mrwojo 17:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Goomba Andre ( talk) 17:59, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
I've checked the stub for video games template, and it's nothing but functional. Since I've noticed a lot of templates include more features (such as a small pic or the correspondent wikiproject link), I suggest changing the template a bit to bring a little more attention over the GCOTW. My suggestion is something like this:
wS 17:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(underlines are wikilinks, for the sake of simplification) wS 03:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not on this project (GCOTW), but I'd like to add my two cents anyway. When I first saw the extra text on the cvg-stub, I didn't know who had put it there or why it was different from any of the other stubs -- I thought it was just something to be fixed. Perhaps it would help to add just a couple words to indicate that it's not just any "community collaboration" you can nominate it for, but the Gaming Collaboration of the Week. I propose: Other alternatives include putting this article up for expansion or nominating it for gaming community collaboration. MithrandirMage 15:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Since we include links to MobyGames from so many of our articles, I created a MobyGame's template. Currently it is only being used in one article, Heroes of Might and Magic, since I'd like to get some feedback before putting it into widespread use. See the template's talk page for usage. Note, it is only for games, not developers (people) or companies. Different, but similar, templates will need to be created for them. Please comment on the template talk page. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:13, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I started a list of them at User:Andrevan/To Fix and with the help of K1Bond007 it's huge. Anyone looking for something to do should take a look. Andre ( talk) 04:45, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and to this project, and I have a few questions :
I've had this discussion with many people, but I thought I would make it open to others and gather more input. For the infobox, should we really include "media"? First off, the point of the infobox is to give a little overview-like blurb on the game. That being said, I feel the media section is unneeded especially for games that are multi-platform. If you have a game that is for GameCube, it obviously uses GameCube media, theres not going to be a surprise there or anything. If someone wants to know what GameCube media is then they should head over to the article on GameCube, not an exclusive game to find out. As it is, most articles don't even list a more specific media type, it just states "DVD", which really tells you nothing. If the game is for GameCube, Xbox, and PS2 then we have to mention all of those, this takes up a lot of space and like the previous example is pretty useless.
The only time I would actually consider "media" useful is on a computer game because at least there it has a large possibility of being different. Half-Life 2 for example can be on CD, DVD, or as a download through Steam. This is something thats worth mentioning in the infobox.
So I figure we have three options.
Opinions? K1Bond007 21:28, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
What would the correct stub be for video game companies? Would it be the {{corp-stub}} or the {{cvg-stub}}? Or maybe both, I'm not sure if that's allowed but as of this post it's been done on a couple such as GameTek and Takara. Just wondering because there's a bunch of companies such as Cybersoft and Video System that don't have a categorized stub (or any real content for that matter). -- TheDotGamer 10:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
The infobox template currently forces the font to render in a size that is illegible to me and any other people with poor vision. This should be fixed so that it renders at the same size as the other text, or at least has it's size calculated relative to the normal text size.
Darrien 01:27, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
I've been cleaning up History of computer and video games as best I can, but have run into a conundrum with the pre-16bit consoles. The concensus I've seen so far is that the 16-bit era is the 4th generation, the 32/64bit the 5th, the so-called 128bit the 6th, and the next round of yet unreleased consoles the 7th. Assuming the first generation is made of the hardwired electronics like the Magnavox Odyssey, Coleco Telstar, and Pong home version, that leaves 2 "generations" spanning the 8-bit CPU based consoles. The obvious split would be before and after the 1983 crash, but so far the divisions seem to be along the lines of technologies, and that split would put some technologically superior machines like the Colecovision before simpler ones like the NES. Then there's articles like this [1] that expand the crash and the years surrounding it into an extra generation. Our own List_of_video_game_consoles groups the 2600 together with the earliest machines. So the whole thing is a bit muddled. Or you could simply bag everything not hardwired and running an 8-bit processor under one generation, pushing everything after down one number. But I'm not sure if machines before the NES and Sega Master System can really be included as part of an "8bit" group, as I think the concern over "bitness" only came into being when the two were compared to their 16bit successors. I suppose the question is whether the generational divisions are on power/technology, or time periods. -- 24.114.252.183 07:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I came up against the issue of how to represent storylines for Starcraft. If you look at that article, parts of the storyline are very detalied and others...arn't. I took it upon myself to try and come up with a way to do it, but then realized this is something that should be done as a whole for all computer games (or most, at least). I have a few sample entries on User:Alasseo/Starcraft Story but here's the main idea:
For articles with seperate storyline pages, I would have it arranged:
==Campaign== ===Mission name=== Mission subtitle, base location, ect. <h4>Breifing</h4> This would be a summary, "Kerrigan gloated over Raynor.", not a word-for-word transcript, "'I ownzed j00 Raynor!!!!1' Kerrigan said". <h4>Mission Objectives</h4> *A Bulleted *List For missions with changing objectives, I don't know if they should go in the next section or this one. <h4>In Game Story</h4> Same as breifing, with the possiblity of having mission objectives, and being much longer for FPS like Renegade. Or non existant, like for Doom.
I would have a simple synopsis for each campaign if the story wasn't long enough to get its own page, or there was just one campaign, ect. However, I'm new to all this so if you want to sit back and laugh for a little while at how naive I am..go ahead. I won't mind. Really. Alasseo 09:20, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. I'll move what I've got so far over to wikibooks, and work on breaking down the Brood War: Protoss part of StarCraft here. -- Alasseo 09:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
should we do something like this, or has it already been done? Thanks in advance, Drizzt2
Thank you Bond, sorry for all the questions, but is there a master list of games article. Like every video game ever made? Drizzt2 01:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Computer and video game genres over how to organize the genres. I feel its important enough to mention this here to gather more input, suggestions, alternatives, or thoughts from other participants of this project for the article than just myself and User:Slike. Thank you. K1Bond007 05:03, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
I co-opted the Template:Infobox Videogame, which was being used on a few pages, to serve as a prototype for a possible templatized version of our infobox. (See X-COM: UFO Defense for example.)
The template makes it easier to add the infobox to an article, it doesn't clutter the top of the article's source text as much, and it makes it easier to tweak the format. On the downside it doesn't have the flexibility of the raw infobox and it's designed for the lowest common denominator (i.e., no PC- or console-game specific fields, "Rating" instead of "ESRB rating").
I think it would be a convenient way to spread the infobox lovin', but not a replacement for the current infobox. It's important that anyone interested look it over, comment, and hopefully we can produce an official version. Thoughts? -- Mrwojo 23:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
First, I agree that before we really begin to use the template we should iron out and be sure of all the fields because once we actually use it, it'll be a PITA to make field changes. Design changes are a different story. I think as far as console games go there really isn't a need for "media". If it's a GameCube game its going to use GameCube media (and more often than anything none of these are ever written the same) and if it's a multiplatform game then you gotta list them all out and most of the time, it looks like this: Xbox DVD, PlayStation 2 DVD, GameCube DVD - and thats just sad especially since it's sitting under "Platform" that says it's on Xbox, PlayStation 2 and GameCube.
I think it is possible to have optional fields, however, I've been unsuccessful with the templates I've created. I'll look into this more because if this is something that we can achieve then that'd be great. -- Update: Take a look here for optional tables. I think we can do something similar. Template talk:Peru region table. K1Bond007 03:29, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
I changed the format as suggested and made Media optional as a test. See Cadaver (computer game) for an example (no Media). Optional fields makes editing the template more difficult, but that's relatively minor compared to the advantage. The template now looks more like a replacement than a supplement with these changes.
Here's possible list of fields, nothing new:
-- Mrwojo 15:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good news: K1Bond007 has found a way to fix the whitespace problem with optional fields. I updated the template to use optional fields again and it seems to be working fine. -- Mrwojo 03:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think it's fair to at least take a vote to see if anyone disagrees with making the template our official infobox. Assuming the "vote" passes we would use the template on all future video and computer game articles as well as over time, convert the old manual infoboxes to the template. Since I haven't seen anyone really against this, this could be a waste of time, but in fairness and in part because we essentially voted on the last one, I think this should be done before proceeding. K1Bond007 18:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Support:
Disagree:
Comments:
Yes, it's fine now.
Darrien 04:36, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
I was considering including some prologue text contained within a game's manual. Would this be ok? Subtlesnake 21:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Although I consider this to be a much better version over the old infoboxes, there are a two issues that I only noticed now that I've tried to replace existing boxes:
Sorry for dropping so late, but it's been months since I've last edited a infobox from scratch, and couldn't remember most of the problems I had back then. wS 13:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I didn't think this was worth starting a new topic over so I'm putting this here: What do people think about an optional "current/latest version" row in the infobox table for PC games? I don't think it could hurt any, since it'd be optional. –
Quoth 10:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Interesting Google trivia: If you Google a game name with the words release date, it gives a good guess for you. I found this by searching for "Tribes Aerial Assault" release date. I was further surprised to see the sole source for "The Dig" release date. ;-) -- Mrwojo 17:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Goomba Andre ( talk) 17:59, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
I've checked the stub for video games template, and it's nothing but functional. Since I've noticed a lot of templates include more features (such as a small pic or the correspondent wikiproject link), I suggest changing the template a bit to bring a little more attention over the GCOTW. My suggestion is something like this:
wS 17:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(underlines are wikilinks, for the sake of simplification) wS 03:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not on this project (GCOTW), but I'd like to add my two cents anyway. When I first saw the extra text on the cvg-stub, I didn't know who had put it there or why it was different from any of the other stubs -- I thought it was just something to be fixed. Perhaps it would help to add just a couple words to indicate that it's not just any "community collaboration" you can nominate it for, but the Gaming Collaboration of the Week. I propose: Other alternatives include putting this article up for expansion or nominating it for gaming community collaboration. MithrandirMage 15:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Since we include links to MobyGames from so many of our articles, I created a MobyGame's template. Currently it is only being used in one article, Heroes of Might and Magic, since I'd like to get some feedback before putting it into widespread use. See the template's talk page for usage. Note, it is only for games, not developers (people) or companies. Different, but similar, templates will need to be created for them. Please comment on the template talk page. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:13, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)