Template talk:Infobox CVG
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Infobox CVG Talk Archives |
|
- Discuss your changes on this page — get feedback and arrive at a consensus, decide if this is the right addition or change. If there is no current section, you may add a new section
- Make your changes on the Infobox
- Update the layout of the infobox on Template talk:Infobox CVG#Syntax to reflect the change
- Update the Template talk:Infobox CVG/Syntax Guide, providing help on ways to properly populate the infobox
Contents |
[edit] Usage
Chrono Trigger | |
---|---|
Chrono Trigger's North American cover art shows the party casting the triple tech "Arc Impulse." |
|
Developer(s) | Square Co., Ltd. |
Publisher(s) | Square Co., Ltd. Square EA (Final Fantasy Chronicles) |
Designer(s) | Hironobu Sakaguchi Yuji Horii |
Series | Chrono series |
Release date(s) | JPN March 11, 1995 (SNES) NA August 22, 1995 (SNES) |
Genre(s) | Role-playing |
Mode(s) | Single player |
Rating(s) | ESRB: Kids to Adults (6+) (SNES) ESRB: Teen (13+) (PS) |
Platform(s) | Super Famicom / Super Nintendo PlayStation |
Media | 32-Mbit (4MB) SNES cartridge; PlayStation CD-ROM |
At right is an infobox which can be used for articles on games that have been released or will be released for single or multiple platforms.
For console games, the fields, engine, media, input and requirements can and in some cases should be omitted. For games with a version developed for the computer it is preferable that you fill in fields for input, engine, and requirements.
The infobox was created and modified by Mrwojo and K1Bond007 and is based on a previous infobox initially modified by ŵŞ, which was based on one created by Frecklefoot, which was based on one developed with input from many members of the project.
The use of the infobox is not compulsory, it is strictly voluntary and provided here for convenience. Many variations on this archetype are in use in various articles. See the other sections below for a history of the infobox development and for ideas on other infoboxes for games released on multiple platforms.
See also: Infobox discussion, Project template discussion, Template project and Template project discussion.
[edit] Syntax
Copy and paste the following code into an article and simply fill out the fields.
{{Infobox CVG |width = |align = (left|right) |title = |image = |caption = |developer = |publisher = |distributor = |designer = |series = |engine = |version = |released = |genre = |modes = |ratings = |platforms = |media = |requirements = |input = |picture format= |cabinet = |arcade system = |cpu = |sound = |display = }} |
[edit] Syntax Guide
See: /Syntax Guide
[edit] Alternative to flags
If flags are not able to accurately describe the release date, Template:Vgrelease can be used.
North America
{{vgrelease|North America|NA|September 16, 2006}}
NA September 16, 2006
Australasia
{{vgrelease|Australasia|AU|September 29, 2006}}
AU September 29, 2006
PAL region (should normally be used instead of Europe, unless an Australasian date is supplied)
{{vgrelease|PAL region|PAL|September 28, 2006}}
PAL September 28, 2006
[edit] Discussion
[edit] Reviews
Could we add a reviews section similar to template:Infobox Album? --Pinkkeith 16:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Seconded.Fistful of Questions 00:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Seems like overkill, as we already have elaborate reception sections. Andre (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Licence
I would have thought a licence field would be here already. It my opinion it wouldn't be useful in most situations, such as games released by Sony. However I feel that in a many number of articles it would come in very handy, especially in older games or games emerging from the independent gaming movement coming through these days (through Game Maker and SGDK for example). A licence field would let the reader casually assess whether the game is freeware, abandonware, shareware, etc. etc. -Gohst 06:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Resolution?
maybe there should be a section to display the game's resolution.Cloud668 19:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- For PC games, that's frequently variable, so I'm not sure what you'd put there. For console games, it's usually consistent depending on the system, with only the very newest HD-capable systems as the obvious exception. It seems like it'd be useful for only a very few games, and so it's probably not worth adding to the template. IMO, of course. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
i don't know, but i just think it might provide a bit more information, it's just kinda like Picture Format of Template:Infobox Television, maybe it can be an optional field. Cloud668 05:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, I was thinking of such a field when I came to this discussion page... Playstation 3 games in particular would benefit from this, as each PS3 title's HD resolutions are highly variable. --Shadowlink1014 04:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This isn't useful information for most video game consoles, only for a small subset of articles on certain consoles. Just explain it in the main article body. Andre (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think it would be weird to suddenly meniton the resloution --Cloud668 03:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- This should really be added, due to that currently seven consoles, which are all of the seven generation consoles, and the sixth generation consoles, are capable of displaying games different resloution, or in progressive scan. If PC is inculded this will become eight. --Cloud668 03:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, however it should be called "Picture format". It would be a great addition, and I am sure that a high percentage of video game articles could make use of it. Stickeylabel 06:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am fine with "Picture Format" Cloud668 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Andre. It's not needed and an irrelevance to a vast number of articles. It's the technical version of adding info about the different types of Chicken in the Zelda series. - X201 08:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I previously stated I support an introduction of a section to display a game's resolution. And I do not agree with X201's analogy. All video games have native resolutions, and especially with seventh generation console games these are in 720p or 1080p. Even a game such a Mario 64 has a native resolution of 480i, of which is cross-converted to 576i in PAL regions. Nevertheless, Mario 64 is natively 480i, or 480p if played via virtual console on the Wii. Games such as Gears of War are 720p natively and can be upconverted by a console to 1080i or 1080p. I propose the section be called "Picture format", however only main native resolutions should be listed. For example the Mario 64 article should only state "480i (SDTV), 480p (EDTV). Stickeylabel 09:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well then I added it. Cloud668 04:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of the preceded by/ followed by parameters?
I noticed in this this edit that these parameters were removed. Why? They were very useful. Fistful of Questions 23:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Align-left
It's been requested that a parameter be added that would allow this infobox to be right-aligned. Could someone please add the following code to the top of the table: align="{{{align|right}}}" Thanks in advance. --MZMcBride 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Where? "The top" isn't all too specific. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. Changing
{| class="infobox bordered" style="width: {{#if:{{{width|}}}|{{{width|}}}|23em}}; font-size: 90%; text-align: left;" cellpadding="3"
to this
{| class="infobox bordered" align="{{{align|right}}}" style="width: {{#if:{{{width|}}}|{{{width|}}}|23em}}; font-size: 90%; text-align: left;" cellpadding="3"
--MZMcBride 04:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I made a change to allow left alignment with an 'align=left' parameter setting. --CBD 12:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm actually not sure what you are trying to align... the text above says the box, but that would use a 'float' statement. The 'align' should impact image display relative to text, but I'm not sure where that would come into play with this template since there is a line break below the image before the caption. Anyway, I put it in as specified since I couldn't figure out what you were aiming for. --CBD 12:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- So what's the syntax now? "|align = left" as parameter doesn't do much.~~MaxGrin 14:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm actually not sure what you are trying to align... the text above says the box, but that would use a 'float' statement. The 'align' should impact image display relative to text, but I'm not sure where that would come into play with this template since there is a line break below the image before the caption. Anyway, I put it in as specified since I couldn't figure out what you were aiming for. --CBD 12:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, I promise I'm really not trying to confuse everyone. I wrote the header for this section incorrectly (fixed), and the code is also wrong.
- The current code is
{| class="infobox bordered" align="{{{align|right}}}" style="width: {{#if:{{{width|}}}|{{{width|}}}|23em}}; font-size: 90%; text-align: left;" cellpadding="3"
- The code should be
{| class="infobox bordered" style="float: {{{align|right}}}; width: {{#if:{{{width|}}}|{{{width|}}}|23em}}; font-size: 90%; text-align: left;" cellpadding="3"
I apologize again for mistyping. Thanks. --MZMcBride 00:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Great, it's working. Thanks everybody! There is however another problem. We've still got a left side margin, which is not very helpful for a left aligned InfoBox. Example of the problem: aquanox. Anyway we can adjust those by desire?~~MaxGrin 23:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Boxart Width
Most boxarts on wikipedia displayed in a CVG Infobox are 250px in width. However, I have found using 260px is more appropriate, as the spacing around all four sides of the boxart are equal and smaller. For example this is an infobox with 260px width, and this is an infobox with 250px width. As can be seen 260px width makes more sense, and is neater. Do you think that all video games should use 260px for their width? Stickeylabel 03:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- To be a prat now, I actually quite like the little borders on the sides. I think the 260px one looks a little bit stretched out. Pure subjectivity though.(Might be the examples)~~MaxGrin 12:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I must be a prat as well then, because I prefer 250. It's not so in your face, it has a touch of style about it and above all, I think it just looks better. - X201 12:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, I think we should reconsider the examples though. Viva Pignatia, whatever the spelling of that word is, and DOD covers are not very good for the sake of comparing the width of the infobox.~~MaxGrin 09:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- 250px is better IMO, the CVG Infobox could be changed to make it better. I would do it, but the page has been fully protected since September (so only admins can edit it). TJ Spyke 07:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, I think we should reconsider the examples though. Viva Pignatia, whatever the spelling of that word is, and DOD covers are not very good for the sake of comparing the width of the infobox.~~MaxGrin 09:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Here are two different examples. The first, Banjo-Kazooie is 250px, and the second, Banjo-Tooie is 260px. The 260px Banjo-Tooie boxart looks far more tidy when compared to 250px. However, if TJ Spyke can modify the now semi-protected template to make 250px boxarts fit better, then I would support that. If that however is not possible, I would support that all game boxarts in the Infobox CVG's be changed to 260px. Also, to save time and confusion a pre-set size of 260px could be placed within the actual template, so all current and future boxarts are then automatically changed to 260px. Stickeylabel 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I must be a prat as well then, because I prefer 250. It's not so in your face, it has a touch of style about it and above all, I think it just looks better. - X201 12:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think mention of this discussion should be made on the CVG project discussion page so that others can add to it if they wish. The only problem is that the discussion will probably carry on there, which is wrong. Comments about the Template and decisions about it should be made on this page so that there's a permanent record in the page history. - X201 09:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have updated the template, so that it is able to use 250px boxart properly. Stickeylabel 09:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have found the issue that was causing the 250px problem, and I have fixed it. The issue was that the width was set to 23em, which inturn was too great of a width, which created the thick white side borders. I have now changed it to 22em, and the problem seems to have been resolved. Stickeylabel 08:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not revert 22em back to 23em in future. 23em causes many issues that 22em resolves. Please discuss in future before reverting. Thanks. Stickeylabel 08:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have found the issue that was causing the 250px problem, and I have fixed it. The issue was that the width was set to 23em, which inturn was too great of a width, which created the thick white side borders. I have now changed it to 22em, and the problem seems to have been resolved. Stickeylabel 08:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have updated the template, so that it is able to use 250px boxart properly. Stickeylabel 09:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The slight gap is by design. Images aren't supposed to reach edge-to-edge; there's an intentional gutter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can you please expand how it is "by design"? The "gutter" is not symmetrical, and reduces consistancy between various boxart sizes. Consistancy and functionality is more important than your taste of aesthetics. Please reach consensus from amoungst others on this issue in this section of the talk page, before reverting in future. Stickeylabel 09:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Images aren't supposed to reach edge-to-edge" - where did you pull this from? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fix the color
I think it's been about a year since my last attempt to persuade someone to fix the color of this infobox, so here's a new attempt. The blue and grey still look awful together. In fact, the blue looks bad in Monobook, period. How about copying the elegant {{Infobox CVG system}}? Fredrik Johansson 23:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Protection
This page has been fully protected since September. Why has it been protected this long, and why can't it be unprotected? TJ Spyke 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think so anon's don't mess with it, since its linked to thousands of pages. Thunderbrand 22:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Anons could be blocked from it with a semi-protect. A full protect seems overkill especially seeing as it was done without any reason being posted to this discussion page and without the "Locked" templates being added to the project page. - X201 23:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I changed it to semi, I think. Thunderbrand 23:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Anons could be blocked from it with a semi-protect. A full protect seems overkill especially seeing as it was done without any reason being posted to this discussion page and without the "Locked" templates being added to the project page. - X201 23:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Something's not right here
When I try to access certain articles using this template, I see that the page is messed up. See Shuffle! and Onikakushi-hen for examples. How can this be corrected?--(十八) 15:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- How are they messed up? Not on my browser. What browser and/or extensions are you using? ---Majestic- 15:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm using MSN, but I also tried it in Firefox and the same thing persisted. Here's what I see: http://img444.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picnn4.png --(十八) 15:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Something is wrong with your broser, because that exact article shows correctly on my Firefox: http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/7418/capturerj3.jpg . Try to reload your page by pressing Ctrl+F5 (Firefox). ---Majestic- 15:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well that didn't work, but I did find another solution, albeit a strange one. I cut out the infobox in the articles that were doing this to me (3 in all; was also occuring with Watanagashi-hen) and then I previewed the page. I then pasted the infobox back into the page and saved the edit, but then of course the history didn't record a change because I only cut and pasted the same thing. In any case, that solved the problem and it doesn't seem to have affected any other pages with the infobox that I can see. Weird though since it only affected 3 pages and even stranger how I solved it. o.o Thanks for your help though.--(十八) 15:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Something is wrong with your broser, because that exact article shows correctly on my Firefox: http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/7418/capturerj3.jpg . Try to reload your page by pressing Ctrl+F5 (Firefox). ---Majestic- 15:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm using MSN, but I also tried it in Firefox and the same thing persisted. Here's what I see: http://img444.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picnn4.png --(十八) 15:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Modified CVG Infobox
I have recently updated the infobox, to remove colors and modify cellspacing. Also, with the updated infobox, 250px boxart's now fit properly. The result is an infobox that is similar to Template:Infobox Television. Please respond with your thoughts. Stickeylabel 09:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have again updated the infobox using modified code. I appologise if the code is incorrect, and if the modifications I have performed are not functional. Please revert to an earlier version, if found neccassary. Thanks. Stickeylabel 11:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- It seems there's something wrong with the Publisher line, it doesn't show in articles. By the way, what is the difference between "Publisher" and "Distributor"? Kariteh 11:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not too sure about the differences between "Publisher" and "Distributor", however I have fixed the Publisher line, and it now seems to work. Stickeylabel 13:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- It seems there's something wrong with the Publisher line, it doesn't show in articles. By the way, what is the difference between "Publisher" and "Distributor"? Kariteh 11:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think the template looked much better before your edits. I think the cells with the headlines, i.e. Developer, Publisher etc should be colored, and that the box should be 300+ px wide. --MrStalker 19:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree too. Without the background colors, it starts to read a bit confusing Leileilol 19:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- The Ratings line seems to have a typo somewhere too, it doesn't appear in articles. Kariteh 20:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can't we keep the lines in? It makes the infobox look more organized. Thunderbrand 21:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- My main goal for the modifications was to achieve a level of consistancy between; Television Programs, Films, and Video Games. An added feature is colored headers, as can be seen here; Half-Life 2: Episode One, also I changed it from 23em to 20em, however MrStalker, has reverted that. 20em allows for 250px boxarts to look best in the infobox, to reduce the need for 260px and 300px boxarts, and to achieve some more consistancy. If the previous version is better, please revert the template, as I personally do not really have a preference over which one is better. I do agree that lines make it easier to read, however there seems to be a massive shift with infoboxes recently to remove lines, I'm not sure why, one example is Template:Infobox CVG system, where instead they use colored boxes. I hope to hear your opinions on this. Thanks. Stickeylabel 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I guess that if most are without lines, then all of them should be. Thunderbrand 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- The lines should go back in. The lines make it more organized. easier to read, and look better. TJ Spyke 23:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I guess that if most are without lines, then all of them should be. Thunderbrand 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bug?
I think there's something with the template as it is right now. On some pages I see two paranthesis (}}) at the beginning of the article (for example on rRootage) and I think it's from this template but I may be wrong. Does anybody else see something similar? --analoguedragon 23:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Same here on Naruto: Gekitou Ninja Taisen EX. I have no bloody clue what's causing it; it works fine in Rival Schools: United By Fate. Should we revert all the changes from today? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I've figured out the problem: If there are any blank fields in the infobox on an article, remove them. Placing in any blank fields will cause the two brackets to show up. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Or perhaps they were just fixed by removing the extra set of brackets I saw in the template. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reverted
Um. We discussed what this infobox should look like to death on WT:CVG, and the cited infoboxes being used as an example are fairly ugly. Let's stick to this design, and propose that the TV episode box convert to look like this one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] colour
What happened to the colour?. The box looks plain and sad looking template. Do add some colour.--SkyWalker 07:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- You can add whatever colors you want by modifying your monobook.css file. That's what it's for. Kariteh 08:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "modes" is not sufficient
I suggest instead of "modes" to denote whether the game has single or multi player, to just use "player(s)" and write a number, like 1 or 1-2 or 1-4 etc for how many players it supports. writing "single player" and/or "multi player" is not enough to tell users specifically how many players a game supports at-a-glance. Or perhaps both should be used. please weigh in. Tehw1k1 02:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)