Template talk:VG Navigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] pagename

Regarding the use of {{PAGENAME}} on these templates, doesn't that put unnecessary strain on the WP servers? Combination 18:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No. It's a magic word, not a template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok, nevermind then. Combination 12:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subsections

This template needs to support subsections for extra large series, such as {{Mega Man series}}. Otherwise it makes it fairly difficult to read. For the time being, I'll revert {{Mega Man series}} to the former revision with no template. - Zero1328 Talk? 03:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole point was to get rid of extra large templates; try breaking the template up and omitting non-essential listings. Try splitting up {{Mega Man series}}, as there's not a lot of need to have every single Mega Man game ever in a template. Try a comprehensive list in an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion about the CVG templates

Issue #1: just listing the articles in the template is a cluttered mess alot of the time. Sections should happen. For example: the Resident Evil template has games, films and characters listed. What harm does it do to put them in sections? Just putting film by the movies is fine and all, but the characters are still not games (related to games, yet... but not games itself). When a template is called "X video games", it should be about X games unless noted otherwise. A cluttered mess of a template isn't helping navigate at all. Issue #2: games should be listed, dispite not being released. If the game is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, why must it be left out of the template until it's either released or shown in playable form? It does absolutely no harm to list future games in templates. RobJ1981 06:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Also to further comment about #2: we don't leave things out of categories because they aren't released yet and/or not playable. Templates should be no different. RobJ1981 06:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Re #1, if the article series contains more than just games then it would seem reasonable to use a section style template. While I support these guidelines, one size does not fit all. Re #2, I agree, assuming there's enough info on the article for it to survive an AfD regarding sourcing issues, etc. I think the point about not mentioning unreleased games was to make sure that everything in the nav template has reasonable notability. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: #1, I support sections with one caveat: there should be some sort of guideline as to how many sections one can add to a template. I think sections for "Main Series", "Spin-offs/Sub-series X1", "Sub-series X2", "etc...", "Other Media", and "Misc" ought to more than sufficent for most game series. Adding too many sections is what led to templates like the old Half-Life navbox. If we can avoid including too much meta-information and stick to links to lists and umbrella articles, I think we're in good shape. Also, the sections used in Template:Resident_Evil_series seems to be adding quite a bit of white-space. Template:Mega Man series seems to avoid this, but isn't as visually appealing. I'm affraid I'm not handy enough with table syntax to address this myself, but I would appreciate if someone can help create a more condensed look.
As for #2, I think there's a compelling reason to leave off unreleased games. Announced games being cancelled or being released in a vastly different form than originally announced is a common occurance. In addition, articles about upcoming games are often speculative and lacking in information. Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles, for example, is mostly about what isn't known about the game and rumors. Articles about Mother 3, Dinosaur Planet, and Conker's Quest would have had very little to do with their eventual products had they been written when first announced. At best, articles about games whose release is far off only claim that the game is probably going to be released in the form described. There was a general feeling (which, admitably, might have just been a compromise between myself and A Man in Black) that games that had playable demos released to the press was easily definable, concrete evidence that the game was going to be released as promised. I'd submit adopting this standard as a guideline for including unreleased games. ― El Cid ∴∵ 07:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

#1 goes back to the problem that necessitated a standard in the first place; if you need multiple sections, you're probably cramming too much into a single template. We're better off linking small groups of articles and an article that links the whole series together than cramming an elaborate table into dozens of articles. I would encourage people to read the "Navboxes yet again" discussion in the WT:CVG archives, as this was discussed at length.

Take the RE template for example. If there's too much going on in that template to make sense (I don't think so, but for the sake of argument), then the best bet would probably be to start by omitting the movies. Then all of the things with proper names are video games, and are broken up in a very simple way (the numbered games and the rest of the games). Anyone who wants to know about how the games fit together into series can click the big, bold, prominently-linked Resident Evil up top.

As for #2, El Cid has it on the nose. The playable form idea was, IIRC, his, and it was a damned good one; not only does it help make sure that we're not talking just about vapor or promo materials, but also it dovetails nicely into WP:N, since it makes sure independent commentary on the game itself is actually possible. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As for #1: Totally agreed. The only thing that have been added (nothing has changed) are the left labels. As I've said it before, a newbie player wouldn't understand it and would be confused. (Check the Template:Pac-Man series.
As for #2: Agreed, but only the games articles that have at least a good reference (For examle: Resident Evil 5 has enough references, so it can be added. Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl also has more than enough references.). Other articles with no references shouldn't be added (For example. Soul Calibur IV, is listed in the template, but a reference should be added as soon as possible). Armando.Otalk • Ev 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Going without labels makes templates as broad as that Pac-Man template totally useless, agreed. I think where we differ is that I don't think we should have templates as broad as that Pac-Man template at all. We need a template for Pac-Man maze games, maybe Pac-Man World, and the rest can go in a category. This goes back to the "every game with Mario in it" definition of "series", and that definition makes for useless navboxes.
Resident Evil 5 is sourced, again, entirely to Capcom statements about what their game is going to be like. That's what a reasonable standard of inclusion is meant to exclude. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
That's stupid. All of those are Pac-man games, and must be listed. It looks like you want to make templates with just two or three links. THAT is useless. This is not about how template looks, but how much it HELPS. Armando.Otalk • Ev 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, what's the point of including some and not all? A template is a navigation tool (just like categories). I don't see any Pac-Man games without a Pac-Man category, just because they "aren't notable enough" or aren't out yet, and so on. Templates should be no different. Why should people have to look through mass listings in a category, when a template serves the same purpose: navigation. Main series, spin-off (and so on) are very suitable and reasonable sections for a template. People shouldn't have to read a "series" article just to find out which are main games, spinoffs and so on. RobJ1981 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think there's a danger in applying a kitchen sink mindset when including articles to a navbox. All navboxes make limitations on what they include and what they don't. Template:Massachusetts doesn't list every city and town in the commonwealth, and Template:World War II doesn't include every battle or Allied Country. I think sometimes when it comes to things like video games on Wikipedia, we forget that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to help people learn about the subject, not to satisfy the appetites of fans who want to create a database of everything they know about the topic at hand. Games like BS The Legend of Zelda: Kodai no Sekiban and Mega Man DOS are really ancillary topics that are more the domain of enthusiests, and the purpose of navboxes is to provide a simple way to gain access to relavent articles, and not bombard the reader with as many links as we can. Categories serve their purpose and navboxes serve another. If the two had the exact same information, they would be redundant. ― El Cid ∴∵ 23:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you have a point, however games such as Tekken 6, Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles and so on... do belong in the templates (even if a very few think templates must have "playable" games and so on). The games have been proven to exist, (and as I stated before): they are notable for an article here, so being in the template shouldn't be a big issue. It's not a fake game, it's certainly not a fan-made game or anything of the such. The game's status shouldn't make it template worthy or not. RobJ1981 23:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if Tekken 6 or Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles exist any more than, say, Star Fox 2 did when screenshots of it were shown. And sometimes articles get made prematurely and really shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia. The upcoming Zelda game for Wii has been through the Articles for Deletion process on three separate occasions, and was added to the template each time, IIRC. Including upcoming games isn't really a deal-breaking issue for me, but if we don't have a standard, then games that have been announced in an off-hand manner or even rumored can start creeping into templates. ― El Cid ∴∵ 23:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think sometimes when it comes to things like video games on Wikipedia, we forget that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to help people learn about the subject, not to satisfy the appetites of fans who want to create a database of everything they know about the topic at hand. (El Cid) - Well, that is rare. If we know a lot about a topic, we must contribute as much as we can. That's the reason why Wikipedia lives. If we just write mediocre articles, then Wikipedia would be useless. Why wirte mediocre articles when a lot of people is able to create featured articles? Now, about this: not to satisfy the appetites of fans who want to create a database...Fans create and write the articles, not only for fans but everyone who read it. Why would we want to satisfy ourselves? To say, Hey, I'm the creator of that article, I'm the best I'm great! No! (omg, we're getting out of the discussion) About the games that hasn't been already released, but have references and citations, MUST be added. (I've already said this above)Now, if there are speculations of an upcoming game that is based on rumors and don't even have references, the mustn't be listed in the template and MUST be deleted. Everyone know this. Armando.Otalk • Ev 20:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

About the games that hasn't been already released, but have references and citations, MUST be added.
Why? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not? It's a navigational template. It's an encyclopedia. If you want to learn about a specific topic, let's say, a game, wouldn't you want to know about even unreleased games? Wouldn't Star Fox 2 be interesting to people who was looking up information about Star Fox? That's why it should be included, imo. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why not?

The answer is because it's a navigation template. Not an exhaustive list, not an exhaustive category, not a comprehensive article about the series, but instead a tool that directs readers to a tightly-integrated series of articles. Each of the articles builds on each other. The articles in the template need to be necessary and important for understanding the larger whole of the article series.

An incomplete game may or may not turn out to be important. It may be a multimillion-seller, redefining the way people think about the series, but it may be an abortive attempt that is largely forgotten after its release. (Castlevania: Symphony of the Night versus Castlevania 64.) An incomplete game may not even see release; Dead Phoenix (the unreleased game in the Capcom Five) and Warhammer Online were both as far along as many of the examples offered (and both were major releases from major publishers), and both disappeared without a trace.

A common counter-argument is that "Well, it will be important when it's released." I daresay people felt the same way about Dead Phoenix, Warhammer Online, and Castlevania 64. We can't assume it's important because the game developers say so or because related games are important; big games flop or die all the time, and the game developers want to sell you something. (The epitome of an unreliable source.)

As for necessity for understanding, presumably it was possible to understand, say, the Tekken series from 1 to Dark Res before the announcement of Tekken 6, and thus it continues to be so. As for the Tekken 6 article, it doesn't yet give you any understanding of what Tekken 6 will be, because right now T6 is a series of speculative statements and three trailers (as well as a project nobody has been allowed to play and talk about yet, of course). We can't say anything about Tekken 6 except that Namco wants people to be excited about it, and is saying things they think will excite people. It's certainly notable as an event (the promotion of Tekken 6), but not at all notable as a game (note that nobody has reported on the game itself, only on Namco's statements about the game). This is a fine hair to split, but an important one. Once someone has played the game and reported on it, then the article turns the corner to being about the game, and should be included in the template.

To anticipate objections to the example, Tekken 6 is an example of a game exactly on the wrong side of the line. If it has been shown in playable form (someone claimed that, but didn't source it), feel free to substitute any upcoming game that hasn't yet been shown in playable form.

This is the upshot of the discussion from "Navboxes yet again", and the reasoning why I've gone to bat for drawing the line at being shown in playable form. It's a compromise between waiting until the game is released and looking at the results of the actual release, and adding games as soon as they're "confirmed" (what does that even mean?) or announced or when an article is made. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you're saying, but there are some situations where an announced game can be notable (ah, the keyword). -- Ned Scott 07:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
What about sections in templates? I don't know if I missed it or not: but the matter of sections in templates hasn't been addressed. As I've stated before: naming a template "Resident Evil video games" then just jamming in films, and video game characters with no sections is a mess. Sections organize templates (just like how sections organize articles) on Wikipedia. If one template for Resident Evil is all that is made (since there is only a few films): then it should be Resident Evil series as the title. 3 major sections: video games, movies and misc. (which is for characters and so on). As another example (which doesn't include movies): Mario Party. 2 sections: main games (which are for consoles), then the other games. Organizing in sections is the key in my opinion, just putting "film" by the article isn't the solution. An example of a decent template with sections (which was reverted due to the "standard appearance" excuse: [1]. Other than the redlink: the template is just fine that way. And another: Template:Resident Evil series. These two examples (along with most game templates) would be fine with sections, as long as they don't get too huge. Sections to organize should exist to avoid cluttered messes in templates. Navigation is the key. Also, people shouldn't have to go to the main article for the series to find out the exact order, when a template can do that. RobJ1981 08:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I tend to prefer having some form of sections or other visual separation, but if we do such then we must be very careful that it doesn't encourage bad links, nor does it have needless sectioning. I believe AMIB is just being really cautious about the issue, since many times we can just cut sections out as a way to discourage bad links and bloated templates. For many templates, this is very good advice. That being said, as long as you can avoid a bloated nav template with bad links or needless sectioning, then you should be fine. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I wish it was that easy, but it's not. I can imagine if the template gets sections: AMIB will revert like he has been doing. How can anyone else edit a template if it just gets reverted again and again? That's what I would like to know. Look at edit histories for several templates: people have put in decent sections (not bloated or anything), and they get reverted just about every time. RobJ1981 15:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Editing this template? Probably wouldn't fly, since it's like our default advice. Just make an individual nav template. -- Ned Scott 23:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone offer a suggestion of an example where labeling is needed? Inevitably, the examples are "Games" and "Other" (which is totally useless, since the things that are not games are clearly not games) or an arbitrary "Main series", "Other games", and "Other". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
If it's mostly just games then I don't see the need for labeling, but if other media becomes significantly involved in the article series then I can see how it can help. I will try to find a good example. -- Ned Scott 23:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, to me, the navigational template is just a list of umbrella articles that exist on wikipedia. I'm not suggesting for the inclusion of specific articles branching off unreleased games, but just the main article themselves. For example, Star Fox 2 and Tekken 6, but not, say, a character new in Tekken 6. That's pretty obvious and I'm pretty sure that's the consensus everywhere on wikipedia. However, what I don't understand is why an artice exists on wikipedia but can't be included on the template. The thing with me is, if the article for said unreleased game exists, it should be ok to be included on the template. Else, delete the article, because it's not notable enough. But the in between of having an article AND saying it can't go on a navigational template is what I don't agree to. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish someone would address the reasons why I stated upcoming games should be excluded with something other than "We should include the main game articles for upcoming games, that's pretty obvious." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said it like that. I meant, it's obvious that we don't include non-unbrellas articles. Plus, no one addresses why it can't be included in navigational templates if the article is notable enough to exist. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Short version, then: because there are lots of things that exist that aren't important enough to put in a template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
We should make something clear here.. there is not a ban on these things, and while much of what's suggested here is true for most of the time that does not mean it is true all of the time. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No ban? News to me. With all the constant reverting going on, it made it feel like there was a ban on things. RobJ1981 06:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a guideline. It has exceptions by design. Duke Nukem Forever has no release date and hasn't been shown in playable form, but you can hardly talk about the series without mentioning it. If an article is essential to understanding the series as a whole despite the fact that it's about an unreleased game, an exception should be made.
There are exceptional cases, but the routine "Please be excited about this upcoming game" stuff isn't it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Why? Now it just sounds like you're partial to Duke Nukem games. Why isn't Star Fox 2 in the template then? It is for Star Fox as Duke Nukem Forever is to Duke Nukem games, imo. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Team Fortress 2 would be another possible example, but it's not quite as clear-cut. There are infamous unreleased games, but Please Be Excited About Our Next Game isn't really one of them. Have there been any disputes about such-and-such allegedly-infamous cancelled game being put into infoboxes? This seems to be a distraction from the main point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is this a distraction from the main point? It's the CVG Navigation template talk, not the Tekken template talk. It's a valid point, and if you think I'm arguing for the sake of one game's article, you're really off. I have no special attachment for the Tekken 6 article. For Tekken 6, I just think that it should either be deleted or put on the navigational template. Simple as that. I'm trying to argue why you think it's ok for Duke Nukem Forever to be on a template but not other infamous games like Star Fox 2 (and I guess Team Fortress 2). --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between an upcoming game and an infamous cancelled/delayed one. You're offering examples of the latter when I'm talking about the former. Tekken 6, RE5, the unnamed Zelda game, the still-vapor upcoming Medal of Honor games, whatever; it's a homogenous group, which should be excluded for the reasons I stated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the obvious answer to why something like Duke Nukem Forever would be included in a template is that the game has received significant press coverage exactly because it's hasn't been released for years now. Any commentary you'll get about the series from the media is going to include allusions to DNF. The series' legacy is basically as a poster child of vaporware. ― El Cid ∴∵ 21:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean deleting the Tekken 6 article? Because if that's the case: that's not how Wikipedia works. If something doesn't make it to a template, the article shouldn't be deleted. Tekken 6 is confirmed, but it being (or not being in) a template shouldn't decide if it remains as an article or not. RobJ1981 23:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand why all this is important, but it would seem AMIB is being a little bit too strict here. The Halo nav template didn't include a link to Halo Wars.. -- Ned Scott 00:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Um. you've got it backwards, I think. I don't want to delete Tekken 6, just not include it in a template that contains only core topics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand your reasons. I think that the only thing that an article needs are references to know if it exists or will exist. If it will be cancelled, that's another thing. Nobody knows! Even the developers or the creators don't know either. Now, if we do as you say, we may wait months or more than a year to include the article on the template until it's released. That's not reasonable. Armando.Otalk • Ev 02:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel that we should wait those months or years for a reasonable bar to separate the maybes from the definites. (The Metroid Dreads from the Metroid Prime Pinballs, if you prefer.) Why is this not reasonable? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is not reasonable if people have brains and use it(so we can reason and know what it's reasonable and what's not). The game is referecend, but if it has been cancelled, the easiest think we can do is to make another label named Cancelled or cancelled games. Isn't this reasonable. Armando.Otalk • Ev 02:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Then we go back to the ginormous Zelda and RE and MK (and many others) templates, with dozens of links, which are useless for anyone who isn't already well-initiated in the series.
"Using your brain" is easy to say, and just as empty. Why should we include cancelled games, which are of extremely narrow interest? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Why narrow? Why? Please specify. Armando.Otalk • Ev 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Because they weren't released. The only people who knew about them were people who follow game press at the time they were announced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
And if you keep templates narrow, then NO ONE will ever know about them, and information spread will hit a hurdle, and that's not what we're aiming for. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
We're not here to evangelize these minor topics, though. When you add lots of low-importance content, you obscure high-importance content. This is the worst-case example of a low bar on in-universe content, and this shows the dangers of a low bar on games that may not be important to the series as a whole (as well as the dangers of not identifying a clear game series and focusing on it). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not here to say that we should include everything on every article either. I'm here to say that the navigational guideline is not a guideline, as it does not have consensus. Further work is needed before consensus can be reached. But until then, there should be no reason why you should advocate it as guideline. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It did have community consensus at WP:CVG, and I believe it still does. I'm seeing the same arguments that didn't generate any support and that have been refuted in the "Navboxes yet again" discussion here, so I have a little trouble understanding how you could've read that and been unaware of the responses. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Because I tallied the discussion and it did not have consensus, and that is what you told me to look at for proof of consensus. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean you counted votes? You realize that was a discussion and not a vote, and that we discuss things instead of counting noses to make decisions, right? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand that it's not generally done as a straw vote. I didn't really count things as yes or no but I listed down what each user said. And from that, you can see that there isn't consensus. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized discussion

This is going on in at least three different places, so let's focus. WT:CVG#Navboxes III: Son of Navboxes seems like as good a place as any (since it's visible and relevant), so let's all go there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The latest discussion is here: WT:CVG#VG Navigation groups. If nobody disagrees with the decision, we should start migrating the templates from {{VG Navigation}} with {{Navbox}}. —TigerK 69 (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
All the the navboxes have been converted. The only thing left to do is mark {{VG Navigation}} as deprecated. —TigerK 69 (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Font size

Why is the font size getting smaller every day? It will be so small soon that it will look like this _.,._,,_.--The Negotiator 00:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is because of the change between toccolours class to navbox class, I made the switch to try and reduce code in the template. When I add the font-size:95% back in, AMIB thought it was unneed and reverted it. Anyway, it only 1 or 2 pixel per line, so I really don't see the complaint. —Dispenser 04:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)