Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arcade games/Infobox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arcade games > Infobox

This talk page is for discussion related to the format and style of Template:Infobox Arcade Game.

Contents 1 Monitor/Size 2 New Infobox? 3 Wikipedia:Infobox 4 Hardware info in infobox 5 Marquees instead of titles 6 Separating lines by colors or cells? 6.1 Discussion Part 2 6.2 Voting 6.2.1 Vote tally 6.2.2 Comments 7 Screenshot image size 8 Font size 9 Optional lines 10 Adapting the VG Infobox 10.1 Ports 11 A new beginning 11.1 Decision? 11.1.1 Notes field 11.1.2 Ports field 11.1.3 Consensus 12 Z80 CPU 13 Palette colors, resolution, orientation…

[edit] Monitor/Size

The Monitor/size field is usually hard to fill. Some games have been released as conversion kits or cartridges, and thus there is no monitor size for them. Other games had several cabinet types with different monitor sizes. The information is also hard to obtain, KLOV rarely helps, and for most people it is not that interesting. Thus I would suggest to remove this field from future infoboxes and the infobox template. Possibly it could be replaced by the screen resolution in pixels. --Tjansen 20:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good call and good point (often monitor size varied). I can remove it from the infobox template. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:56, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New Infobox?

I noticed that someone has recently created infoboxes for Elevator Action and Jungle Hunt which are slightly different to the ones currently used for the other arcade game articles. Are we going with this new design, sticking with the old one or merging the two together? --DaveGorman 20:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, use of the infobox presented on the main page is just a suggestion. Use of it is strictly voluntary. So anyone can use any infobox they please--even ad-hoc ones for every article they create. So the answer is "go with whatever feels good." :-) I don't have any objections to the new one--it is similar enough not to be jarring. I even like some of the extra info it has, but it's probably not appropriate for every article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:11, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

IMHO the extra fields are too technical. Few people care about the exact technical details. Maybe some people find it interesting that the system used a Z-80, but a 'AY-3-8910' sound chip? As most games are based on a relatively small number of hardware platforms, it would be more appropriate to create pages for the platforms (Sega Naomi, CPS-3, System 16...) and just link to them. This solution does not help for early games with custom-design though.. but a page for each manufacturer that explains the technical details of their early games may would help.--Tjansen 16:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with you. While the CPU powering the game is mildly interesting, the sound chip used is obscure except to the most dedicated hobbyists. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:17, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Infobox

I have placed a copy of the infobox at Wikipedia:Infobox, so make sure any future changes are reflected there. Tuf-Kat 04:47, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hardware info in infobox

I've been disputing the changes that AshSert has been making to the infoboxes in all the arcade game articles. We discussed it before and decided that hardware information was not appropriate for the arcade game infobox. I've relaxed my position a little and stated that if the information is concise (like one line), it can be included. Otherwise I've stated that it should be included in a seperate section of the article.

Furhtermore, while the infobox is just a suggestion and editors can use whatever infobox they feel is groovy, I object to him going about and adding the information to all existing articles. Take a look at the A.P.B. article. If you scroll down to the "System hardware/Arcade system board" section, you'll see a huge glob of information, most of which is useless and incromprehensible to most readers. I stated that I don't object to the information, it just isn't appropriate in the infobox. He just told me to revert all his articles that he changed. Since he then just went and reverted the A.P.B. to his version again, I assume he would do the same to any other articles I reverted.

Compare the current version of A.P.B to the previous version and see which you like better. I'd like to discuss this matter here before AshSert continues with his effort. Anyone have any input? Should we include the hardware info—no matter how long—in the infobox? — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:08, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

The hardware information dominates never anywere, is hardware information and stay alone for all the interested to engineering background and development, you must not look there. AshSert

Now I have found a new Style which needs much less place, check this! AshSert

I think that it is a good idea to have a link to an extra page that describes the hardware, like the Atari System 2 link. But not more, especially not in the infobox that is supposed to give you an overview. The IDs of some obscure chips and the exact frequencies of them are neither comprehensible nor interesting for 99.9% of the readers. Who wants to know that A.P.B. had a 'YM2151 3.579545 Mhz'? Not even KLOV includes this kind of information. --Tjansen 23:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see this in Mame32 Plus Screen "Proberties" or from http://www.system16.com/ or mameinfo.dat & history.dat Addon. I have all Infobox + Hardware Info from 1942 up to Battlezone complemented, a i cant all make, need a little help, many Games have neither an infobox or a screenshots :( AshSert

AshSert, Tjansen expressed my thoughts exactly. The information is too obscure to interest most readers. It's okay to have a concise blurb on the hardware in the infobox, but more information should go in a seperate section in the article. From your writing, I can tell English isn't your first language. That's okay, we're here to help. What about our proposal do you not understand?

Next, your "new" hardware section is worse than the previous one. Not only did I not appreciate you deleting my comments, but it has a wikilink an infobox section heading, which goes against Wikipedia standards—section headings should not contain wikilinks. The style you had before was better, as long as you leave the hardware as just one line. See my change on the project page to see what I would prefer (other participants, please comment). If it takes more than one line to describe the hardware, put the description in a "Hardware" section of the article.

I'm sorry that you feel a lot of your work is going to waste, but I told you to stop long before you edited most of them. Please, stop editing the infoboxes until we get the issue resolved here first. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:35, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

sorry my english is not best, i mean, Why the developers and engineers should have to read the whole article to come to the important data, and the joystick and other not so important data must stand in the info box? write the Joystick/Cabinet Data in a seperate section in the article, but not the engineering backgrounds!! I find it impertinently, which somebody whom only know want like the Machine functions, should search the whole texts for it.In addition, the Font is much bigger beyond the box with less overview and you cannot split the Infos in the Box and bigger in article. The articles are only meant for the Gameplay and a little History if you insert there the hardware and not in the box, you break the article really, I think.AshSert

Wikipedia articles are not intended for developers and engineers, they should be readable and understandable for a broad audience. For the same reason Java programming language does not contain the complete grammar for Java, even though it would be extremely useful for someone who wants to implement the language, but the article rather tries to give an overview over the language and its tools. The article merely links to more detailed information, but does not contain it. Concerning joystick/controls, i think they are quite useful to give you an overview. Let's take Area 51 (video game): i think the screenshot plus the controls (lightgun) plus genre (first person shooter) give you a pretty good first impression of the game. The fact that it contains two processors called Tom and Jerry doesnt.--Tjansen 13:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also engineers and developers are interested in the articles, at least all have built the machine. They get their first impression about the hardware! Area51 is only good for them because it uses no Z80 processor! Only by the Harwareinfos, one gets to 10% a Game impression! They document an engineering development which never are in the Screenshot in it!

The statement: "two processors called Tom and Jerry" carries more History in itself than every flowery fairy tale around the Game! AshSert

I doubt that anyone is interested in a machine just because the CPUs are called Tom and Jerry, or because it uses a Z80. All these arcade machines are running on stone-age hardware and are already emulated by Mame, so I wonder which engineers you are talking about anyway. --Tjansen 15:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are big differences between a Z80 processor, a Tom Jaguar GPU or a PSX CPU! Or can you Strider 2 or G-Darius play? The last can do Mame without Plugins almost not on HighEnd PCs emulate and every pocket calculator can do the first one emulate. Mame have Games from 30 years! AshSert

I know... but this is not information that is so important that it belongs into the infobox. --Tjansen 17:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many people want to know what has changed what in 30 years Arcade, only in pictures one does not see this! AshSert

The names of CPUs help even less...--Tjansen 00:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They are only to click for interested thought, these are Wiki-links! AshSert

I have now first in all Games from 1942 up to Battlezone a Split-Line add, for CPU & Sound chips. Wrecking Crew up to Zaxxon 100% full converted, i need more help for the rest! AshSert

Okay, AshSert, you're last round of edits borders on vandalism. Not only have you gone through most of the articles and added information that everyone else has said is irrelevant, you went and changed all the infoboxes to a design you alone came up with! While this is allowed for any user, going through all the articles and changing them to fit your personal tastes is not something I take lightly.

We (the participants in this project) collaberated on the design of the infobox and came up with something we all agreed on was best. You've gone about making changes to it without taking anyone's input on it. We said leave out the hardware info, you kept putting it back in, even after having your versions reverted several times!

Wikipedia is not your personal sandbox you can edit to your delight. It is a collaberation. Start taking these discussions seriously and cooperating or you will find yourself banned.

Now, I've reverted your edits to the infobox on the Project page. If you want to change it, fine, but discuss it here first'. I'd go through and revert all your edits in all the articles but I suspect you'd just revert them to your pleasing. We are trying to make Wikipedia the best it can be. Either start cooperating or get locked out: it's that simple.

As I've stated several times before, I'm not opposed to the hardware info being in the article. As Tjansen said, Wikipedia is not just for hardware geeks: it is for everyone. There is nothing wrong with including the information in a seperate section of the article. The interested reader won't have to dig through the entire article to find the info, most will have a table of contents with which they can jump right to the info he/she desires.

It seems Tjansen doesn't want the hardware information in the article at all. He is certainly entitled to his opinion. Which do you prefer, moving the information out of the infobox into a seperate section of the article or removing it entirely? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:27, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

I find it stupidly to accommodate information in articles which are long all differently. This damages to the overview. This is important information only in the infobox may! We want to see them seeing from the first sight and not reading like a book, somewhere. I have made an infobox in a lot of Games where before generally none was! AshSert

Forgive me if this response doesn't exactly address everything in your last post, but I can't understand some of it.  :-S I'm sorry if you don't like reading, but no one else here thinks that information belongs in the infobox. Like I've said about a dozen times before, that information is okay, just not in the infobox. If you want to put it in new infoboxes, that's fine. But I'm really offended that you went back and retrofitted all the existing infoboxes with new, non-standard infoboxes that no one else agreed to. Those articles had infoboxes—you just mangled them to fit your personal tastes.

Let me try to explain why this is a problem. You seem to think that it is urgent that we include the hardware information in the infoboxes because you really like that info and you don't want to have to read the whole article to get to it. Suppose I really like movie cameras. I mean, I really like them. I have a collection of over a dozen. I'm shocked that the movie infoboxes don't include information about what kind of cameras were used to shoot the movies. I add that information to the movie infoboxes. Sometimes as many as a dozen different types of cameras were used to shoot a movie; that doesn't matter. That I get the information in there is what's important. When I look at a movie article, I want to see what kind of cameras were used to shoot that movie—that's all that I care about. I couldn't care about the less important aspects of the movie, such as the actors, the plot, the director and how popular it is: all I care about is what kind of cameras were used to film the movie. Since that is what's most important to me, it must be in the infobox.

"But," I hear you say, "hardly anyone else cares about that information." Really? That doesn't matter! Wikipedia exists to suit my tastes only. I will keep including that information in all movie infoboxes forever. Anyone who disagrees with me can take a flying leap.

Now, do you see how absurd this is? This is exactly what we are trying to say to you, AshSert. Almost no one else cares what kind of hardware arcade games run on. While I think it is certainly okay to include that information in the article itself, it should be in a seperate section. Those interested can read it—after reading one article with hardware information in it, they'll see that for any other articles all they need to do is jump to the "Hardware" section and can skip the rest. Including it as you are hides other information that most readers really care about.

Here's what I propose (Tjansen and other participants, please chime in):

• Make as many new infoboxes as you like in articles that don't already have them. You can make them however you please, in whatever style you like, containing any information you like. Just don't retrofit the existing ones.
• If you come across a game with an infobox and you want to add hardware information to it, please put that information in a seperate section, like.
• Don't get upset if someone changes your infobox to conform to the project's infobox. You can discuss these issues on the pertinent article's Talk page.

Next, I propose that we revert the articles that had infoboxes that you changed to your non-standard one. Any hardware information you added can be placed in a new hardware section. Articles to which you added new infoboxes can remain as they are. I think I am being resonable. I would appreciate any comments before I go about doing this.

Lastly, thank you for creating infoboxes in the articles that didn't have any. We appreciate such assistance. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:29, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

AshSert's reply, with Frecklefoot's comments quoted:

• Make as many new infoboxes as you like in articles that don't already have them. You can make them however you please, in whatever style you like, containing any information you like. Just don't retrofit the existing ones.

This does not go because I have no model, you remove them in WikiProject Arcade games!! You force your oversized version without hardware info upon all other! I have to do no desire only for new articles of myself only the better box, if here already 230 Games are. AshSert

• If you come across a game with an infobox and you want to add hardware information to it, please put that information in a seperate section, like this version of this article does.

This looks disturbed totally, without table, one must scrolling or search the heading!AshSert

Lastly, thank you for creating infoboxes in the articles that didn't have any. We appreciate such assistance.

This was only a prevention against the old box thought. AshSert

AshSert, please don't insert your comments inline with previous posts. If you must, for clarity, quote from the previous poster. Posting comments inline makes it difficult for readers to distinguish between comments/posters/etc. I've removed your comments and quoted them above.

Next, I try to interpret what you mean by your comments, but your English is so poor, I find it very difficult. I will attempt to address what I believe your greviences are:

AshSert: "This does not go because I have no model, you remove them in WikiProject Arcade games!! You force your oversized version without hardware info upon all other! I have to do no desire only for new articles of myself only the better box, if here already 230 Games are."

You can retrieve your version of the infobox by selecting "Page history" from the project page. There you will see a list of all edits. Your last one contains your infobox. Simply click the date of the edit and your version of the article will appear. From there you can click "Edit this page" and copy the code for your version of the infobox." Do not click the "Save" button. Simply close the window or back out of it. Of course, I prefer that you not use that version of the infobox, but this isn't a despotism.

No one else has complained that the infobox is "oversized." In fact, it uses a smaller font than most infoboxes in Wikipedia. On the other hand, I find it very difficult to read the text in your version of the infobox, and I have 20/20 vision. I suspect that you run on a system with a very low resolution, perhaps 640x480? Most users run with at least an 800x600 resolution and many run much higher. We must target the majority of people and few people run with a resolution lower than 800x600. I'm sorry if you do, but we can't target just you.

I think that this may be why you object to putting the information in a seperate section: the table of contents in not visible in the initial amount of text. You complained that the user must scroll down to see the contents, but for me and most users it is visible immediately. Once again, we can't change everything to suit you and your system. We must target the greatest number of users.

I'm not sure what you meant by "I have to do no desire only for new articles of myself only the better box, if here already 230 Games are." I think you mean you want to use your infobox for new articles. I addressed how to do that using your model. I have no idea what you meant by "if here already 230 Games are." You mean you changed the infobox in 230 articles to your version? Egads!

AshSert: "This looks disturbed totally, without table, one must scrolling or search the heading!"

Once again, I think the problem stems that your system uses much too low of a resolution. Your version of the infobox would only be legible for a user running at 640x480 or lower. As I stated before, this is not the case for most users. Really. Ask anyone here on the 'pedia. Most are running at 800x600 or higher. Actually, you may be the only user running at such a low resolution. If you are running at a higher resolution, you must have your text size set to "Largest." If this is the case, try setting it to "Medium."

AshSert: "This was only a prevention against the old box thought."

Sorry, don't know what you meant here. I hope I it addressed it sufficiently in the rest of my reply.

AshSert, it seems like you want us to change Wikipedia to suit your personal tastes alone. We can't and won't. If your preferences were more inline with everyone elses, there wouldn't be a problem. You accuse me of "forcing" the current infobox on people. In fact, that infobox was decided upon by the participants of this project in a democratic manner. You, on the other hand, forced your version of the infobox on others by changing it on the project page without even bothering to ask others to comment on it! Who's more totalitarian here?

AshSert, your big contention is that the infobox must contain hardware info on the game. I and TJansen have stated it doesn't belong there. You seem to be the only one who wants that information in there. So, I challenge you to find one Wikipedia user—one—who also thinks the hardware info belongs in the infobox, and I may reconsider (don't try to use sockpuppets to garner "support"). I don't think you can find one long-time user who'll agree with you. That information can just as easily go in a seperate section. I'm sorry if it'll require you to scroll. For crying out loud, I can do that simply by turning the middle button on my mouse. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:59, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'm going to go through and change all the infoboxes back that AshSert changed and move any hardware info he added to a "Hardware" section in the article. I'll start within the next few days. Please discuss here if you have any concerns. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:46, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

If you do, what about the monitor section in the infobox? I don't think that it has enough relevance to be in the infobox, except the information whether it is a vector or a raster monitor. And for the few vector games this could be mentioned in the Notes section.--Tjansen 11:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I'll have to change the infobox template too then. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:37, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marquees instead of titles

I changed a little, Marquees ist the orginal Titles-Scans from orginal Arcades, and with it we do not have to write longer the titles! See the new nice Look in Pacman or Rally-X! :) AshSert 14:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Marquees are great, but you lifted them straight from another website! Did you get their permission? If so, note it on the image's page. As it is, it looks like you just lifted the image straight from coinop.org. Just because you stated it is fair use, it doesn't mean it is. We can use the marquee as long as you get coinop.org/'s permission or you take a photo of the marquee yourself. I've reverted your changes to the template until we get some marquee's we can really use with permission. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:21, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, AshSert, cut it out. You're adding illegal images of the marquees to all the arcade game articles. One of us is going to have to go back through and revert all your vandalism of the articles. We can't legally use images lifted straight off the Internet. The images look good, they'd be nice additions to the infobox, but we can't legally use the ones you're uploading. Please only upload legally obtained images. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:16, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

yes, sorry for the alternate Source, I will take of course my own. AshSert 20:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dude, I'm not sure you get it. You're going through the articles and taking out the caption text (which doesn't show up anyway) and taking out the sites you got the image from. Are you planning to upload new marquee images (legal ones)? If not, all the marquee stuff should be removed. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I have some from a free collection, the authors are not noticeable, it is used by a lot of sides, however, they are not from there. AshSert 21:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are the images public domain or is the site just "free." The Killer List of Videogames is a "free" site, but we can't just lift images from there—we still need permission to do so (and give them credit). What site are you taking them from? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:28, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't do this, even if it looks better: it reduces accessibility (you wont be able to read it with a text-based browser, a Braille browser, a mobile phone/PDA browser etc); the text on marquees is often very hard to read; you lose meta information (you can see infobox content as a kind of database). And most of all, I think it's questionable to replace free content, even if it is a headline, with content that's only available under fair use. The fair use article says that "In order to justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new."? Can the use of the marquees advance knowledge, or are they used as decoration? And another issue: the marquees do not only contain copyrighted images, but they may also contain trademarks. I am not sure in how far this affects the whole fair use thing. By the way, as far as I know taking the photograph yourself instead of grabbing them from a website does not change the status of the marquees, as making a plain photograph does not qualify as an artistic contribution and is thus not protectable. Just to be on the safe side, I would never grab a photograph from a site, but i doubt that it matters. --Tjansen 18:27, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tjansen, then. I didn't realize the extent of fair use. AshSert, do you want to revert all your marqee changes and have the marquee images deleted, or do you want someone else to do it (I prefer the former, of course).

For future reference, AshSert, please do a "test" page off your user page and ask for input from here first, before going about and making sweeping changes across all the articles. I've reverted the addition (once again) to the infobox. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:13, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in. :) AshSert, please stop making wholesale changes to the infobox or anything else. To me, the infobox conveys everything it should and I don't see what else we could add that would be useful without making the pages just a huge infobox. The point of the infobox is to be a QUICK reference, not to be comprehensive. So one screenshot is good enough...a screenshot taken from MAME...it's legal...we don't have to clear it with anyone...and it suffices. So please stop messing with it. If you want to add more articles or edit articles, great, but I don't see what else can be done to "improve" the infoboxes or the general format of the pages. So please stop. All it does is annoy everyone and it creates mucho mucho work to undo what you have done. --Woohookitty 00:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do interest me the displays of any pocket calculators? Is this here the dictatorship of the blind people? However, 95% of the users have a big monitor and can see all information!

The Marquees are impressions of the developers. This is important information which one cannot read in the text.

The Marquees of the machines stood always for the general impression of the Games, i find them, actually, even more important than Screenshots! Screenshots are chosen by chance and do not give for which the Game stands. I have used none they have no good quality.

I think Exceptions must be permitted, somewhere. Where?

Every Game has only one Marquee, this is like the flag of the land! AshSert 22:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think a picture of the marquee would be acceptable elsewhere in the article, on the side of a body of text for example. However, it does not belong in the infobox. --Poiuyt Man (talk) 23:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then it is in each article somewhere, that was however no Doormat always separates in the reality over the snapshot and in the same width. I had wanted the place exactly there! :( AshSert 10:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I want to second what Woohookitty said. I made the initial infobox, but it was modified over time. But the modification was always done by discussing it here. You, AshSert, on the other hand, seem to think that obviousely your way is best and make wholesale changes across all the articles.

There really is a problem with using the marquees, even if you did take the pictures yourself (which, as far as I can tell, you didn't--you just lifted them off other sites on the Internet; a big no-no on Wikipedia). Also, like others pointed out (as have I), the infobox is for a summary of information, not compreshensive information: that's what the article text is for.

I don't understand your last comment, but if you want to suggest changes to the infobox, please suggest it here first before going through all the articles willy-nilly and changes them to your preference. Who knows, by discussing it someone might even *gasp* improve on your suggestion! — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Separating lines by colors or cells?

Pac-Man Developer: Namco Publisher: Midway Games Game designer: Iwatani Toru Release date: 1980 Genre: Retro/Arcade Game modes: Up to 2 players, alternating turns Cabinet: Standard and cocktail Controls: joystick Arcade system board: Z80 3.072000 Mhz Monitor: Raster, standard resolution 224 x 288 (Vertical) Palette Colors: 16 Notes: Developed during the Golden Age of Arcade Games. Ranked the #1 most popular arcade game of all time by the Killer List of Videogames web site.

Image:Pacman-marquee.png Developer: Namco Publisher: Midway Games Game designer: Iwatani Toru Release date: 1980 Genre: Retro/Arcade Game modes: Up to 2 players, alternating turns Cabinet: Standard and cocktail Controls: joystick Arcade system board: Main CPU: Z80 (@ 3.072 Mhz) Sound Chips: Namco 3-channel WSG Monitor: Raster, standard resolution 224 x 288 (Vertical) Palette Colors: 16 Notes: Developed during the Golden Age of Arcade Games. Ranked the #1 most popular arcade game of all time by the Killer List of Videogames web site.

Pac-Man Developer: Namco Publisher: Midway Games Game designer: Iwatani Toru Release date: 1980 Genre: Retro/Arcade Game modes: Up to 2 players, alternating turns Cabinet: Standard and cocktail Controls: joystick System hardware/Arcade system CPU: Z80 3.072000 Mhz Monitor Raster, standard resolution 224 x 288 (Vertical) 16 Colors Notes Developed during the Golden Age of Arcade Games. Ranked the #1 most popular arcade game of all time by the Killer List of Videogames web site.

On the left is a new model and on the right the old, you better like which? The different colors should compensate for the missing tables Lines. If we use the small one, the box would be even smaller even with a Marquee or more hardware information than the old model, thus I find the idea good. In the middle the model should only point what one can do with the won space. This is, actually, my favorite, please support it! AshSert 10:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the original design. The new infobox that you have proposed is very cluttered, and the font is too small to be able to read comfortably. You also still don't seem to have grapsed the argument about the marquees. DaveGorman 20:31:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Font is unchanged. I removed only the big empty table area. The actual article gets so more place, that is a fair exchange and the Marquees are all under fair use, the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes! See Batman or Coca Cola, the Wikipedia is full of Marquees, they are everywhere, nobody can escape from them. We should not position ourselves against the free character here! :) AshSert 21:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with DaveGorman, your new versions are cluttered and harder to read. Whitespace has its uses--in our infobox, it makes the information easier to read and differentiate.

No, we can't use the marquees under fair use. You lifted them straight off the Internet without any permission. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Even if you did take them yourself (scan, photo), they still probably would violate fair use since their use in our articles is mainly for decoration, not for any of the uses fair use specifies. I vote to keep the infobox the way it is. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:55, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

OK, then none marquees :( But now I have increased the Font on size 2 now. Can we now take the middle box without Marquee as a standard?? She has 1. more information 2. bigger Fonts and is 3. in addition smaller than the old box! AshSert 19:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wait, so you don't like the inner table, that's what the dispute is? For one, I don't like how the non-table version doesn't have a hanging indent, so both the headings and the information is flush against the left side. The table would prevent that. Also, all of the other Wikipedia:Infoboxes have inner tables, so this would be a big departure from the other standard infoboxes. I'm not convinced that the newer version is better. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:15, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Even without the marquees, I still like the old infobox better. It's just plain easier to read. — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

What is herewith? See below on the left, they was smaller furthermore with bigger Font and Tabblestyle! We need the space, so that at least the Main CPU's with the Sound CPU without Chips can be inserted. These are maximum 2 to 3 lines, but the box never becomes bigger than the old one. AshSert 16:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, AshSert, cut it out! You once again changed the infobox on the project page without getting a "yeah" vote from the members—you just went ahead and changed it because you like it. What part of concensus do you not understand. Everyone that has participated said they didn't like the new infobox. You do, so you changed it. That's not the way things work around here. How many times have I said that to you?

Also, we voted down the inclusion of hardware info in the infobox unless it is very concise. However, you want all the hardware info in the infobox: you want the extra space, we don't need it.

Your latest round of changes are blatant vandalism. I'm looking into having you banned. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:01, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The new box in the asymmetric table style is much better because it is 1. smaller 2. with bigger Font 3. and in addition more Contents! This is a scientific Fact and no vandalism without vote! You have generally had no ideas, this is unfair! AshSert 15:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's defer the discussion of if your infobox is better or not first. First lets look at what you did:

• You posted your new version here and did not wait for a response
• You changed the infobox on the project page without anyone's vote
• You changed the infobox on the Pac-Man article without getting anyone's vote (probably as an attempt to get support for your new infobox?)

AshSert, you've done this before and everytime we've told you to stop it. We told you to wait for a consenses. You seldom do. You seem to figure your way is the best way and go ahead and start making changes across all the articles. Then someone has to go back over the articles you've changed and revert them. To me, that equals vandalism.

Now, is your new design better? My vote is no. The old one is divided into logical sections and makes finding information easier. Your new one crams all the information in, with no logical seperation. Wait for others to respond before you go making sweeping changes.

Next you accuse me of not having any ideas? I've had no ideas? Ideas on what? It was my idea to start this project in the first place. Ideas on changing the infobox? My idea, and several others agree here, is that it doesn't need changing (at least not right now and not with your changes). You seem to want to change it to add hardware info in the box—no one else really thought it was necessary. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:40, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Part 2

• I vote for the small box. Mr.Do! 19:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr.Do!, why did you remove the previous discussion about the infobox? Are you a sockpuppet for infamous AshSert? I suspect you are... However, looking at the smaller design of the infobox with fresh eyes, I don't think it's all that bad. It is smaller and has the same amount of information. The color bands make the separation of information easy, but not easier than the existing one.

I know it, AshSert is frustrated and now away, I help him only with its last project. Unfortunately my English is not better. Therefore find I the infobox good, because one understands everywhere. This is also the German infobox 1 only we can use no Screenshots there, it is there worthless, therefore we are large fans from here. :) Mr.Do! 08:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

However, I really love the infobox template they're using on the Computer and video games WikiProject! The template is much easier to use than our infobox. Just pop in a few parameters and—voila!—you have a fresh good-looking infobox. At first I didn't like how large it is, but it's grown on me. Perhaps we should look at doing something like that! :-) In the meantime, to the new infobox, I say "okay," but I'm fine with sticking with the current one too. Please wait for others to respond. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:37, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

The box there is more simply however it has a cellpadding=2, thus the Font becomes smaller and the box larger. 50% of the Box there, are only Cellpadding. That is not ergonomic. If one sets there cellpadding to 0, you cannot differentiate between the lines. The small box here is already a Rebuild of the video_gamesInfobox! :/ Mr.Do! 08:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now I know you're a sockpuppet for AshSert, Mr.Do!. You engage in the exact same tactics that he did and use the exact same (poor) English he did. You went ahead and changed the infobox to the smaller one without waiting for a vote! The only justification you gave was the enigmatic comment: "please, only change if the vote turns in the discussion. At the moment this box has here 1 voice more :)" What in the world does that mean? I was in favor of it, but for some reason, you couldn't even wait for anyone else to chime in! I reverted your edit again. Wait for a vote, for crying out loud. Everyone else here abides by these standards, why can't you? — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:58, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I thought I am the only voice and have therefore a vote-majority of 100% , sorry. Ok you say you love infobox template Can you insert the box here? Then we can compare. Mr.Do! 10:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to say I like the Computer and video games Wikiproject template also. I say we copy it and go with it. --Poiuyt Man (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, copy & adapt it for the information we need. :-)

And Mr.Do!, I am still convinced you are a sockpuppet for AshSert—your similarities are just too striking to be pure coincidence. In the future, don't insert your comments inline with mine. It makes it hard to see who is saying what. All my comments except the last one have the signature missing, so readers have no idea who is saying what. In the future, answer with one post at the end of my comments.

And, no, one vote does note constitute a majority. Give other people a chance to respond! Sheesh! Notice how Poiuyt Man didn't just change everything to the template. He's taking a vote and waiting for responses. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:07, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the vote count was put up by Mr. Do!, but about 27 hours later, he apparently closed the vote, declared his infobox the winner (since no one else had had time to vote yet), and changed the infobox on the project page once again [1]. --Poiuyt Man (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you bring more people? Then, however, we also need more than 3 voices. This is not better, than mine one, before. 1+ only or 2-1=1+ only... where is the difference? :) Mr.Do! 18:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I've posted it on Wikipedia:Current surveys as per User:DropDeadGorgias's suggestion. --Poiuyt Man (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

Pac-Man Image:Puckman.png Developer Namco Publisher Midway Games Designer Iwatani Toru Release 1980 Genre Retro/Arcade Game modes Up to 2 players, alternating turns Cabinet Standard and cocktail Controls joystick Arcade system CPU: Z80 3.072000 Mhz Monitor Raster, resolution 224x288 (Vertical) Palette Colors 16 Notes Developed during the Golden Age of Arcade Games. Ranked the #1 most popular arcade game of all time by the Killer List of Videogames web site.

Pac-Man Image:Puckman.png Developer: Namco Publisher: Midway Games Game designer: Iwatani Toru Release date: 1980 Genre: Retro/Arcade Game modes: Up to 2 players, alternating turns Cabinet: Standard and cocktail Controls: joystick System hardware/Arcade system CPU: Z80 3.072000 Mhz Monitor Raster, standard resolution 224 x 288 (Vertical) 16 Colors Notes Developed during the Golden Age of Arcade Games. Ranked the #1 most popular arcade game of all time by the Killer List of Videogames web site.

Pac-Man Developer Namco Publisher Midway Games Designer Iwatani Toru Release 1980 Genre Retro/Arcade Modes Up to 2 players, alternating turns Cabinet Standard and cocktail Controls joystick Arcade system CPU: Z80 3.072000 Mhz Monitor Raster resolution 224 x 288 (Vertical) Palette Colors 16 Notes Developed during the Golden Age of Arcade Games. Ranked the #1 most popular arcade game of all time by the Killer List of Videogames web site.

Note: the gridlines of Template:Infobox VG won't show up if you are using Internet Explorer. There is a fixed version currently at Template:Infobox VG, which should show up correctly in both Firefox and IE. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 22:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote tally

• Mr.Do!'s smaller infobox (left)
  1. Mr.Do! 10:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• Current large infobox (middle)

• Something similar to the VG Infobox (right)
  1. Poiuyt Man (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Frecklefoot
  3. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:49, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Linuxbeak | Desk 01:21, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  5. PrettyPretty 04:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Tjansen 09:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

The info box VG changes every day, here this is one of a few days ago, I have adapted them for Arcade. The left one is completely from me. I find both well only the old middle one is bad, very largely and not uniform. As a rule in addition no entry should own more than 3 lines, except Notes. Is this OK? Mr.Do! 02:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The colors have changed in the past few days, yes, but you have altered the width, making the infobox look very cramped. I am reverting the infobox to the original one posted on this page, since the current one is not what I voted for. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think that it is not a good idea to decide for an arcade infobox layout - all infoboxes in Wikipedia should have the same layout. --Tjansen 09:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, obviously not all infoboxes in different topics have the same types of information, so they have to differ. However, I wouldn't mind if we actually just used the VG infobox, and added some optional fields that arcade games need. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 18:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshot image size

I made a minor change to the Pac-Man and Altered Beast info-boxes by changing the image from a thumb to a 225 px image. This is the standard way of displaying album covers for album infoboxes and I think it looks better. However, if you disagree then please feel free to revert my changes. I also created an infobox for Space Invaders. --ChicXulub 17:13, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Looks good, BTW maybe we need a list of all articles with infoboxes(or is there a list somewhere?), as long as not all arcade games have one and they dont use a template. --Tjansen 18:01, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the 225px markup looks better. I hated the framed image I had in the infobox, but didn't have time to investigate on how to change it. Thanks for fixing it. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:10, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Font size

I noticed that the infobox you are using forces the font to 10px. This is a very bad thing to do because it overrides browser font sizes and makes the text difficult or impossible to read for those of us with poor eyesight.

Personally, I think it looks fine without any font size modification, but if you must, "{font-size: smaller;}" should set it off from the rest of the text without rendering it unreadable to some.

Also, using "font-family: verdana" may make the article font render differently from the infobox. I would suggest removing or altering that as well.

Darrien 07:33, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Uhm, this is the point at which not using templates for infoboxes really hurts. --Tjansen 10:41, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Optional lines

should either Developer or Publisher be optional, if we have game designer? 138.89.183.70 20:17, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The game designer is the person, the developer is the company. so there's at least a difference --Tjansen 20:19, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ditto to Tjansen. The terms are sometimes used interchangibly, so it can be confusing. The way we use it, we mean the game designer as a person. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:10, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Adapting the VG Infobox

Why don't we just use Template:Infobox VG, modifying it to add optional lines that are arcade game specific? Since arcade games and computer and video games often overlap (due to porting), I don't see why there should be two separate templates. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 22:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I've now done this, since the majority of the votes have been for the VG infobox. I've added lines for Cabinet, Arcade system, and Monitor; Controls are already covered under Input. I'll begin replacing the arcade games infobox with the Computer and video games infobox. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 13:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

This should have been discussed with the VG Wikiproject as well as with members of this project here before doing this. K1Bond007 16:30, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

It seems this wasn't as good an idea as I thought it would be. Probably just copying the code over the the Arcade infobox would be a more efficient way to go about it. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 17:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd second this. I'm sure the VG Wikiproject wouldn't appreciate us messing with their infobox. They've had a lot of discussion about getting it "just right." Just copy their code over and modify it for our purposes. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:58, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have copied over Template:Infobox VG to Template:Infobox Arcade Game and made the appropriate changes. However, I didn't leave in a Notes field from the original arcade infobox. In my opinion, interesting factoids should be left to the main article text; the intro should catch the readers' attention, not the sidebar. I wouldn't be bothered much if it was added back in, but I'd like to hear others' opinions on the Notes field. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First off, very cool, I like the new template a lot. But there are some fields that seem unneccesary, or at least confusing.

• engine, platforms and requirements

I'll assume these are a hold overs from the VG version. I don't think that these ones have anything to do with arcades, especially the final two.

• ratings and media

I'm unsure of what these are for. If there are supposed to be there then thats fine, but an explaintion of what standard info would go there would be nice. Are we putting up a rating about how good the game is?

Other than that, very cool Poiuytman. I think the table looks much better now and a template seems to be much easier to use! Also, I'll put in a vote to keep the notes section as I think it's a nifty place for one or two extra special facts. -Mee Ronn 04:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I guess those VG hold-overs are for listing details of a port, if there is one. If that's the case might I suggest putting them in a new section, below the arcade data instead of mixed in with it? I'm not even sure if it's good to be in the info box though, since the data, it seems to me, should just be about the arcade version. Deatils about the port can be listed in the article itself.

Finally, the 'readme' about the template says this:

• The infobox is flexible, and has optional fields for games also released on computer or console systems. Any fields that do not apply to a game may be omitted.

I really don't know what I'm doing with all this but I was unable to get the template to have the optional data not appear. Leaving feilds blank just blew up the template and it poured about template code everywhere. From what I gathered, optional fields in Wiki Templates aren't available yet. Figured it out... sorry -Mee Ronn 04:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Requirements and Engine can probably go, since they don't really apply to arcade games, and there are few notable arcade -> computer ports. If it does have a computer port, then it can be listed in the Ports section of the article as you suggested.
• Platforms should stay, even if the game has no ports, the infobox should tell the reader that it is actually an arcade game.
• Media may or may not be useful. beatmania uses a CD-ROM drive, while beatmania IIDX uses a DVD-ROM. It could probably just be merged with Arcade System.
• Ratings -- do arcade games have ratings (such as ESRB) like console and computer games? If so, this should stay; that's what the field is for. Otherwise, nix it.

--Poiuyt Man ^talk 08:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update: I removed Requirements and Engine per the reasons above, and since the original Arcade infobox didn't have it anyway. I think we should finalize the design before it starts becoming widely-used. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 09:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh geez! I totally get media and rating now. Sorry, I just wasn't thinking. I wonder if media would be one of those things that would be covered on the individual Arcade Systems details page in most cases. CPS-3 uses a CD, but you could (and possibly should) learn that from it's own article. And in the bemani cases above, I agree that it could be added to the Arcade System row. I also see your point about the engine entry and I agree. Good stuff and thanks for clarifying. -Mee Ronn 18:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, arcade gamess do have ratings, although it is a completely different system than most. Small red, yellow or green stickers placed on the machine with details about animated violence, life-like violence and sexual content. It's sort of a wordy system, no handy intials like the ESRB, and it's also self-assigned. I can't find much on the web about it, but if I find a site that describes it I'll link it here -Mee Ronn 19:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little late on this, but I don't think media or ratings apply. I don't think there is a rating for arcade games, but some do have warning labels if they are especially violent. Who cares about the media when the consumer (normally) doesn't play with it? — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:31, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like good cases against Media and Ratings. Removed. Frecklefoot, as you were the one to start this project (and this infobox), could you give your thoughts on the Notes and Platforms fields below? (as well as any other users) --Poiuyt Man ^talk 14:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Mr.Do! is making changes already, removing the (s) from the fields, making Platforms optional, and adding Notes. I don't see any reason to remove Platforms; a game has to be released on some sort of system. The (s) was kept to maintain a consistent appearance with the VG infobox, see below. The Notes field is superfluous, and encourages editors to find whatever trivia they can and put it into the infobox. The infobox is for displaying consistent types of information from article to article, not to have a variable amount of text that is just there for highlighting interesting facts. That's what the introduction is for.

On a side note, I think that this infobox should maintain an appearance similar to Template:Infobox VG at all times, because the two types of games frequently overlap. Different fields are necessary, yes, but arcade games are still video games, so there shouldn't be a major change in design from a video game article to an arcade game article. That applies to the whole project; I think we need to collaborate with the VG project more to maintain consistency throughout all electronic game articles. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 13:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for the Notes field, I'm in favor of it, though it should be optional. But I wouldn't be heartbroken if it were removed. I liked it in the original infobox, but don't think it is 100% necessary. Plus, that infobox was smaller, so the Notes section didn't take up much space. It doesn't really work for the larger template-based infobox.

Right now, the categorization of "video games" is a bit screwed up. I admit guilt to part of the confusion. For a while, I was adament about a strict separation between "computer games" and "video games". Computer games, to me, were games that were played on a PC or a home computer of some sort. "Video games" were games played on a video game console. I, and some other users, were adamant about the defintions. This was a big point of contention for some members of the Computer and video games project. To us, though computer games and video games were related, they were not the same thing.

This was all resolved for me, however, when one user (don't remember who) pointed out that a video game "is a game which uses a video display as its primary form of output." A lightbulb went off in my head--of course that's what a video game is. So, obviously, computer games fall under the umbrella of video games, as do arcade games and... games played on video game consoles. But what do we call those now? Of course, those are console games.

My point is, Wikipedia's classification of games is, currently, screwed up. As I said, this is partly my fault. And, unfortunately, I don't see it changing anytime soon. In a perfect world, we would have a Video games Wikiproject, with computer games, console games, arcade games and maybe even handheld games as child projects. We would coordinate our efforts with the parent Video games project to keep all the child projects in sync. But as it currently is, I don't see any compelling reason to try to keep in sync with the Computer and video games project. Their infobox is great, and is very suitable for consumer versions of games. But it doesn't work perfectly for arcade games (as we've discussed). I suggest our infobox be tailored specifically for arcade games and changing the "platforms" line to "ports" or something similar.

"Ports" works pretty well, since any video game that existed as an arcade game and as home versions, almost universally was an arcade game first and then ported to the other platforms. The only game that worked in the opposite direction, that I can think of, is Choplifter, but we could note that in the article text. From the ports line, we could link to the article(s) on the home versions. But this line should be optional since not all arcade games made it to the home.

But of course, Wikipedia is a community effort, so please give your feedback before making the change.

As for Mr.Do! (a sockpuppet for AshSert), he has always been somewhat infamous here on the project. He does go about making changes willy-nilly, without discussing them first, making more work for the rest of us as we attempt to undo his damage. Then he complains that we're unfairly persecuting him. I really don't know what to do about him, but, if history is any indication, he'll keep acting the way he does, vandalizing our efforts. But, as far as the (s) on the ends of some fields go, I'm in favor of them. Sometimes they apply, sometimes they don't, but I prefer them. The Computer and video games project has been using them for awhile and I don't find them distracting. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what Frecklefoot points about Notes, and if it were removed it would be fine with me as well. I'm also happy to see the point concerning 'video' vs 'console' games, which always has seemed strange, is on someone else's mind. I'm glad the concern is there to address it.

But anyway... I'm for the change of platform to port, and although it does mean that the infobox would not be able to "tell the reader that it is actually an arcade game" as Poiuytman had suggested, which I thought would work well, I think the the term applies a little more appropriately.

Finally, thanks for the casual acceptance onto the project. I certainly don't want to start out like AshSert and I hope I haven't crossed any lines. Please tell me if I have, I want to help out and have fun. I apologize for using the new infobox so soon, I thought it being on the WikiProject page meant it was ready for widespread usage. I will be more careful in the future. I can understand that being new my opinion probably has late weight and that I need to tread perhaps a little lighter and gain your guys trust. -Mee Ronn 18:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ports sounds good to me. I guess the fields of Cabinet, Arcade System, and Monitor are good indicators of the game being in arcade format. But in that case, Ports should probably be moved down in the infobox, so the reader doesn't associate the home platforms being listed with the arcade data that follows. I'm thinking it could probably go at the end, after Input. Thoughts? --Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the infobox needs to tell the reader it's an arcade game. We all agree that the Computer and video game template is great, but it doesn't mention anywhere that it's for a computer/console game. In a correctly written arcade game article, it is mentioned in the opening sentence that the article is about an arcade game.

You don't have to tread lightly to be "accepted", just be a good Wikizen; participate in discussions and so forth. The reason AshSert/Mr.Do! got on everyone's nerves is that he'd make changes that only he thought were a good idea and then went about—essentially—vandalizing all the articles to fit his particular bent. As long as you don't do that, being accepted is easy. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:48, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

What to the hell you want with fucking (s) in the Fields, this makes the info box to 10-20% bigger, for nothing. Remove this nonsense, please, out! Alone by this idiotic (s) all lines lose important space include your crasy revert (Release) in (Release date(s)) The full left side in now blue, and the right side for the text, can barely show words more in a horizontal line!

And the Platforms Field is optional because the Platforms in a lot of articles (in Pacman even with 4 Screenshots) and, so, not always must them again in the box!

And the Notes sometimes give small however important info again for the quick overview, like the ranking in the charts what is hidden in the Trivia and is to be found not quick there!

And you have not optional Media delete, then many Arcade Systems based on Media, Neogeo and other Multigame Cabinets!

We are to be made here around it better and not to copy the mistakes of the others! -_- Mr.Do! 21:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The (s) is to allow for the possibility of multiple developers, publishers, designers, etc. The "date" of Release date(s) is for clarification. I don't see either of these as being a big space issue, since the infobox has a consistent width, and the height only varies by a few lines.

• Notes have been removed for reasons stated in above discussion, to reiterate: it doesn't display consistent type of data, which can make it a dumping ground for trivia, and the intro should already contain the important highlights of the game. As an example of Notes "fluff", one of your contributions to the Notes field on Mr. Do! states "One of the more popular games released during the Golden age of arcade games". This is hardly informative, contains no concrete facts, and is more of a waste of space than the (s) issue, IMO.

• Platforms/Ports is an essential piece of information, since a lot of people today have never played the original arcade version of Pac-Man. I don't see how you can argue that obscure technical information (Arcade System) is more important than listing what systems the game can be found on.

• Media is more applicable to computer games than anything else, and it can easily be included in Arcade System.

• You state "We are to be made here around it better" when it seems that you are the only one whose opinions matter. I don't have much direct experience with you, Mr.Do!, but from what I've read, you need to start cooperating with others before you find yourself banned. When you make large, questionable changes without the consensus of others, and without a written explanation (at most a cryptic edit summary), people are going to revert. I don't think your poor English is an excuse, either, since that didn't stop you from making major textual changes to the Pac-Man article.

--Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In an attempt to compromise, I've changed "Release date(s)" to simply "Released". It should convey the same information while decreasing the left column's width, as per Mr.Do!'s concerns. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, it looks out of place now, since all the other fields are described with a noun, while "Released" is a past-tense verb. Should it go back to "Release date(s)", or can someone think of a shorter synonym? Does anyone care about the slight change in column width besides Mr.Do!? --Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Most Arcade article have the full Platforms Data, in the Ports Field, see this example:

[edit] Ports

Because of its success, Pac-Man has been ported to most video game consoles of its time. Just like the Atari 2600 port, they were done by Atari. Here are screenshots of some of these ports:

Image:A2600 NonFreeImageRemoved.svg		Image:C64 NonFreeImageRemoved.svg	Image:Intv NonFreeImageRemoved.svg
Atari 2600 (1981)	Atari 5200 (1982)	Commodore 64 (1983)	Intellivision (1983)

always at the same place, by the Screenshots she can find you immediately. So, we do not need the Data doubled copied in the info box! Only when we not have a Ports Field in the newer Articles, can you write in a optional platforms field in the Box!

• The arcade games Category have now 300 Games, 98% of the Games have exact ONE Developer and ONE Publisher, never two three or more! For the 2% rest, we not need a ..(S).. in all Boxes! If someone knows more, he can write it, but he does not need for everything a traffic sign (S)!

• Mediainfo out for merged in Arcade System, i find ok. But the Arcade system info has ever more than 2 lines, therefore one must write name at Aracde<br>System or you have the full width again.

when you ignores all that, the article looks not good, also ants make dung.

• and Notes is a optional field, you must not write this, but not all infos there are trival! Centipede is a first game of a woman, and when a another game long time of #1 stay is this ever not trivia!

This is why I favor full revert to mine better version! Mr.Do! 10:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find it incredibly odd that in the same argument you say you want to REMOVE the "(s)" from columns in order to save room and then ask for ADDITIONAL fields to be added (namely the Media and Notes sectionw). What makes using a <br> to add additional info in the Arcade System block. I think the proper way to set that field up in the infobox would to link that data to a separate article. Any CPS-3 system is going to work the same (CD and a cartridge that has security decoding responsibilities), any NeoGeo machine is going to work the same (system board that has between 1 and 6 slots for game cartridges), any Naomi... etc. etc. etc.

I mean, that way the reader that wants the technical info you, Mr.Do, want to show them can click on it and learn more, and it will have a LOT more detail than you could even want or try to include in an infobox. It also has the benefit of preventing duplicated information all over the place. And best of all, it's how things are already starting to work. Several arcade systems have their own article.

Other arcade systems that can't have their own article (for example, a lot of pre-JAMMA games) can have a key bit of data in that row of the Infobox and a full section within the article to give further detail. The link would sit right there in the Contents at the top and, again, be at easy access for someone that wants technical data.

Also, I don't think saving the three characters of the "(s)" will really do much. Of course, perhaps things in the past have proven that every character of horizontal space counts and I'm just not aware of it, but I would say that the tiny bit of space it uses is worth the clarity it provides in the long run.

Finally, I apologize for any poor grammar in this message, I was almost falling asleep on the keyboard but I felt the need to reply before hitting the sack :P -Mee Ronn 10:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wanted no extra Media section, this is not important, i meant only when rarer (non standard system) Game a exotic Memory have, can this into arcade system field. Only important is the Notes Field, here 3 Example:

Centipede: This was the first arcade game to be designed by a woman.
Poly-Play: Only arcade game of the GDR..
Pac-Man: Developed during the Golden Age of Arcade Games. Ranked the #1 most popular arcade game of all time by the Killer List of Videogames web site.

that is not Trivia and in many other Games!

And how many Games have more than ONE developer or ONE Publisher??? The (S) must delete! And the Arcade system Topic in 2 Lines with <br> html tag!

Technical the DATA are too small, in order to get a place in the article, belonged into the box! If an automat only one Z80 2Mhz is based, one writes for it no fairy tales into the article! Those are only data and data come into the data = Infobox! Article are only for the Gamereview. If I need the data from 20 Game fast, I read nevertheless each article or click constantly the section for it on! :[ Mr.Do! 14:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to start a wiki (or find an existing site) that specializes in technical data about arcade games. Wikipedia is for general information about a topic, not specific information that is interpretable by a small minority of the readers.

The Ports section, however, contains information that is accessible to a much larger readership. I think it's relevant enough to include at the top of the article.

I think I understand what you said about the <br> in Arcade System. If the information isn't fully filled in, the left column stays wide. I have no problem leaving the <br> there in that case.

I'm not going to bother reverting the (s) anymore. It's too minor to me, so I'll let someone else argue about it if they feel it's necessary. You are correct in saying that the majority of games do indeed have one developer and one publisher, but I like the flexibility of having the (s) plural.

However, I do feel the Notes section should stay gone. The Infobox is for quick access of information that readers commonly look for. The examples of the Notes section you give are highlights of the game, which belong in the article introduction. See Wikipedia:Lead section. The infobox is supposed to have standardized information, not a field with variable data. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 02:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As an example of how the Notes field is unnecessary, I've incorporated the Golden Age note from Pac-Man into the first sentence of the intro. The KLOV info is already included in the Legacy section, and the intro already states that the game is "Immensely popular from its first release through today". In fact, after looking at the KLOV], it seems that they just arbitrarily state Pac-Man to be the best game of all time, without any statistics or evidence. An unsupported statement like does not belong at the top of the article; it belongs in trivia. I looked into it further, and it's figured with votes from their site members. Still, I don't believe the site is notable enough to be included prominently at the top of the article — actual sales figures demonstrating Pac-Man's popularity would be more useful. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 03:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a frequent editor of the Pac-Man article, my two cents: As I understand it, the very purpose of the infobox is to include information that would be difficult to weasel your way into an intelligently-written article. A "Ports" section provides a nice list of different versions of a game, which could feasibly expounded upon later in the article; however, the "Notes" section is superfluous, because, well, don't those kind of factoids belong in the article? Arcade capabilities and template formalities are one thing, but facts are another. I realized this when I created/edited the Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (arcade game) article. After writing certain facts - namely, the fact that the game was the first Atari System I game to feature digitized voice capabilities - I dutifully filled in the notes section, which featured the same info. Still, kind of unnecessary, isn't it? It's not like we separate the infoboxes from their articles. Captain Yesterday 05:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, concerning the (s) debacle, even though the majority of video games have one developer and publisher, isn't the point of such a grammatical convention to account for all instances? A lot of video games use phrases like "you got 24 coin(s)" in their pre-programmed messages, even when the probability that you'd receive less than two coins is pretty low. Captain Yesterday 05:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Phrases is not Topic in one word. This is less bad. Mr.Do! 11:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Notes is Notes and not Article or always a Golden Age info! See another Example:

After Burner II: Possibly inspired by the contemporary movie, Top Gun
Karate Chap: The first fighting game with today's common side-perspective
I, Robot: First video game with filled 3-D polygonal graphics; First game with analog Hall effect joystick

Important Notes for a short, fast overview! We cant write this infos every time in the first sentence. They are often for something else.

The Notes is the first impression for the readers and more for the readers with little time! They are the core statement of the Games! Many Games have no special Notes, however, some are significant! We cant this Filed not delete or remove into depths of the article! Without Notes in the info box many articles are never read! Mr.Do! 10:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When you added the Notes back in on Pac-Man just recently, your edit summary states: (Klov is trival, ok, a not the Info (Ranked the #1 most popular arcade game of all time) this important short facts cant in the deep of the article).

...What? The fact being stated is not "Pac-Man is the #1 most popular arcade game of all time", it's "KLOV users rate Pac-Man as the #1 most popular arcade game of all time". You can't state the first fact, simply because KLOV opinions do not equal the opinions of all players. You can state statistics, or a less specific claim, like "Immensely popular from its first release through today, Pac-Man is universally considered one of the classics of the medium and an icon of 1980s popular culture." (already in the article).

The pertinent information about Pac-Man in the Notes, regarding its release in the Golden Age and its popularity, are both covered well in the current opening paragraph. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 12:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then write it differently or leave out the Notes block in Pac-Man, but in many other Games you cannot do this! Here a another Example:

Virtua Cop: The first 3D lightgun shooter; One of the first arcade games to use 3D texture mapping

this in never Trivia or can ever stay in the first sentence. Mr.Do! 12:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether it's trivia or not, it's an inconsistent data field that can be filled with just about any type of interesting information. This is not what the infobox is for — it's for displaying clearly-defined values about a topic, and from the examples on Wikipedia:Infobox, I can see no other infoboxes with an ambiguous "Notes" field. The Virtua Cop notes above can easily be incorporated into the first or second paragraph of the main text. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 13:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The mistakes of other info boxes do not interest me. And important notes can not easily into first paragraph, then this is the article text and the place for the Introduction in here now over 300 Games! Nobody can inspect this. A field in the box for it does much more simply! Mr.Do! 13:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So nearly every other infobox is flawed by not having an arbitrary "insert-what-you-feel-is-important" field? That's quite a bold statement. As for rewriting the Notes into the main text of the 300(?) articles, I don't think that will be necessary in most cases, as the pertinent text is already included in the lead section. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 14:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It appears now that Mr.Do! has broken the three-revert rule by removing the Notes field in Template:Infobox Arcade Game three times in the last few hours. I might also be guilty of the same by adding it three times in the last 24 hours, although in my defense, the first of those three was not intended as a revert, as it had additional changes. If the rule is still applicable to me then I will accept the consequences. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 14:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not everybody reads the articles, many look only short and and for this the Notes is in the info box. And an info box and is not only a copy of other boxes...

Many Games have the Notes field for a long time ready are written.

If you delete the field, you break the work of a lot of authors who already know it!

You can circumscribe the articles which the important Notes all are on top. But only say, this can stand there or there better, everybody can! Mr.Do! 14:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only Rules Breaker are you!! Then in the former Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Arcade_games/Infobox#Voting we have Voting for the Box with Style with Notes and not without, but without Ports and (s) extensions! I stay only here for the rules and the voting! Mr.Do! 14:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since most of the arcade articles still use the old non-template infobox, we have to go through each of them anyway to replace them with the template. So removing the Notes field won't affect those articles at the moment.

The voting was for the general style of the infobox, not the exact field layout. Frecklefoot agreed with me that using the actual template was a good idea, and since there's a definite lack of active participants in this project to comment on the matter, I just went ahead and did it. Since several fields on the VG infobox were incompatible with arcade games, I removed them, and discussed the field removal above (way above). I do admit that the removal of the Notes field was purely my decision, but I believe I have stated good reason for it, and I seem to have at least some support so far. As for the inclusion of Ports, it seems that you are the only one opposing it at the moment. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 14:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can accept the ports, but I find them stupidly, because in contrast to all other info, the ports really stand in a lot of articles doubled to texts included Screenshots for every system.

When you will remove Notes field with purely your ideas, make better a new Voting "Notes or not Notes" or so then have we more Clearness here, I thinks the people to this day the Notes fields written, are more for it than against it. In addition is only optinal field, nobody must write it Mr.Do! 15:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A new beginning

I've started this new section simply because the previous section was too long. This is just a continuation of the above discussion. When adding to this discussion, edit just this section, not the whole page.

Now, my $.02 to the whole argument...

It's difficult for me to keep track of all the objections and points of the various contributors. But this point is clear, AshSert/Mr.Do! has the minority view. If we are being democratic, it is clear that, though he is very vocal, Mr. Do! is only interested in promoting his views and likes.

Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia. It is not just for arcade system enthusists--it is for a general audience. While articles can and should go into detail when possible, this information is not appropriate for the infobox. That is why I objected to the arcade system information in the infobox in the first place. However, others thought it was okay, as long as it was short. So now it's in there for the 10% of people who actually care about the arcade system the game used.

As for the (s), I don't feel strongly about it. Most games only have one developer and publisher (which, for arcade games is usually the same one). In the rare cases where there are more than one, we can just add them to the line and it won't confound readers. For an arcade game, there is usually just one Release date. In the case that a game was re-released (like the Ms. Pac-Man, Galaga combo), we can put that somewhere else in the article. What most people care about—and what is most relevant—is the original release date for a game.

I realize this is a reversal of my previous stance. But after thinking about it and participating in the Computer and video games project, there are going to be very few exceptions. Some games have more than one designer, so the (s) is appropriate there. But I can't recall one single game that has had more than one publisher or developer. And even if they have (for example, Civ III went from Infogrames -> Atari when it changed its name), it's never mentioned in the infobox; just the current publisher is mentioned.

Consider Pac-man. It was published by two different entities in two different countries, but only the US publisher is mentioned. Perhaps both should, but they're not. Therefore, I think the (s) would get very little use, and—as much as I hate to agree with AshSert/Mr. Do!—it should be nixed. ps. this is not correct, Pac-Man is only published in USA, with Inky, Pinky, Clyde! In Japan only Puckman with different Characters! Mr.Do! 28 June 2005 20:28 (UTC)

All the previous points against the Notes section I agree with: it should be nixed. All the info in that used to go on the Notes section can be easily integrated into the article, usually in the Lead section. The only argument in favor of them that I can decipher from AshSert/Mr. Do! is that he can quickly surf among arcade game articles and see what is interesting about them. I propose he is the only person doing this. Plus, as it's been pointed out, the information in the Notes section is very subjective. The author of the article puts in there what they think is interesting about the game.

The ports section can be moved down. It is less notable than some of the other information in the infobox. Plus, it must be noted that they are ports only in the cosmetic sense: very little—if any—actual code from the arcade game made it's way to the home versions. I used to work for a big porter of arcade -> home versions of games, so I know. No code was ever used from the arcade games. It was usually just graphics that were used.

Since this infobox is very much in flux, I suggest that we revert the infobox on the project page to the old, static version until we get this design nailed down. Yes, revert it—notes section and all—until we agree on a final design. IIRC, the Computer and video games project didn't post their template on the project page until the design was finalized. Posting it on the project page while it is still in flux will only confuse and confound newcomers. Also, where it is being used in articles, they should be reverted. AFAIK, the only article using it is Pac-Man, so it should be replaced with the old infox—as bad as it is—until we get this one hammered out. — Frecklefoot | Talk June 28, 2005 15:44 (UTC)

I would have no objection to a full revert until the template design is finalized. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)

In regard of the (s), I think that it would work either way. Although, in the name of compromise, I'm certainly in favor of it if it helps solve things. I really don't think in the long run the plural ending will effect much. I say nix.

I think that perhaps the most common (of all the rare times multiple companies would come up) would be if different companies published it in different countries. For that would could do [[Company 1]] (Japan)<br>[[Company 2]] (US), as well as adding similar data to the Release Date field. This is not a suggestion for the general format of the template, just an idea for what to do under these circumstances when they arise.

Upon hearing the objections of the notes field, I'll change my opinion to that of removing the Notes field as well. I certainly understand wanting to keep things standard, which the Notes field is anything but, and the solution of putting those 'notes' in the intro are completely adequate. -Mee Ronn 28 June 2005 19:09 (UTC)

The Notes section is the flag of the article if one removes them, see Polyplay, nobody more read finish the article! you cannot integrate things lightly if the articles with many hundred words! The notes are the core of the article and the keys to read! Only the Notes say what is the Game basically, in few words! There are people them read only the data! For it is the info box, everything can be insert in the article. But the data reader are thereby suppressed by the fairy tales fans! Here are 2 completely different types of readers! A Game scientist him does not play, reads only data and the Notes! You cannot send him every time on the search for short infos! Only the info box with Notes gives to the article a little from seriousness and a start! Mr.Do! 28 June 2005 20:18 (UTC)

I'll cast another vote for a revert to the old infobox until everything is resolved.

My view on the "Notes" box stands; it's still redundant. The Pac-Man article is organized well enough that no one would have to go on a mad search for specific information therein.

Also, I share Frecklefoot's ambivalent feelings about the (s). While I think the (s) acts something of a grammatical tool, it's more of an apples-or-oranges argument. Not that big of a deal. Captain Yesterday 28 June 2005 20:43 (UTC)

Mr.Do!, it's not like people want to take the info out of the Notes section it and bury it in the article. The concensus, it seems to me, is to move that data from the notes section into the introduction of the article, at least when appropriate. (Although if it's not data that can be migrated into the opening then it's probably a good sign that it should not have been in the 'Notes' section in the first place.) This is an encyclopdia, you have to expect that people are at least going to read those first paragrahp(s). We shouldn't bloat the infobox to serve the lazy who only want to skim.

The opening paragraphs, combined with the infobox and the contents box, as a whole, sum up the information that the entire article covers. Just because the notes section will probably be ommited does not mean that the data will not be present, nor will it be harder to find. It's just going to be in a location that better suits it -- ie. the introduction.

That's at least how I see it.-Mee Ronn

Mr.Do!, I'll try to respond in a manner you can understand: the Notes section is not the flag of the article! If Game scientist, him do not read article--too bad him! Infos is in article! Why he just read Notes?! Reading impaired?! Wikipedia for single audience it is not! If Game scientist need special wiki, he can create one! Free is Wikipedia softwares!

By way, you just make up "Game scientist"! It neologism! — Frecklefoot | Talk June 29, 2005 02:19 (UTC)

I am a Game scientist and I use the free Wikipedia here! I need all important data sorted! I do not know what disturbs you. There are many possibilities to reduce the place of the info box, rename "Release Date" in "Year" or so.

or if you want to delete the Notes, delete them if you the info in the article have ready really, thus later, but not automatically all immediately over the Source Edit here! I write the Notes for me and you can her in the article build and then again delete! Without the Notes in the article you may not however!

The "optinal" Notes is not an obligation, it can also first show which in new articles is still missing! By Way, short infos and lightly to find, are also good for all not english experts, many Wikipedia User do not have the freedoms like here, fairuse and so! We like light food. Mr.Do! 29 June 2005 18:06 (UTC)

[edit] Decision?

There have been no developments in the discussion in the past week, so I think we should come to a final decision. I'll set up a small VfD-style poll regarding the two major issues:

[edit] Notes field

• Delete for all the reasons I've stated on this page (non-standardized information, inconsistency with other infoboxes, and containing information that should go in the lead section). Poiuyt Man ^talk 7 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
• Delete as per Poiuyt Man. Lists are one thing, sentences are another. Captain Yesterday 7 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree. Isn't there already a "Simple English" Wikipedia to deal with simplified comments on a subject? --ADeveria 7 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)
• Delete and merge the data with the lead section. -Mee Ronn 7 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
• Keep Notes is here a optional Field, you can merge the data with the lead section and then remove Date from Notes, without delete Notes Field self! When you Notes Field delete, wee all Date from there we really lose. Or make you insert all 300 Games Notes Data in the lead section?? Mr.Do! 8 July 2005 11:39 (UTC)
• Delete: anything that would be included in this section would be subjective. — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As stated this information is better suited in the introduction paragraph, mainly because the information is not standardized. --TheDotGamer ^Talk 09:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, too much; agree with Frecklefoot and Poiuyt Man K1Bond007 06:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ports field

• Keep, as a relevant source of information that should be prominent in the sidebar. Poiuyt Man ^talk 7 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
• Keep as per Poiuyt Man. Captain Yesterday 7 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful and relevant. --ADeveria 7 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)
• Keep. If it hasn't been done already I agree with Frecklefoot's suggestion of moving it down. -Mee Ronn 7 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
• Delete stupid, most games have many 160px Screenshots from the Ports in article, see Pacman, what to hell make this doubled in the box? The ports are the first one what one sees, even before one reads text! Mr.Do! 8 July 2005 11:42 (UTC)
• Keep but make it optional... not all arcade games are ported. — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As Frecklefoot suggested though, it should be kept optional. A large number of arcade games haven't been ported. --TheDotGamer ^Talk 09:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Frecklefoot. K1Bond007 06:18, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

It's been almost two weeks, so let's close this. The majority (7-1) wants to delete the Notes field altogether, and keep the Ports field (as an optional field, suggested by Frecklefoot, TheDotGamer, and K1Bond007). --Poiuyt Man ^talk 23:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:45, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's been re-incorporated into the project page. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 10:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Z80 CPU

Could the text for the z80 be changed to Z80, please? It would look neater, and save some space too. --StuartBrady 22:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palette colors, resolution, orientation…

We've got monitor and resolution (which is practically never used) in the infobox. Now where should I fill in e.g. this information (about Giga Wing): Raster, 384 x 224 pixels (Horizontal), 4096 colors? Right now it can be found under monitor. It doesn't belong there, though, does it?

Where should the orientation go? Should it be left out (because it can be derived from the resolution and/or screenshots)? Where should the amount of palette colors go (for it has nothing to do with the monitor)? --elias.hc 13:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

hello?! --elias.hc 09:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

All that information should go in the monitor section. Not all arcade game articles have screenshots, so the information is useful. Also, it's not always easy to tell what orientation the monitor was originally because some screenshots are more square than rectangular.

Monitor information, on the whole, in controversial. Not all members even wanted it in the infobox. So, include it if you like, in what manner you think most appropriate.  :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. --elias.hc 20:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)