Template talk:Infobox video game

Add a game version information

Hello everyone, I was wondering what are the opinions around here about adding a "game version" info for the games.
It would be great for knowing the game state of a title, such as an "Alpha" game, a "released" game, etc.
Do you guys think it will go well with the wikipedia arts? I know maybe a lot of games won't have a game version explicitly stated, while others will.
For example the Sims will be a game with a very complicated game version to keep track of, specially because they release minor patches now and then, and the GVs are horrible.
On the other hand, games like C&C Red Alert 2 will have only one game version as the game is no longer under Development (Last version is 1.006). And Indie games such as Rimworld, will be able to state the actual Alpha version they are in.
Finally, games like Assassins Creed, have they any game version at all?

Opinions?
Frenchiveruti (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

References

We had a recent discussion on this with the consensus being that they are not appropriate. Versioning is a technical detail that doesn't mean much to the general reader. Key updates and patches can be noted in the text if they are the subject of note. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Major release updates are normally covered by reliable sources and the info placed into the development section. Just including the gameplay version number tells a reader unfamiliar with the game nothing; the same generally happens if you want to list alpha or beta status. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Frenchiveruti: I agree, the current infobox has many problems and is worse than the software infobox. For context, if you read the discussion history here, there is here a strongly interlinked author clique which objects every reasonable & needed adaption of this infobox, mainly with the argument "we enforce it for years like that: we don't like change". Shaddim (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Why so quick to accuse people? If you'd read the discussion history right the way back, you'd realise that the Infobox used to be a massive horrendous mess, full of unreferenced garbage. As WP:INFOBOX states "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" i.e. We should be able to delete the infobox from the article and not lose any information. Infobox VG sadly has a long history of that not being the case. The fields that are repeatedly rejected are the same ones that are never or rarely mentioned in the prose, and very rarely reference to a reliable source. They are rarely key facts. - X201 (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't want to draw any conclusions but User:Frenchiveruti's first edit in three years (and second overall) was to come to this somewhat obscure talk page and query a very similar issue as User:Shaddim did in May, then is backed up in agreement by the same User..........consensus by collusion? Salavat (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not because "we don't like change". If you haven't noticed, the infobox has had the media and distribution field removed in the past few years because they are also unnotable in the vast majority of cases and were almost never mentioned in prose either. Everything the OP mentioned belongs as prose instead, per my original response. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Field order

The field order in the infobox doesn't match the field order in the article Template:Infobox video game, specifically in the Full syntax, Syntax guide and TemplateData sections. For example, the staff fields (director, producer, writer, etc.) are at the top in the infobox; on the other hand the staff fields are at the bottom in Template:Infobox video game. Could someone make the field order in the infobox match the order in Template:Infobox video game? -- Wrath X (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The current order is pretty much fine: The specific developers appear next to the developing company, but in syntax, are at the bottom as they are usually added post-release (through in-game credits). At least that is the scheme I have followed on it with, and it works for me, and apparently most editors. Lordtobi (✉) 09:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox width

Could the infobox width be slightly increased so as to match the width of infobox film? Both game and film infoboxes already have matching font sizes, images sizes and label-data gap. They also have similar fields (director, producer, writer, etc.). I think it would nice to have consistency between similar infoboxes. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes also mentions consistency between infoboxes as a design principle. -- Wrath X (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

We are defaulting to a width of 264px. Other infoboxes either don't support width as a parameter at all, or only set it if specified. We should remove the 264px default and let the main module handle, while still supporting the parameter for the cases where it is used. -- ferret (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)