That's not how it works - again, this is the established way of doing the video game infobox template, used in articles across the board including in those already taken to FA status (which also sets precedence). I know the game being played by the above request, fans do it all the time - try everything in their power to get a piece of content they want in, including looking for some verbatim rule so they can say "see, it's not so, so I should be able to do it", or try and lay their own interpretation to go against consensus. Consensus is established at the project through debate and ultimate agreement (consensus). So he's very familiar with current consensus on matters regarding content, as am I. Guyinblack is a well respected and very active member of the project that has taken many articles to GA and FA status (the actual goals of articles here). Likewise, what I stated is the established consensus on game templates and their purpose - and gets used every single day here. Thanks, Sabrebattletank ( talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Reply All the projects on Wikipedia have their own style and content guidelines, the video game project is no different, look there. Is there a discussion on this specific one that I could read? You know, trust but verify. Is there something I'm missing that's maybe video-game specific somewhere else? Also, most of the guidelines I've come across are in the "how do I make the infobox work/looks pretty/what should be included in an infobox template". Just out of curiosity, though, the closest thing I found for a purpose statement for infoboxes was at Help:infobox, and that seems to suggest that the infobox should primarily reflect the article. It seems that I misunderstood the fundamental purpose of the infobox as to reflect the article. Marty Goldberg ( talk) 20:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Reply Ah, ok. However this is not, which is why such things are treated as an "also", why we don't allow links to forums and very rarely to fan sites, and why the external links area has a specific purpose that does not include becoming an index to all material related to the game. If this were a fanbase support site, of course it would make perfect sense to have the latest material, whether unofficial or not, front and center. This isn't a support site, it's an encyclopedic article on a game - which tend to focus on the main proper product itself. That's how it's routinely done here, and makes perfect sense for it to be there. Unofficial material (when notable) is a part of the aftermarket history, hence it's included in the Modifications section here in relation to the overall expandability of the game. Hence it has info on the publisher, developer, rating, system requirements, etc. The infobox is for official material related to the game. Sabrebattletank ( talk) 19:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Reply No.
Does that make sense? The way it is now, there seems, to me at least, a disconnect between the Modifications section and the infobox.
#BATTLEZONE 2 ODF FILES PATCH#
It does seem odd to me though, that the Modifications section says that "hey guys, the game was expanded with this patch version", but if you follow that up with a look at the infobox, it doesn't reflect that. Marty Goldberg ( talk) 19:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Reply Makes sense. What this gamespot reference provides is a verifiable backup that the patch exists, and can be used to support the statement in the Modifications section. the "official patch"), while mention of the unofficial patch's existence can be covered in the article itself, which it already is - in the section on Modifications. But with the information in the sources above, I believe the patches can be adequately covered in the article." To spell it out, the infobox should only include the last Pandemic released version (i.e. In reality though, I believe it is best to avoid confusing the reader. To do otherwise could be construed as misrepresenting the facts. I believe the last Pandemic-released version should be listed in the infobox.
Sabrebattletank ( talk) 18:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Reply Consensus was "That being said, the press and even the programmer of the patches has referred to them as "unofficial patches". Did you guys take the same thing I did out of that?. My impression was that the consensus from the last debate was that if the unofficial 1.3 patch could be added verifibly, then it should be.
0 kommentar(er)
