453
edits
Template talk:Infobox Game: Difference between revisions
→Adaptation
| (12 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 37:
* '''other_equip''' - I made a bigger change to how it works along with a change to the way this field should be used. [[User:Kataclysm|Kataclysm]] and I feel that the Other Equipment field in the infobox shouldn't contain quantities and sentence-like descriptions, these details should be listed in the Equipment section of the page. It should contain standard items that will get linked to their proper "Equipment/thing" page. This does require entering the name properly like "Chessboard" rather than "Whatever chess board you have". This will also require updating most of the game pages and moving the existing equipment pages ("Chessboard" to "Equipment/Chessboard"). But it will allow for better searching of the other_equip field and a more readable output in the search results.
[[User:Dazeysan|Dazeysan]] ([[User talk:Dazeysan|talk]]) 17:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
:Dice are a particularly chaotic value in this field. I think ideally it would be standardized to 2d6, 1d4, etc., while still leaving out the number on specialty linked equipment like Lightning die.--[[User:MCDeMarco|MCDeMarco]] ([[User talk:MCDeMarco|talk]]) 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
::Kataclysm and I were thinking to limit it to "dice" when only regular D6's are needed, "polyhedral dice" when regular D4-D20 are needed, then the special dice with their own pages like "Treehouse Dice", and we'd probably need a generic "Custom dice" option for everything else. The thinking is that this field doesn't have to have the full inventory, that's for the text in the main body of the page. This field would let someone who just has some pyramids and a couple of plain old D6's find games, or maybe they got a set of "D&D" dice which opens up some other options. But maybe the infobox could recognize "3d6" and just link that to "dice"... I'll have to play around with the searches. The problem with having numbers of dice shown is then we get games with entries like this: "One Six-sided die (d6) per player plus one extra die", maybe it would get abbreviated to "#d6" or something?
::On a related note, I dumped what data I could find a little while back and there are over 200 unique pieces of equipment. A lot of them are just different spelling of the same thing though like "1 d6", "1d6", and "one six-sided die". -[[User:Dazeysan|Dazeysan]] ([[User talk:Dazeysan|talk]]) 23:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
== New Talk (2024) ==
Line 79 ⟶ 83:
: an adaptation would credit the original designer, and link to that game. Not sure about reimplementation?
--[[User:Eclectics|Eclectics]] ([[User talk:Eclectics|talk]]) 09:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
:: Now I'm wondering if 3 new fields would be needed:
::* "Designed for Pyramids" - (true/blank) Indicates if the game was originally designed for Looney Pyramids. (Pyramideto games should be an adaptation I think)
::* "Adaptation" - (name of page on wiki or left blank) Used only if this page/game shows you how to play the specified game with pyramids and other components, the only rules changes would be related to the changed equipment.
::* "Reimplements" - (name of page on wiki or left blank) Used when the game changes the rules of the game it's based off of.
::The idea is that only one of these fields should ever have something in it. The infobox would display the information in the same spot regardless of which was used. On the back-end, a 4th field could be filled in automatically that would indicate which of these 3 was used. That way search results could show you which it was without having empty columns show up. I might even be able to make the infobox display an error if more than one of the fields is used. -[[User:Dazeysan|Dazeysan]] ([[User talk:Dazeysan|talk]]) 22:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:::It sounds good in theory but it's probably too precise for human use. People will want to use the fields to somehow represent, ''e.g.,'' that [[Zoning Out]] out is both an original game for pyramids and a reimplementation or adaptation of (the non-pyramid game) Sprawlopolis.--[[User:MCDeMarco|MCDeMarco]] ([[User talk:MCDeMarco|talk]]) 18:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:I like this idea. What about things like Caldera reimplementing Volcano (ignoring the looney name changes), but designed for Pyramids. Are these perhaps variants/subpages of the original instead of reimplementations? Are you thinking that BGG_Link for Adaptation and Reimplements would go to the original game? --[[User:Eclectics|Eclectics]] ([[User talk:Eclectics|talk]]) 07:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
::There are variants that have a BGG link to a thread about the variant. I'm not sure I've seen many link to the original game; that's not necessary because the original game will link there. --[[User:MCDeMarco|MCDeMarco]] ([[User talk:MCDeMarco|talk]]) 17:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Right, I forgot about games being designed for pyramids AND being an adaptation/reimplements... Then the "Designed for Pyramids" field could be used with or without the other 2, or dropped all together. BGG_Link should only go to this game's page on BGG. If it doesn't have a game page, then I guess a link to a thread is okay but that can also just be in an "External Links" section. Here are some examples I came up with, there are probably other combinations. (FYI: I won't be able to do much in the next couple weeks with other projects and family visiting) -[[User:Dazeysan|Dazeysan]] ([[User talk:Dazeysan|talk]]) 00:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
=== Reimplements ===
Line 95 ⟶ 108:
: I don't have an opinion on what we should do about existing games.
:Some games on external sites specify the licence, but of course it's often an older one rather than a current one. To bring CC and other open licence games in we need to show the license, so a standard way of doing this is appealing --[[User:Eclectics|Eclectics]] ([[User talk:Eclectics|talk]]) 09:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
: We should be clear that board games do not have licenses; the ''text'' of game rules and, separately, of wiki pages is copyrighted (automatically, under US law) by their respective authors. That copyright ''may'' have been waived using a CC license. There's nothing we can do if it wasn't, besides take down (or rewrite) any unlicensed text we become aware of and make sure there's some sort of copyleft covering current contributions. --[[User:MCDeMarco]]
:CC doesn't waive copyright, it just gives some permissions, and the SA version of the licences (and other open licences) specify that you have to include a link to the license if you copy the text, so if a game is published under a different open licence I think we need to reference it? --[[User:Eclectics|Eclectics]] ([[User talk:Eclectics|talk]]) 11:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:: Sorry, I should have said waived ''partially or etc.'' My point was rather that games aren't licensed; there is nothing to track down and there is certainly no default value that could be applied to games ''qua'' games. If we're instead talking about researching the copyleft on a ''lot'' of existing wiki text, some of which may be exact reproductions of rules, we should be clear about it. --[[User:MCDeMarco|MCDeMarco]] ([[User talk:MCDeMarco|talk]]) 16:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
: Yes, I was just concerned with specifying the correct licence where the license is known, and different from the CC BY-SA 4.0 which is the default for the wiki. --[[User:Eclectics|Eclectics]] ([[User talk:Eclectics|talk]]) 07:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
| |||