Template talk:Infobox Game: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| (32 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 48 ⟶ 52:
:::Do you have any specific games in mind? I scrolled quickly through a list of game pages and the few I checked that might have been direct adaptations actually had rules changes. For example, [[Oi! That's My Phish!]] is almost a direct adaptation, but adds a new rule at the end.[[User:Dazeysan|Dazeysan]] ([[User talk:Dazeysan|talk]]) 22:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
::There's a number I've played that aren't on the wiki, but are on some bgg lists. Mijnlieff, King's Valley, Quarto, Diam, Gardens of Mars, Rincala, All Queen's Chess, Neutron, Docker etc. There's [[Hey, That's My Fish!]] on the wiki too. The only change required for these is using pyramid instead of other pieces. But you're right; there are many adaptations that are more substantial, for which adaptation is a better word. I'd like to add to the section on the [[Published Games]] page about other unrelated games that can be played with pyramids, but how should they be marked up? Does it matter? --[[User:Eclectics|Eclectics]] ([[User talk:Eclectics|talk]]) 12:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
:::There's no problem at all adding them to the list on the [[Published Games]] page. But if we want to have separate pages like [[Hey, That's My Fish!]] then I would assume they should have infoboxes as well so they show up in the various Browse Games list pages. It is nice to have more details about adapting a game to pyramids than just "you can play X". What if there was a field that marked a game as "Original Design/Designed for Pyramids", "Adaptation/Port", "Variant/Reimplements"? Something along those lines to indicate that a game was originally designed for pyramids, plays exactly the same as some other game but uses pyramids and other components, or if it's based off of another game but has rules changes, any other options? I don't think I would want to mess with the Status field as it would muddy up the meaning of it. Adding another field does mean having to touch each game page, but we're getting to that point anyways to clean up other infobox fields.[[User:Dazeysan|Dazeysan]] ([[User talk:Dazeysan|talk]]) 14:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
::That sounds ideal. --[[User:Eclectics|Eclectics]] ([[User talk:Eclectics|talk]]) 15:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
::I'd like to have the "reimplements" field as well. It would be useful for accuracy (I had to argue my way into getting BGG to change Zark City from reimplements Gnostica to reimplements Zarcana, and I have no idea how long it was that way), and for basic information about games that aren't at BGG. I'm not so concerned about the specifics of the reimplementation (is it just the game all over again with pyramids, or did it change) but the directionality and original authorship, so I wouldn't object to overloading one field for more than BGG-style reimplementations.--[[User:MCDeMarco|MCDeMarco]] ([[User talk:MCDeMarco|talk]]) 15:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Are you thinking a "reimplements" field that contains a game name like "reimplements=Chess"? -[[User:Dazeysan|Dazeysan]] ([[User talk:Dazeysan|talk]]) 22:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
::::I suppose <nowiki>"reimplements=[[Martian Chess]]"</nowiki> or an external link.--[[User:MCDeMarco|MCDeMarco]] ([[User talk:MCDeMarco|talk]]) 00:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Should there be a license field? The wiki defaults to CC BY-SA 4.0 in footer, but if an individual game is under a different licence it might be nice to specify it in the infobox? Oh, related; I uploaded an image and it offered licenses, but the CC one is old 2.5 version?
:Would it be useful? I guess it would be nice to be able to search for or sort games based on license. It wouldn't be hard to add the field, just takes time to update each game page. Do you know if there was a default license on the old wiki? I'm not seeing anything at the bottom of the pages cached on archive.org. Do we just assume they were released under the CC version available at the time if not specified? -[[User:Dazeysan|Dazeysan]] ([[User talk:Dazeysan|talk]]) 22:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
::In the footer of the old wiki on archive.org, there's a general disclaimer, that says its mostly like Wikipedia's general disclaimer, which in turn days "There is no agreement or understanding between you and Wikipedia regarding your use or modification of this information beyond the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL);". The old wiki's Help:licensing page is blank.... So I think CC BY-SA is reasonable assumption. --[[User:Eclectics|Eclectics]] ([[User talk:Eclectics|talk]]) 10:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
== Proposed New Fields ==
=== Adaptation ===
*A field specifying if a game was an original design for pyramids, direct adaptation to play with pyramids and no rules changes, or a reimplementation of another game with rules changes.
Is there a better name for the field itself? Origin, Designed For, etc.
What should the 3 (or more) allowed values be?
*Designed for Pyramids / Original Design
*Adaptation / Port
*Reimplementation / Variant
-[[User:Dazeysan|Dazeysan]] ([[User talk:Dazeysan|talk]]) 02:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
: if Adaptation= is blank, then that would count as original design? Adaptation could be Y/N, and if Y the game can be linked with the bgg link? Maybe the same with reimplementation, but it can also have a link to another pyramid game?
: I'm just looking for a nice way to include other games that can be played (enjoyably) with pyramids that can credit the other game. It's nice to be able to search for designed-for-pyramid games though, since they should have greater pyramidicity
: 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 ===
*A field that would contain a game name indicating what game this was a reimplementation of.
This information could also just be part of the description in the game page. But, having it saved in Semantic MW would also let us generate automatic "Reimplemented By" lists on game pages.
Taking into account the back end Semantic MW data side of things, I would prefer this field only allowing a wiki page name. That would then be turned in to a link automatically. For example:
: reimplements=Martian Chess
Would show up in the infobox something like this:
: Reimplements: [[Martian Chess]]
It might be possible to get the field to recognize external links as well. My argument against this is that if we try and use that data programmatically we would probably have to filter out any game with a URL in this field. Meaning they wouldn't show up in whatever lists or counts using the reimplements field. Can we just make simple pages for external games? We already have basic pages for games like Chess and Scrabble. -[[User:Dazeysan|Dazeysan]] ([[User talk:Dazeysan|talk]]) 02:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
=== License ===
*A field specifying the license the game was released under.
I couldn't find a default license in archives of the old wiki. Some games specify a license at the bottom of their page which we can just enter in to this field. If we can't find a license do we default to "unknown", "reserved", or maybe the CC license version of the time the game was added? -[[User:Dazeysan|Dazeysan]] ([[User talk:Dazeysan|talk]]) 02:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
: 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)
==UX Improvements==
* There is a tendency to describe the image using the "description" field, rather than the game. A sample of image markup with description could help, but is hard to show the user at the vital moment. It's not a big enough issue to rename the field (e.g., ''game_description'' or ''blurb'').--[[User:MCDeMarco|MCDeMarco]] ([[User talk:MCDeMarco|talk]]) 18:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
* There is an even stronger tendency to add text to the designer field, usually "Designed by". This could be avoided if the final display of the infobox already included similar text, say, ''By '' in light gray.--[[User:MCDeMarco|MCDeMarco]] ([[User talk:MCDeMarco|talk]]) 18:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
| |||