This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
A number of changes have been discussed and rejected multiple times, and sometimes discussed and ignored. Please review the below discussions before adding a new section for the parameter you would like to add. Each discussion is listed by most- to least-recent.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The italicization of above is done with TemplateStyles, so it remains italicized when italic title is set to no. Snowmanonahoe (talk·contribs·typos) 20:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to a page showing this effect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like someone took care of this rare exception with {{ni}}. According to the documentation, italic title controls the display of the title of the article as displayed at the very top of your browser window (the H1-formatted page title), not the text at the top of the infobox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah, but an even rarer exception than this rare exception is wanting the title to not be italics but also wanting the the top of the infobox to be italics. Snowmanonahoe (talk·contribs·typos) 15:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not sure that scenario is actually rarer; it would apply whenever the infobox is used multiple times within an article, such as here or here. – Rhain☔ (he/him) 23:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, that the title is italicized by styles is a bit sus to me; italic markup is totally appropriate for the name of a video game. (Well, WHATWG would prefer we use <cite> but we use that instead for actual citations and italics instead for names of italicized things like species, books, and ships.) Izno (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox guidelines clearly stated that we should not list port developers. A common way to circumvent this guideline is to use notelist, which IMO is pretty much the same thing. I think it is due time to discuss whether using notelist to circumvent this guideline should be considered to be acceptable, either updating the guidelines descriptions (explicitly say that it is ok to list them with notes), or reaffirming that the infobox should only list solely the lead developer, and nothing else. OceanHok (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think should be okay to include as notes, gives them less prominence but still includes so seems like good balance. Examples of including port developer as notes include good articles Horizon Zero Dawn and The Last of Us Part I, and featured article Spider-Man (2018 video game). Note it's template documentation, not a guideline as you say, big difference as guidelines have more process for consensus. Indagate (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a big WP:OTHERSTUFF to be honest, not to mention that HZD and Spider-Man both have their notes added after their GAN/FAC. Circumventing an existing template documentation is breaking a consensus. It doesn't matter if it is a policy, a guideline, a talk page discussion, or a template documentation. I don't see how this should be accepted if the consensus here doesn't change. OceanHok (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think there is consensus that footnotes are not OK? It's not mentioned at all in the template documentation. TarkusABtalk/contrib 10:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is such an established pattern that, absent something that explicitly forbids it, it has essentially become silent consensus at this point. We can of course arrive at a new consensus forbidding it, but I don't think the EFN usage is "breaking" a consensus so much as slipping through a loophole in the intent. -- ferret (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it's breaking the intent. I interpret the intent here as to prevent long infoboxes, which the footnote doesn't contribute to. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I think the infobox documentation should be more explicit about this if there is a consensus for it. OceanHok (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose adding text that prohibits footnotes. Using them seems to be a generally accepted practice. I've never heard a complaint. Ports can be significant, and having the developers footnoted is an easy way to make the information accessible without extending the length of the infobox. Some pages that do this:
Did any of the above have them when they were made FA? I know the Halo games definitely didn't, and my impression is that sticking them in the infobox is a relatively recent phenomenon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 21:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
