Template talk:Infobox VG
TaTaCon?
I thought I could quickly add in the TaTaCon controller, but it doesn't seem to be working out. Not clear what's going wrong. Here's an example: Taiko no Tatsujin: Chougoukaban. Kolano (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2019 (CEST)
Namco Bandai Games
In a very very specific situation, where there's both {{vgrelease|JP=Namco}} and {{vgrelease|JP=Namco Bandai Games}} in the same section of an infobox, in that exact order, Namco Bandai Games wont link properly; "Namco" alone gets detected, and the "Bandai Games" part is unlinked. For an example, see Tank Force. Both separately work fine, but only together and in this order does this occur. I think the problem is that the replacement regex is a bit too overzealous and dips into the second vgrelease since it found the word "Namco" in there. - Xerxes (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2017 (CEST)
GameIDs Link
The links we currently provide for GameIDs are just to our internal redirect pages, and thus just loop back to the page one is currently on. Should we revise them to link out to GameTDB or someplace else that provides region specific info on titles? Kolano (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2016 (CET)
- I like the idea. Redirecting to GameTDB seems doable as well since it's just a matter of passing the Game ID (e.g. http://www.gametdb.com/Wii/<gameID>)... - mbc07 (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2016 (CET)
- In the meantime it might be more useful to at least make all the GameID links in the infobox not redirect. I filled in a lot of the pages for weird IDs with some information when I was going through awhile ago (Target/Best Buy special editions, regions of release, game languages etc), and currently there's no way for someone to even know that exists without going out of their way to the ID page with a redirect=no. Those notes were mostly for future editors scratching their heads at the IDs (like I did), but it could give them additional marginal benefits. - Xerxes (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2017 (CEST)
Would we want this category made for games with shared IDs in placement of Category:Disambiguation pages... I have a better idea how to check for shared IDs for the games that need it but will need this category, ideally want to revise to remove the if statement and then add |redirects=include to dpl for abilities to pick up the shared gameids from either redir/non-redir to get along with the non-shared GameIDs especially for Action Replay (GC) to acquire GNHE5d and other games to pick up their shared GameIDs. Though this sounds like it'll create a duplicate GameID problem. But for starter, would this new category be a good Category:Disambiguation pages replacement? Lucario (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2022 (CET)
- I think Category:Disambiguation pages should stay and ideally only have the pages generated by {{Disambig}}, so not exactly a replacement. But, if I'm not missing anything, this new category could be used by the DPL check instead of Category:Disambiguation pages, correct? If that's the case, I'm fine creating it as it would allow capturing the shared IDs without the false positives and would not remove existing redirects, neither create avoidable disambig pages, as is the case with the current approach live on {{Infobox VG/sandbox}} and its reliance on Category:Disambiguation pages. - mbc07 (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2022 (CET)
- A bit unclear on how it was working before, but I think the recent revision to GKREB2 for Ribbit King/Ribbit King Plus! may have broken the gameID showing up on the Ribbit King Plus! page. Similar for the Phantasy Star Online Episode I & II Plus page since the disambig was removed from it's related GameIDs. Kolano (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2022 (CET)
- Oh, yes, disambig category can stay and then have this new category to help Infobox VG pick up shared IDs for featuring titles. If we stick with using Disambig category and if none of them use 6 letters for GameID-like, might be able to get away without this, but it's better to have this for foolproof, would prefer not to give out Category:Not GameID to non-redirect pages. And of course not to have redirect pages show up on disambig, it'd be crazy! There's something interesting that might work, a redirection that Phantasy uses, if we use {{for2}} under there along with the redirection, will dpl pick up that id for that another game? Seems you already tried that and redirection seems to work okay, dpl remains untested but look promising. Lucario (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2022 (CET)
- Using {{for2}} for the check probably works, but do we really want to use it? It's a generic template we might need for other uses in future, including cases where associating GameIDs might not be wanted. I went with the test from GKREB2 to see if multiple links on a redirect page doesn't break it (e.g. page stops redirecting) and fortunately it does not. Considering the redirect pages already have some bits of extra information in some cases (see SJDY41 or SJDZ41 for examples) it's probably best to have the linking happening there (plus Category:Shared GameID so the DPL check picks it)... - mbc07 (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2022 (CET)
- I don't know if DPL processes on pre- or post- expansion of the templates. Template like For2 will be good for formatting standardization, might want to create variant of it, but honestly them going templateless like you did in recent GameIDs look good and probably preferable to me.
Borderline libel
Come on, Mbc07. I did test the template. I did. I made detailed test changes to https://wiki.dolphin-emu.org/index.php?title=User:DandelionSprout/Infobox_VG_HTTPS_Wikipedia, tried it on pages I didn't save, and made sure 100.00% that I got a working result. When I get told "That's the last time I'm fixing your mistakes" when it wasn't a mistake in the first place, I feel very insulted. DandelionSprout (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2024 (CET)
- Let's recap, you just joined the wiki and started doing massive edits with AutoWikiBrowser, without actually describing what you're changing (making reviewing recent changes a chore, as people now have to look at the diffs to see what was changed), then starts brute-forcing changes to templates used nearly everywhere without actually taking time to understand how they work or to properly test the changes. I catch most of those and edit them so they still do what you wanted but without breaking previous existing functionality and you're the one that feels very insulted when called out? Please.
- In regards to {{Infobox VG}}, you only started testing your changes on a separate page after breaking (and reverting) the main template twice, a high-traffic one which is included in about 90% of all pages currently hosted in the wiki. Also, the "100.00% working result" you added to the main template was borked. It just fed {{{FULLPAGENAMEE}} to the Wikipedia URL, completely ignoring the pre-processing done to the page title (explained in the comment blocks at the beginning of the template code) in order to strip the platform postfix of Virtual Console titles and other special cases, which just shows that (once again) you just brute-froce what you wanted to accomplish without taking time to understand how the template works. Go test your "working result" with any of the Virtual Console pages and see it fail, which wasn't the case before.
- I agree some of the templates we use are overly complex and a few are lacking on documentation about their inner workings, but you could've simply asked. Same with the AutoWikiBrowser edits, we do have extensions specifically for making mass changes like you're doing, but in more appropriate ways (edits marked as bot, with meaningful descriptions, and so on). In the end, despite the suddenly added burden (for me at least), nearly all of your edits were kept one way or another, and that's all I can do for you. Don't want to contribute anymore? Fine, it's your call. - mbc07 (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2024 (CET)