IFWiki talk:Works released (style guide)

From IFWiki

Adventureland/Scott Adams

I've seen that a lot of the pages divide the Other section into platform, rather than engine - is this just not going to add to confusion, e.g. We'll get Adventureland listed under many different platforms (TRS80, Spectrum, BBC, Commodore ad nauseum) instead of just under SACA and SAGA. --dave 17:26, 29 Nov 2005 (Central Standard Time)

This is probably because people are following the lead of Baf's, the readiest source of information on the subject. I don't really see how it would cause confusion, apart from giving editors slightly more work. -- Maga 18:48, 29 Nov 2005 (Central Standard Time)
Well, I'll admit I am confused on the issue of platforms at times, and that I'm unfamiliar with SACA and SAGA. The platforms listed in a game reference should inform the reader as to what sort of interpreter or emulator is needed in order to play the game. For example, if Adventureland was released with several different story files, then it should either be listed several times or just once in a 'various' or 'multiple' platform section, because each version of the game would need a different interpreter or emulator to play it. However, if Adventureland was released with just one story file, then it gets listed once under the 'engine' or virtual machine that the story file was written for. -- David Welbourn 11:46, 5 Dec 2005 (Central Standard Time)
I've been adding various Adventure International games to the "Games released" list, so this discussion has became relevant. Infocom games are listed under Z-code, so for consistency, games based on Scott Adam's database system should be listed under SACA and SAGA, IMO. At the moment, I simply picked a suitable platform to list them under, and tagged on "Also released for [...] systems.". --Mara 15:52, 10 July 2006 (EST)

Multiple platforms

My proposal for listing games released on multiple platforms:

  • All games released simultaneously or in quick succession for more than one platform should be listed under the subsection Multi-platform (which should appear first in the Other Authoring Systems section).
  • To avoid clutter, we shouldn't list more than two platforms:

    Joan of Arc: Siege and the Sword (developer: Chip, publisher: Rainbow Arts; Amiga and Atari ST).

    If a game's been released on three or more platforms, simply omit any mention of platform:

    Scapeghost (publisher: Level 9 Computing).

    (Any specific release information should go in the game's own article.)

For an example of how this looks, see Games Released in 1989. -Mara 02:30, 7 September 2006 (EST)

I hardly know how to respond to this.

  • First of all, I dislike suggestions being implemented on live pages. If you want to show an example or a detailed proposal, I'd prefer you made up an example page for the purpose.
  • Secondly, I dislike removing information when it's the only place it occurs in the wiki. It's all well and good to say the info is in the game's own page if that page already exists. Until those pages exist, chopping out info seems wrong.
  • 3rd, yes, I agree that games shouldn't be listed twice, and yes, I agree that the current way is looking cluttered and awkward for many of these old games.

My current thinking is:

  • Change "Other Authoring Systems" to "Other Platforms".
  • Add a new "Multiple Platforms" section after "Other Platforms". "Multiple" will be added as a link in the GamesReleasedNavBox template.
  • The Multiple Platforms section will be subdivided not by platform, but by company (either the publisher or distributor, whichever makes the most sense for the games). Add a statement after the subdivision header and explain the common elements. Say something like "Unless otherwise indicated, all of X's games were released for the BBC Micro, Spectrum, and Amstrad."

Do you think that will work? Any obvious problems with my suggestion? -- David Welbourn 13:10, 7 September 2006 (EST)

I'll try to adapt your suggestions into a mockup, just to see if it's practical and not too unwieldy. I'll also bring up another source of clutter shortly, but for the time being, here's another (tentative) proposal for multiple platforms: rather than listing them directly on the "Games released", simply provide a link to Moby Games (or TheLegacy), which lists release data outright; this should suffice for most commercial releases. Example:

Or, release info, or whatever. Then we'd simply file these entries into the new "Multiple Platforms" section. --Mara 13:52, 7 September 2006 (EST)

At the very least, please put any external links outside the brackets. This is now beginning to infringe on Game reference (style guide) territory. I'm not fond of the idea of leaving the platform info out altogether and inviting the wiki-user to do his or her own research, either. Any links for more info should be in addition to and not a substitute for our own data. -- David Welbourn 15:51, 7 September 2006 (EST)

Okay, here's the mockup: User:Mara/Multiple-platform mockup of 1984. How's this? It feels rather futile to assemble and edit all this information into this format, but at least it feels less cluttered. --Mara 16:21, 7 September 2006 (EST)
I have to say that this seems rather long, clumsy and over-engineered. I'd prefer a single list under the "Multiple Platforms" heading, alphabetically by game name, with the platform info at the end of each entry; I think it might be shorter and more accessible.
While I'm here, I'm starting to see a lot of Author list of the form "Tom, Dick AND Harry". The Game reference (style guide) seems to require "Tom", "Tom and Dick", "Tom, Dick, Harry", "Tom Dick, Harry, Jemima", etc. -- Roger 02:37, 8 September 2006 (EST)
Okay, I've revised the mockup to reflect your preferences (to the best of my understanding; or would you rather have the list of platforms tagged on after the reference proper?) I like it in principle, but wonder if the platform info is accessible at a glance. --Mara 04:55, 8 September 2006 (EST)
Roger's suggestion seems the best option so far. He's right; I do have a tendency to over-engineer. Platform info belongs within the game reference proper, as per Game reference (style guide). -- David Welbourn 13:54, 8 September 2006 (EST)
I agree. If we're willing to adopt this convention, then it'd be useful to revise the style guide, i.e. platforms should be listed alphabetically, separated by commas/"and", etc.
Another thing I'd like to bring up: it's customary to link to an article only once per page or section; should this practice apply to "games released in n" pages as well? This could lead to a slight editorial overhead when entries are added to the list at a point in the future. --Mara 14:08, 8 September 2006 (EST)
That's an issue which has yet to be formalized in any style guide. In the early days of IFWiki, we simply linked whatever wherever. Somewhat more recently, I've been trying (by example) to encourage less linking of platform names, so that in any given section (not page), the first time a platform like Z-code or ADRIFT is mentioned, it gets a wikilink, but subsequent refs are not linked. Less platform links looks nicer to me, and probably less work for the wiki engine, etc.
Now, I also thought about doing that for author names and game titles as well, but, um, when I tried applying that idea to the XYZZY Awards pages, I wasn't happy with the results. So, in short, I'm open to opinions and suggestions on this issue. -- David Welbourn 14:24, 8 September 2006 (EST)
That looks just fine to me; many thanks. -- Roger 03:24, 10 September 2006 (EST)

Names of competitions

Quote from this style guide:

Do include the names of the competitions that a game was entered in, but omit all mention of where it placed.

Did it change? I noticed that the competition names I had included in Games Released in 2009 were deleted... --Eriorg 06:32, 24 April 2009 (PDT)

Eep. I get into so much trouble this way. 1) I forgot I wrote that. 2) I'd like to change that. So, yeah, I'm guilty of editing first instead of changing the style first. I'd prefer the Games released pages to be a little less busy. And yes, I should've asked you first (and anyone else who wants to chime in) if it's a good idea to remove the comps from the Games released pages. Sorry about that.

Another thing I'd like to change is to fix slightly the TADS, Glulx, and Z-code sections so that TADS 2 and TADS 3 are presented as subsections of TADS, that Glulx: Inform 6 and Glulx: Inform 7 are subsections of Glulx, and that Z-code: Inform 6 and Z-code: Inform 7 are subsections of Z-code. Again, you can see I'm doing it that way on the 2009 page, but I'd like to go back to the other pages and fix those as well. (I don't want another repeat of someone putting a game in the wrong Inform 7 list.) -- David Welbourn 09:52, 24 April 2009 (PDT)

Well, I only added the comp names because of this style guide ;-) . Actually, I prefer the Games Released pages without comp names! --Eriorg 15:51, 24 April 2009 (PDT)

Z-code subdivisions

There are compilers for Z-code other than Inform 5, Inform 6, and Inform 7. There is also ZILF, Frolg, and there may be other possibilities too. This may apply to Glulx too; there may also be other compilers for Glulx. --Zzo38 05:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)