Forum:Proposed New Article Layout

This is a proposal for a new article format. Right now, we don't have a clearly defined format for article names where video game names have been repeated across the years. This proposal seeks to unify all current approaches into one.

The proposal is for all video games to assume the following format: video game (platform) (developer). The last one is only to be used in the event that video games under the same name are released for the same platform. This means that every video game, regardless of whether or not it was released for multiple platforms, would need to have its platform declared in brackets. The side effect is that articles of games with multiple platforms would need to be split up.

Game developed for PC will be treated slightly differently; each operating system is to have their own article where the video game was released through retail channels (Such as (Windows), (Mac), (Linux), (macOS) for eample, or under (PC) if the package contains installations for more than one operating system). Games released via digital channels should be differentiated via their digital platform (i.e. (Steam), (GOG), (Uplay), etc)).

Because of the article names changing, the games should keep the article name untouched, but should use the cargoname variable to report the correct name internally.

Example

Under the current system, this is how the video game Grand Theft Auto III would be split up:

• Grand Theft Auto III (Android)
• Grand Theft Auto III (Fire OS)
• Grand Theft Auto III (iOS)
• Grand Theft Auto III (macOS)
• Grand Theft Auto III (PlayStation 2)
• Grand Theft Auto III (PlayStation 4)
• Grand Theft Auto III (Steam)
• Grand Theft Auto III (Microsoft Windows)
• Grand Theft Auto III (Xbox)

This means that each game's infobox only keeps track of features specific to that console, digital store or operating system. For video games with Arcade releases, this means that Arcade versions would also have their own articles.-- BritishCynic 16:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Concerns

There are a couple of problems I can see right away:

• At over 12000 game articles (the majority of which are incomplete, and many remain outdated), I question the practicality of such a massive structural change.
• A little under half of our game articles are platform-exclusive, not really meriting the need for such a shift.
• Unless the releases on different platforms are significantly different in terms of gameplay (which would only apply for older titles), it seems an unnecessary addition.

Could this be something included as subpages (like what we see in the GameInfobox template) instead? Aegiscamra (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• • Subpages wouldn't work for SEO reasons since the sub-pages already have a relationship to the main article, and having effectively a new instance of a game article wouldn't work well.
  • I do agree somewhat on the practicality, but this would also boost search engine results and drive users to pages most of benefit to what they're searching. It would also mean the sub-pages could become a lot more targeted in nature. It also means we can cut down on Infobox information size.--BritishCynic 17:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)