Template talk:Infobox card game

Problems

I've been adding the template to several articles and have noted the following problems:

(1) Type link does not work for shedding-type games. (no such article exists)

(1.1) The requirement for Category-Type correspondence makes the type field quite restrictive. It should be possible to use point-trick game or meld scoring rummy as the type.

(2) There is no way to put named variants to the infobox. They are neither alternative names nor related games. I've been using the subtitle. See for example Marjapussi for the problem.

(3) Related games could be divided into ancestors and other related games.

(4) The automatic link makes the Cards field too restrictive. For Skat one would like to have the text Anglo-American or German, which invalidates the link.

(5) The text Deck should be replaced with Number of cards

(6) How one produces an estimate for Random Chance? Punainen Nörtti 08:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, think this field should be eliminated as it's only OR. Unless one can produce some reference that similarly "rates" these card games in some fashion in terms of this "random chance", this is only user-produced OR. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(7) Field for partnership play would be nice (with alternatives no, optional, yes).

(8) Field for the type of winning would be nice. (With alternatives Single winner, Single loser, Positions, Relative to score, Won money)Punainen Nörtti 08:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"deck = German" gives an appropriate link to "Playing_card#German". It would be good if "deck = French" could give a similar link to "Playing_card#Anglo-American-French". Maproom (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

auto-categorizing templates are evil

The autocategorization based on the deck and type parameters are pretty stupid (INSHO). At least the deck one is especially dumb. 1) Many of the categories that are auto-generated by the category do not exist, leaving redlinks on pages, and 2) the categorization into a category of "Fooian card games" with a parameter of "Fooian" deck often misleading. The type of deck a game is played with is largely irrelevant to the origin of the game. I suggest removing the autocategorization and let editors manually add articles into the correct categories. older ≠ wiser 20:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Major code update and a facelift

I moved all the code over to {{Infobox}} in order to:

1. Make code the code human readable. I am sorry, but no one really wanted to dig through tons of <div>'sin order to fix/add/update/etc ...
2. Give the infobox a little more definition and character. Labels and data are now more distinct and easier to distinguish.
3. Organize related labels into headers.

Please let me know what you think of the changes, or make some of your own if you deem it necessary. Whatever you do, do not revert back to a manual infobox. The reason {{Infobox}} exists is to limit the amount of nasty, unreadable code needed to create an infobox. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Awesome work. As this seems to have been uncontroversial, I've gone a bit further and normalised the styling against the modern {{infobox}} defaults. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally liked the blue better (at least for the headings). Anyone else have thoughts on this? Daniel J Simanek (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could say something positive as for the change in design of Infobox CardGame on this date, but rather I will say nothing.
A major step backwards. Krenakarore (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This date as compared to when? For comparison, Template:Infobox card game/testcases shows the old (pre-infobox) code next to the new code. The difference is pretty minimal, and positive IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Section headers / labels

I'm not convinced by the "About" and "Gameplay" headers. "About" seems a pretty redundant title (all of the information in the infobox is "about" the game), and both "skills required" and "age range" seem equally at home in the "Gameplay" section. The infobox also looks a bit odd when there's only one item in the "About" section (such as Shithead). I'd drop the section headers and move "age range" and "skills required" below "players" - they flow okay from origin to play details to related games, in the order they're given. --McGeddon (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all of the above. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Had forgotten about this in the intervening months, until reading some card game rules again. I'll make the changes suggested, in the absence of any objections since last November. --McGeddon (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Origin field: For ancestral games or for region of origin?

There appears to be no consensus on what the "origin" field should be used for. The documentation seems to suggest using it for ancestors, but these could also be listed under Related games. In many articles it's used for the region of origin, although that's also a somewhat fuzzy notion. Hans Adler 12:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)