This article 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
I think it's generally accepted that the people involved can be derived from the game credits. I added a bunch of "credits" footnotes even though I think it's ugly and disagree. TarkusABtalk19:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not add them in the body instead? I did a similar suggestion when reviewing Knuckles' Chaotix at DYK. TheJoebro64 added the names in the "Development and release" section, which looks cleaner than clogging refs in the infobox. MX (✉ • ✎) 20:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because none of these people are notable. It doesn't tell the reader anything, it feels vacuous. "The game was produced by Mark D and Joe P. It was designed by Luis J. The art team was led by Hugh K, and the music was composed by John T." Fantastic, that tells me nothing. Every game developed has people that fulfill these roles so unless they did something interesting or have a fascinating pedigree, it's pointless. If anything, the staff should be removed from the infobox. TarkusABtalk20:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
General consensus is that the info in the infobox (besides release dates) is assumed to be sourced to the game itself and thus does not require sources; same thing goes for plot sections. I was relatively new to Wikipedia at the time of Knuckles' Chaotix so I didn't know that. JOEBRO6420:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Response to both): In that case, they should be removed. The purpose of an infobox is to summarize the information in the article at a quick glance for readers. Per WP:INFOBOXCITE, the information in infoboxes has to be cited elsewhere in the article. We cannot "assume" it is cited somewhere, especially for readers not familiar with video games ending credits. Where was this consensus established?
I don't know if I agree with the fact that the producers/designers/artists etc. listed here are "pointless" unless they did something interesting or notable (working in such video game is already "notable" and "interesting" to me — perhaps not enough for an article of their own — but what do I know?) Sure, we should be careful about indiscriminately adding the names of everyone in the credit scene. But I don't think that applies in this situation since the infobox limits it to a few roles Wikipedians in the past deemed important enough for inclusion. If consensus has changed, then we should talk about amending the infobox for video games. MX (✉ • ✎) 21:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't like when infoboxes include staff just out of habit of including any "lead" person. I drafted a MOS proposal. Would either of you agree with this?
Staff should only be listed in the infobox if mentioned in prose. Furthermore, staff should only be mentioned in prose if their participation is deemed notable. Producer and director roles are inherently notable, but other roles are not. Others can be mentioned if they are well known in the industry, their participation was acknowledged by secondary sources, or their work on the game was recognized (ex. lead composer for a game that was noted for its music). Lead programmers, writers, artists etc. should not be mentioned off their role alone.
I'm not suggesting anyone go on a crusade and remove staff from infoboxes. More as a guideline for the future.
Like: Sounds good to me. MX (✉ • ✎) 15:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)