Template talk:Game

Can someone fix this thing, please? It seems the rating scores appear in the release date area. IfIHaveTo 02:55, 22 November 2007 (EST)


 * Hah! Success! Ando 16:33, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Unforeseen problem
So, uh... hm. It would appear that this new format doesn't easily allow for re-release dates to be listed -- well, if we WERE to list them, it'd look like
 * NA: Month Day, Year (NES) - Month Day, Year (GBA) - Month Day, Year (VC)
 * JP: Month Day, Year (NES) - Month Day, Year (GBA) - Month Day, Year (VC)

So on and so forth. This doesn't look too pretty, at least in my opinion. I looked at how Wikipedia does their listings, and they do them as such:
 * "NES version { {vgrelease|JP=November 21, 1991|NA=April 13, 1992|EU=September 24, 1992}}
 * GBA version { {vgrelease|NA=December 2, 2002|JP=March 14, 2003|EU=March 28, 2003}}"

And so on, with the vgrelease template automatically sorting out the dates like you see on the existing game or system templates here, only sorted by re-release versions. Before moving on, I think I'll re-write the game template to utilize this (the system template doesn't need it as a system is only released once!), as it seems like a good, concise way of doing it. Normally I'd wait for input, but the template's already been re-written and pages are in need of editing. 19:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

edit: Scratch that -- not editing the system template as well would only create inconsistencies. So that will be edited as well. 19:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, well, well. I was just signing up for a part-time job and you figure this out on your own in no time! You have learned well, my young apprentice. Excellent work! :D 19:32, October 15, 2008 (UTC)

Ratings
-Bernd 04:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It looks like OFLC(NZ) didn't rate any Zelda game (see their web page and use their search system), thus shouldn't it be removed here? Furthermore: Thus ratings mentioned at OFLC as "Office of Film and Literature Classification (New Zealand)" are most likely OFLC (Austalia) ratings.
 * 2) It looks like ACB overtook OFLC(A) ratings, like G to G and G 8+ to PG. Indication: ACB's site's search uses ACB ratings, but if one looks at their older classification reports (e.g. for LA:DX, 1998) one can see old OFLC(A) ratings (like "G 8+", with space). Thus ACB and OFLC maybe could sometimes also be put as like "OFLC/ACB: G 8+ / PG" for older games.
 * 3) It looks like DEJUS (en.wp) in Brasil rated OoT (most likely 3DS or VC) and SS as "10", see pt.wp article of DEJUS and then "exemplos" next to the rating symbol "10". Though: I couldn't find a real proof for it (like a search result on DEJUS' page or a game cover with a rating logo).
 * 4) ATM it's sorted as "ESRB - PEGI - ELSPA - OFLC - CERO - GRB - ACB - USK". Shouldn't it be either "ACB - CERO - ELSPA - ESRB - GRB - OFLC - PEGI - USK" (alphabetically) or "ESRB - PEGI - ELSPA - ACB - OFLC - CERO - USK - GRB" (first english speaking onces, then non-english speaking ones and partly with some kind of importance)? To the 'importance' of non-english speaking countries: Zelda games usually are made in Japan (CERO), are commonly also released in Germany (USK) and it looks as they're only sometimes or later released in South Korea (GRB). Furthermore there might be more Japanese than people in the FRG/BRD ("Germany") and more people in FRG/BRD than in South Korea. ACB and OFLC maybe could sometimes also be put as like "OFLC/ACB: G 8+ / PG" for older games, see point 2.


 * It seems like the ACB was always in charge of game ratings. They were simply incorporated into the OFLC at some point, before the latter dissolved in 2006. I would suggest we just keep it simple and leave it at "ACB" instead of "OFLC/ACB."


 * This seems to be Wikipedia's source for the DEJUS ratings. I can't read Portuguese but it looks official, anyway. :P


 * The ESRB rating should be given precedence, given that Zelda Wiki is based in America and most of our traffic comes from there. That said, I'm not sure about that "order of importance," though... It's better than what we have now, but it still seems pretty subjective. I doubt it's an order that readers will really understand, and isn't that the whole point? My suggestion would be to put the ESRB rating first, followed by all the rest in alphabetical order. (Honestly I sometimes wonder why we have all these ratings at all, but I won't bother opening that can of worms.)


 * Sorry for the week late reply, by the way. 22:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)