Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. If this idea is still being considered, I'd also be in favour of adding a table listing the paths of the game's executables relative to the installation folder; I could see it being useful in a couple of scenarios: When the game's executable is buried within subfolders in the installation directory, like "<INSTALL_FOLDER>/Resources/assets/cooked/bin/<game_name>.exe" When a game has separate executables to launch the game with specific configurations or in separate modes like: when a game has "<game_name>_dx.exe" and "<game_name>_vk.exe" to launch it with a DirectX or Vulkan renderer, respectively; or it has a "<game_name>_sp.exe" which is just the single-player mode and "<game_name>_mp.exe" which is just the multiplayer. And this could be especially useful for Mac and Linux users: unlike Windows, the Unix-like filesystems at the heart of MacOS and Linux don't put any special significance on ".<ext>" file extensions and, as such, executable files have no standard extension like ".exe" and can be named anything on those systems. This is mostly fine on Mac because the executable binary is almost always in "<game_name>.app/Contents/macos/<executable_name>" (but they can be elsewhere and the "Contens/macos" can contain several binaries) but on Linux it can sometimes be difficult to distinguish the executable from just any other file in the install directory. For these reasons I could such a table being very helpful to the more casual and less technical players. I agree with @Garrett that there isn't much value in listing the installation directory as that can often be chosen/changed freely by the user.
  2. I'm very glad to hear my proposal has been warmly welcomed. For what it's worth I have begun to experiment with the PCGamingWiki API, if things turn out well I may be able to build such a bot myself but I really can't promise much as I'm still rather new at this sort of thing. Of course, a bot wouldn't be able to do much without the fields being added to the Infobox_game template first.
  3. I think it would be very helpful to end-users of PCGamingWiki if we added more database identifiers to the infobox, mainly the game's GameFAQs page and its WikiData item ID. GameFAQs may be dated and privately owned but, for better or worse, it is still the largest game database with the most active userbase and is still an insanely valuable resource. WikiData should be very uncontroversial as it's basically just the database end of Wikipedia, which we already link to, and it's an excellent free authority control. Game pages on WikiData already link to multiple other databases including PCGamingWiki. What I'm asking here is: is there any reason we don't currently include identifiers for these databases in the Infobox? I understand that there has to be a limit on the number of identifiers we include in every page's infobox which is why I singled out GameFAQs and WikiData as they're two I frequently reference and wish PCGamingWiki conveniently linked.
  • Create New...