Jump to content

Template talk:Video game reviews/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Please add The Escapist

Consensus reached here. Please add a code for it in the template, may I suggest "Escape". Zero Serenity (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Object for now The contents of this template aren't driven by the decisions on whether a source is reliable at WP:VG/RS. A consensus there doesn't grant automatic entry to this template. Why should it be added to this template? - X201 (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm scratching my head here, I thought that is the process to add. Was there a discussion to be had elsewhere that I missed? Zero Serenity (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:VG/RS only pass judgement on whether they think a source is reliable or not. The only thing you get added to over there is their big list. Adding stuff to this template is a totally separate process. - X201 (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll go sort this out then. Zero Serenity (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. I'm not sure exactly what you want me to add here. Please add this to the /sandbox and show me a couple test cases of it working (and nothing else being broken) on the /testcases page. I'm noting the objection here, and depending on exactly what code is being requested to be added (well, what it does anyways), we can discuss how to go about what needs to be done. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 16:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This should be what's needed (along with an update to the doc once implemented; simply an addition of another reviewer to the existing list of potential reviewer fields. Frankly I'd go ahead and do it myself but all this Lua stuff flies way over my competence level. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, if the order is alphabetical, then shouldn't "Escapist" go after "EGM" and before "EuroG"? or am I missing something? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 08:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds correct to me. The full title is "The Escapist" but should be sorted without the "the". Zero Serenity (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay,  Done – Paine  13:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: I don't see a consensus at Wikipedia talk:VG#Add The Escapist to Template:Video game reviews for this change. Would you mind removing it? --Izno (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Izno, I was wondering if your question would be asked. Earlier in this conversation the requester was told, "Adding stuff to this template is a totally separate process." I wondered just where this separate process was described. There does not seem to be any description in the template documentation, which is where I went to find out how to add a reviewer. It tells me how to add the code, but it says nothing, not even a pointer to where I should go to ask if a VG reviewer may be added. If a discussion on the project's talk page is a requirement above and beyond The Escapist's rise to the level of a reliable source at WP:VG/RS, then should that not be noted somewhere so that both requesters and template editors will know? and template editors won't have to be asked to self-revert?
Also, I am unclear as to the exact requirement: Should the editor who made this request need a consensus to add The Escapist? or should the editor hope that there will be no consensus not to add The Escapist? I don't see a consensus forming against the addition, so if you don't mind, I would prefer to wait for the outcome of that discussion. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 15:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: I'm not sure that there's necessarily a requirement that that particular talk page (WT:VG) be consulted or that consensus be established here, but for any well-used template (and >3k uses is probably well-used), I would expect there to need to be consensus for a change, beyond that the technical part of the change doesn't cause the template to break. Here I see most of the editors are concerned with the technical implication of the change. Unfortunately, the discussion was forked instead of all happening in the same place. Wouldn't you agree that a positive consensus for change should be the case?

If I read the discussion at WT:VG, I don't see a positive consensus; if anything, there's a consensus against. Masem, Sergecross, and Fuchs all disagree with the change. Salvidrim and Zero Serenity are the only users advocating for the change (and I'm not even sure if Salvidrim is actually advocating for it; more of a "eh, what can it hurt?" rationale). X201 only makes the note about how to get the change made from a non-technical perspective, and Technical 13 is also looking at it from a technical point of view. Just by a headcount, that's 2-3-2 in favor of leaving the template without addition of Escapist. Which, it's fine if you didn't know where the discussion was occurring, but I don't think it appropriate to leave the change in without consensus for it. --Izno (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that there should be a consensus to include a periodical in this template; however, it's "how many" consensuses are needed that I question:
Firstly, the discussion on the project talk page is still up in the air on the issue. Masem and Sergecross both informally !voted against apparently before realizing that the periodical was no longer "situational" and is now a "reliable" source. After that, there is nothing more from Sergecross, but Masem seems to indicate the periodical is okay to use. So the only one to clearly !vote against inclusion is Fuchs, who did so after the realizational note that the periodical is now a reliable source. So at worst, it would seem that there are three editors who are for the inclusion and only one who is clearly against, possibly two counting Sergecross, who as said has not weighed in since the realizational note. While 3-1 or 3-2 is the possible !vote in favor of inclusion, since WP is not a democracy, and since the rationales are more important than the number of !votes, I am inclined to feel that the inclusion of The Escapist is appropriate, at least for now.
There seems to be a larger challenge here, though. There looks to be a necessary 3-step process to add any game reviewer to this template. If an editor would like to add Video Games Monthly to the template, the first thing would be to write an article on that periodical. It should at the very least be a notable periodical. Then, the editor must go to WP:VG/RS to argue that Video Games Monthly is a reliable source. After passing that muster, the editor must garner a consensus to include this notable reliable source in this template. Frankly, I don't see how there can already be so many reviewer periodicals in this template. I would like to know why a periodical that is already considered notable enough for a WP article and already considered a reliable source, must also pass a third test to be added to this template? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I almost forgot about the actual "challenge". If involved editors want there to be a process like the one I described above, then it should be documented, preferably here in the template documentation, so that people will know what is needed and expected in order to include a periodical in the template. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm going to agree to disagree to your interpretation. Regardless, it seems to me that given two different persons both getting a different read on the discussion, the default in the case of a protected template is to leave the template as it was. I'd have reverted you for your disbelief if the template was not protected; then we'd be looking at this from the discuss point of view without the change....

I agree, this appears to be an issue with the documentation; but I don't think the process as described is a crazy one for a template which is both well-used and protected because of that fact. --Izno (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, Izno, and you have made a good case for this being an interesting type of BRD situation. As I was mainly just an instrument to carry out the wishes of editor Zero Serenity, then it is wrong of me to try to assume the identity of an involved editor and take sides. The template will be returned to status quo until involved editors resolve the issue. This edit request may be reopened if and when consensus supports the edit, or a new request can be opened. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 06:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --Izno (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the above that any process needs to be documented. Just to explain to Paine, WP:VG templates have suffered from massive amounts of bloat in the past, and as such most of the regulars are a bit touchy about adding stuff to templates because they're the ones who are left with the consequences after any addition. With the added complication for this template that video game sources spring up and disappear in rapid succession, this template tends to favour publications that have shown a bit of longevity, stability and reliability.
As regards The Escapist, I still have a problem with Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw's deliberately provocative reviews being anything but situational, but if WP:VG think its OK, then its OK. - X201 (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yes, my comment was a response to the edit request itself in a technical capacity. My thought process was that there appeared to be a consensus that it was a valid source, and since it is a valid source, it should "probably" be included in the template as long as it was done so in a way that was productive (which is why I said I wanted to see exactly what you were proposing to add in the sandbox). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat as X201 here. We'd first have to outright say this can't include ZP or the like; we're talking the main site reviews like Jim Sterling's (they're marking a special way, we have to make sure they are tagged). But that also leads to the fact that it's semi-anecdotal knowledge in the field that some regard Sterling's takes as often being done to attract attention as compared to necessarily being critical. This is not saying all reviews marked as such from the Escapist are this problematic, and there's times their inclusion is just fine. (Additionally, when they are just doing news pieces, they're okay too) But people often use the chart as a crutch and will include any such reviews as long as it adds a line. If the Escapist's review of a work do significantly add to the other content, then it can be included in the prose without having to change this template. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Process for additions to this template

As mentioned in The Escapist section above, we need a process on this page to help passing admins know what to add and what not to add. So I propose a quick pre-flight checklist that lets an admin add with the minimum of hassle and have a removal option after the addition. e.g

Criteria for quick addition.

  1. The publication must be on the WP:VG/RS list as a "General" source (Situational sources are not allowed).
  2. The publication must have a Wikipedia article of Class (?)
  3. The request for addition must be made on this page and a link to it listed on WT:VG

If the above are met the publication can be added. Any time before addition or for a period of 30 days after addition an objection can be raised and an instant revert granted.

After 30 days, or an instant revert, a normal consensus building discussion should take place.

I think that draws a decent enough balance between ease of addition and the ability to stop something being added. Opinions please. - X201 (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Additional "Discussions about addition and removal of a publication will happen here and not at WT:VG - X201 (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Is #2 necessary? Also this feels like codifying something that doesn't need to be codified. For the documentation, I'd just say that it needs to be a vetted source (WP:VG/RS) and we need to have a discussion about it before the edit request is made—the same as we would for anything else. Ideally WTVG should be notified too, but this doesn't need to have 30 day stipulations, etc. since BRD applies. czar ♔ 13:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Just throwing things up there to get the discussion started. - X201 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
My two cents:
Criteria
  1. I agree with this one.
  2. I don't really agree with this one. If we don't have an article on it, it's unlikely that it's going to be useful for a standardized template. OTOH, whether an item should go on the template is already going to be discussed, and if people actually think this is necessary this criterion will show up. Seems kinda unnecessary then.
  3. I would go further; that sounds rather lax. I would expect something to the tune of:
    1. Request must be made for edition on this page, without the edit protected template,
    2. Place notification on WT:VG for the request (if nowhere else, at the minimum),
    3. Build consensus on the template talk page (7 days? any number of days after we have some regulars comment? pick some arbitrary number), where silence is not consent
    4. File edit request
    5. ???
    6. Profit!
I don't see a need for a 30 day grace period if we require some discussion before hand. --Izno (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 August 2014

There should be another code, MAC. When adding multi-column video game tables, like N64 and NES, MAC for Mackintosh should be on the code list. 98.194.29.36 (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Added Macintosh as MAC. — xaosflux Talk 12:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 January 2015

We'd like to add the Daily Dot to the video game review template, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:Video_game_reviews/data between the Crash and Destructoid lines, we'd like to add {'Daily Dot', 'DD'}, Explanation: Respected mainstream media outlet, Dot's Alexa ranking is higher than Destructoid, Eurogamer, and Giant Bomb according to their Wiki entries, and those three outlets are common entries on the review charts for Reception sections of game entries. Painedmeerkat (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Painedmeerkat

Not done for now: You say we'd, so I must ask where the discussion to this consensus is located and who "we" are. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
To add, Daily Dot does not regularly review video games; if the DD review is critic, we have the customizable fields for that. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

PCGUK / PCGUS

The difference between PCGUK ("PC Gamer (UK)") and PCGUS ("PC Gamer (US)") is unclear, and in my opinion this should be changed. Both link to PC Gamer and that article says "PC Gamer is a magazine founded in Britain in 1993 [...]", and the pages at pcgamer.com do not mention "UK" or "US" or whatever. There is no way for regular editors to know whether a pcgamer.com page they want to use should be used for PCGUK or for PCGUS. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone any thoughts? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

These fields are not just for the website. UK users can easily tell which version they're reading so they@ll fill their bit in correctly. - X201 (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hm, so maybe it should be supplemented with PCGUK ("website")? Or it could say which one should be used for the website, since I still don't know which one to pick... --82.136.210.153 (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

3DS and WiiU

Can someone add 3DS and WiiU into the Predefined System Type for Multi-platform layout? AdrianGamer (talk) 26 September, 2014

Template-protected edit request on 8 March 2015

Add {'[[Nintendo 3DS]]','3DS'}, {'[[Wii U]]','WIIU'}, to local systems on Module:Video game reviews/data, so that these two platforms can be used as listed in Template:Video_game_reviews#Multi-platform documentation. The1337gamer (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Loss of italics in Lua transition

As the template has transitioned to a lua based Module:Video game reviews, the italics used for publication titles has been lost. Print magazines and newspapers should be italicised according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Italic_type. I'm not actually too fussed whether we follow the manual of style in this particular template, as it leads to a mix of italics and non-italics in the left hand column, but I think it should be discussed. - hahnchen 17:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering about this too. Yes, I agree with the restoration of the above, and also for news websites (e.g., Polygon). I imagine there'd be pushback over italicizing IGN the same (argument being that they're a network), even though the news website and the network are ostensibly different entities (one italicized and one not). czar ♔ 19:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hahnchen, I implemented this in the module sandbox and it tested all right. I found some junk in there to address when this is over, too. I italicized to match the italicization used at Template:Video_game_reviews#Code. I think some others should be italicized too, but one thing at a time. I also corrected links for Dragon, Hyper, and Play, and moved the parenthetical country distinctions outside the wikilink for OPM, OXM, and PC Gamer. Thoughts? czar ♔ 01:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Create test cases at WT:VG and let them decide. - hahnchen 12:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Italics_in_vg_reviews czar ♔ 22:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: Now that the discussion has been archived, is it OK to add italics - at least for the magazines? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
If we do want this, saving this edit will enable it. (I have no opinion on the matter.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
No opposition in a few months now—I say that's as much an approval as we're going to get czar ♔ 02:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Italics should be enabled. This is one method. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there an advantage to that method over the one I already posted? Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
An advantage over this method? Selective italicization. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made a new revision at the sandbox implementing italics which can be pasted directly into Module:Video game reviews/data safely. I've also removed the following entries which seem to have been added with no prior discussion and are non-notable publications: ActionTrip, GameCritics, GameWire. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Based on other similar requests on other templates, I can see this as potentially highly controversial changes and am going to ask you to get consensus before the changes are implemented. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Addition of Computer Gaming World

Hello there. Could somebody add Computer Gaming World to the list of approved sources of reviews? This is a now-defunct computer game magazine, but for decades it was a very important publication, and a great reference for old/classic computer games. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 20:32, 04 October 2014 (UTC)

When did they start doing number reviews? czar ♔ 22:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I have done some research briefly, and I think it may have been around late 1994. You can see it here: http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1994&pub=2&id=123 (talk) user:Al83tito 22:40, 04 October 2014 (UTC)
I second that request. CGW would be great to have in there. Iwesp (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Custom reviewers

I would like to limit the use of custom reviewers. I really don't quite think they are necessary if they are not cited within the text. It feels like we are using it purely to mirror Metacritic. Looking at Ori and the Blind Forest. Battlefield Hardline, as well as Bloodborne, the custom reviewers in the reception section serve no purpose besides filling up some space. I really think that it is a bit pointless. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This is already the case anyway. Whether it is a custom or predefined reviewer, if a review isn't being written about in prose then it shouldn't be included in the table. The table is for supplementing the text, scores shouldn't be listed there if they aren't being used. Just remove all the scores that aren't being written about. Ten reviews is more than enough to write a decent review section so I limit it to that typically. The1337gamer (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Obsolete HTML

This template uses obsolete HTML: 

		:attr('cellpadding', 0)
		:attr('cellspacing', 0)

-- Gadget850 talk 06:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Implying we need to replace cellpadding on the table with the following CCS on the cells:
td { padding: 0; }
And cellspacing with border-spacing on the table:
table { border-spacing: 0; border-collapse: separate; }
I believe? --Izno (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
That looks right. -- Gadget850 talk 10:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

GameRankings

GameRankings − Particularly useful for games that pre-date Metacritic

I know this topic recurs from time to time, but I've written articles on multiple games that predate Metacritic and I'm not sure I've ever found GameRankings helpful. They usually aggregate sites we don't consider reliable sources or sites whose reviews I don't plan to use in the Reception section anyway (too weak). Does anyone have an example of GameRankings being helpful in this case? Otherwise I really don't see when it would be useful. czar ⨹ 01:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Metacritic do not have a page for Metroid II: Return of Samus or Kirby's Dream Land and there is no review available for Star Wars: Dark Forces in its Metacritic page, but GameRankings manages to generate a score for them. So I guess it still has some value for some these old games. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Eh, I suppose those first two aren't so bad. We wouldn't include a few of their sources as reliable, at least without discussion, but I suppose it's similar to Metacritic as we use it. For most other games, perhaps those older or those lesser known, it doesn't make sense to use the aggregator. I'll post a few next time I hit them. For example, that the PC page for Dark Forces—I don't think an average of three reviews is worth displaying, or indicative of anything at all. At the very least, it shouldn't be seen as required. czar ⨹ 11:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I was going to write "only useful for games that pre-date Metacritic", but didn't think that would fly given how much support GameRankings gets here. The only place GameRankings has Metacritic beat are in places where Metacritic has nothing - these are generally the games of the late nineties, anything before, and GameRankings is mostly useless too. - hahnchen 19:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Even if GR only uses entities that we would normally not consider reliable per WP:VG/S, the link to GR provides help to the reader/researcher to see where these reviews that we can't use or even link ourselves. That's the primary benefit of GR over MC is that they are less discriminating of what sources they include, so provide more reviews that MC offers, in general. It's not so much the aggregate score but the fact we provide a source that link dumps all possible reviews for someone researching further will find useful. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Except I don't think it's all the possible reviews and I don't see the aforementioned benefit as a benefit. I think we do our readers a disservice by putting a metascore in the place where they expect Metacritic's score when it's not always aggregating useful sites. Metacritic already includes sites we don't find reliable—I consider their net already too wide. I think it's important to use discretion on whether GR is appropriate, if ever. czar ⨹ 23:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Atari Lynx

Can we have Atari Lynx added to the multiplatform reviews please? - X201 (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- I'm surprised you aren't a template-editor X201. Any reason? Want to be? :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Salvidrim! Thanks for fixing that. As for Template editor, the simple answer is that it hadn't crossed my mind to ask for it. It would make life easier. I'll trundle over to requests later and check if I measure up to the criteria. - X201 (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
LOL! X201,  Done. Go forth and template-edit! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks :-) - 13:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Template "too wide"

I'm preparing a major clean-up of the reviews template in articles, the first stage is a clean up of the usage of the template's rev fields in articles. I've extracted the contents of every rev field from WP and there are loads of articles, that, instead of using the predefined fields, have them as longhand in a rev field.
Yesterday I manually changed one article that had 10 of the rev fields filled with reviews that could have used the predefined fields. this was reverted with the explanation that my edit was "Unnecessary because it makes the table too wide", I can understand why Niwi3 reverted - Its because using the rev field Computer and Video Games and Official PlayStation Magazine (US) can be shortened from 24 and 34 characters respectively to CVG and OPM (US), making the template narrower. - but I have a vague recollection that its wrong, because I think there's a WP guideline that states we need to show the full publication name and not make up our own acronyms. The reason I raise this is so that I can tackle it in the correct way when it no doubt comes up during the clean up; and if it requires a change to the template. - X201 (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

MOS:ABBR is what you're looking for, that strongly suggests spelling out names. I see no reason to deviate from that here when talking game review sources. And I strongly agree we should be discouraging the use of "rev" fields to use the abbreviation in place of an established source name just to shorten the table. If anything, it would be better to add a parameter that sets the % width of the first column away from a default value so that, say at width=50% of the first column it would force long names to split across two or more lines, keeping the overall table width narrow but perhaps extending it. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Masem and X201: From WP:ACRO (same policy as linked above, specific section): To save space, in "small spaces" (infoboxes, navboxes and tables), acronyms do not need to be written out in full. --Izno (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe then , perhaps, have a field to toggle the use of common abbreviations for longer names (CVG and OPM (US) would be fine, but shortening "Game Informer" to GI would not be) where users would like that? I'd still recommend against that, but have it as an option instead of flooding the rev fields. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I think, given that we have wikilinks to the websites/magazines in question, that it would be fine to shorten the text in those headers which we think can sensibly be shortened, across the board. I'm ambivalent on which websites/magazines those specifically are but I'm sure that the group can come to consensus. --Izno (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, that's why I reverted X201's edit. I think it is perfectly fine to use acronyms in templates as long as they are well-known and help save space. Similarly, I also think that it is correct to use acronyms in platform or release date fields of infoboxes. For example, Super Metroid has the SNES acronym in the platform field. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed names for shortening

From reading the above I think there is no outright opposition to a sensible shortening of some of the longer titles, so I've had a look at them and come up with some suggestions.
I took a list of how titles are displayed in the template and counted their length, the average length was 13 characters (rounded up), so I concentrated on any titles that were longer than this. The proposed new display names below are all from publications where the publication called itself by the abbreviation or sources refer to it in its abbreviated form.

Current Display Name Length Proposed Dsplay Name
Computer Gaming World 21 CGW
Computer and Video Games 24 CVG
Electronic Gaming Monthly 25 EGM
Official Nintendo Magazine 26 ONM
Official PlayStation Magazine (AU) 34 OPM(AU)
Official PlayStation Magazine (US) 34 OPM(UK)
Official PlayStation Magazine (UK) 34 OPM(US)
Official Xbox Magazine 22 OXM
Official Xbox Magazine (UK) 27 OXM(UK)
PlayStation Magazine 20 PSM

Obviously the links behind the piped name will stay the same, so users are only one click from finding the full name of the title. If the above are implemented Adventure Gamers will become the longest name, at 16 characters. - X201 (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of shortening the ones below 30 characters (it would be my preference to only shorten OPM), but I think the above is fine. Only suggestion I'd make is to put a space between the abbreviation and the parenthetical country abbreviation. czar ⨹ 14:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a sensible way to approach it, and would agree with adding a space to those abbreviations since we have now an extra couple of characters to play with. Out of curiosity, what was the median average number of characters (I assume you took the mean average)? --Izno (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I went with mean as a rough starting point. Here are the others.
Method Result
Arithmetic Mean 12.28571429
Median 10
STDEV 7.91407942
Mode 7
- X201 (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Neat. What other items are above 10 characters in length that we might feel comfortable trimming down? --Izno (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's the full list
VG Reviews Standard Publications - Title Lengths
Display Name Length
Official PlayStation Magazine (US) 34
Official PlayStation Magazine (UK) 34
Official PlayStation Magazine (AU) 34
Official Xbox Magazine (UK) 27
Official Nintendo Magazine 26
Electronic Gaming Monthly 25
Computer and Video Games 24
Official Xbox Magazine 22
Computer Gaming World 21
Nintendo World Report 21
PlayStation Magazine 20
Adventure Gamers 16
Game Revolution 15
Amstrad Action 14
Nintendo Power 14
VideoGamer.com 14
Game Informer 13
PC Gamer (UK) 13
PC Gamer (US) 13
Sinclair User 13
Your Sinclair 13
GameTrailers 12
NGC Magazine 12
NintendoLife 12
PC PowerPlay 12
Destructoid 11
GamesMaster 11
GamesRadar 10
Giant Bomb 10
Maximum PC 10
Eurogamer 9
PC Format 9
GameSpot 8
GameZone 8
TeamXbox 8
1UP.com 7
AllGame 7
Famitsu 7
GameFan 7
GamePro 7
GameSpy 7
GamesTM 7
Joystiq 7
PC Zone 7
Polygon 7
Amtix! 6
Dragon 6
X-Play 6
Crash 5
Hyper 5
PALGN 5
Edge 4
Play 4
PSM3 4
IGN 3
G4 2
- X201 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, is it really an issue to use the rev fields? I mean, they are there for a reason; they give flexibility to the template. In any case, I won't oppose the idea of shortening some of the longer titles, but keep in mind that this change might significantly affect the look of other articles, for better or worse. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Some thoughts:
  1. Impacting the look of other articles is a general concern that every one assumes as a known risk (or opportunity!) regarding templates. So don't worry about it. You've identified an issue with the width of the template and so we're trying to fix that one, since that's the one we know about.
  2. The rev fields are intended (thought not required) to be for non-standard reviews. This is because we want a consistent view and to provide an expectation that x review will always show up looking the same and in the same location (the reason we have templates in the first place).
  3. Using the rev fields inhibits future import from/export to Wikidata for reviews.
There might be others floating around my brain…. --Izno (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Automatic alpha sorting too. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that as a convincing reason myself since the module could presumably be improved (to some degree) to auto-alpha sort custom revs into the list proper (if we wanted) or even within their own list of custom revs. --Izno (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't seem any out and out opposition to the names listed above, so I'll go ahead with shortening them - with the inclusion of the space as mentioned. - X201 (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Revs

Regarding the other thing mentioned above - If a rev field has a standard alternative, use the standard (e.g. if rev1 is a link to CVG, change it so that is uses the CVG template field) - is there any opposition to this? I think its the sensible thing to do, for both WP articles and WikiData. - X201 (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

MobyGames custom aggregator

For cleanup, how can I compile a list of templates that still use MobyGames as a custom aggregator (| agg1 = [[MobyGames]])? – czar 15:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

One may miraculously appear here in about 1 hour 30 minutes. :-) - X201 (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Czar: Here you go

Articles that use the custom aggregator field
1080° Avalanche agg1 Game Rankings
1080° Avalanche agg2 MobyGames
Atlantica Online agg2 AlaTest
BioShock agg1 MobyGames
Broken Sword: The Angel of Death agg1 Metacritic
Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon agg1 Metacritic
Dischan Media agg1 iTunes App Store
Dragon Ball Z: Buyū Retsuden agg1 MobyGames
Eternal Darkness agg1 MobyGames
Galapagos (video game) agg1 Moby Games
Hamlet (video game) agg1 MobyGames
Hero of Many agg1 MobyGames
Neocron agg1 MobyGames
Neocron agg2 TopTenReviews
Nights into Dreams... agg1 Sega Retro
Nintendo Land agg1 MobyGames
Phantasy Star (video game) agg1 Sega Retro
Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction agg1 MobyGames
Resident Evil (1996 video game) agg1 Sega Retro
Shenmue agg1 Sega Retro
Sonic the Hedgehog 2 agg1 Defunct Games
The Guild 2 agg1 Demonews
The Guild 2 agg2 Game Over Online
User:Moniker85/Feedly agg1 Firefox User Reviews
User:Moniker85/Feedly agg2 Android OS User Reviews

Not as many as I thought there would be. Does this mean the custom aggregator fields are defunct? - X201 (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Not yet, but it should be. If this is the complete list, then it's only been used inappropriately. I propose that we deprecate the custom aggregator param. – czar 05:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
✓ List has been cleaned up – czar 12:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Width

We've got 500 articles that use the undocumented |width = field. I'm just dropping this here in case anyone has an opinion on it. - X201 (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Xbox

I've just noticed that when using the review table in multi-platform mode, the link for Xbox goes to Xbox instead of Xbox (console), which is where it should go. I assume this is an easy enough fix. Bertaut (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done -X201 (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Cheers. Bertaut (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hidden Tracking Category for Multi-Platform Mode

Does anyone object to the addition of a hidden maintenance category to the template? to track when its being used in Multi-platform mode. At the moment the only information we have is that the template is being used on a certain article, we have no indication about how its being used, and the only way we have of finding this is by manually checking each article. A tracking category would make it easier to find articles that would benefit from having reviews from different platforms; I'm mostly thinking about games that have a console and handheld version, which usually differ greatly. The other reason would be to make future clean-up maintenance easier, making it easy to focus on templates that are in single platform mode or multi-platfom mode. - X201 (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. --Izno (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • A tracking cat is fine if you plan to use it, but to your subsequent thought, most multiplatform games I've worked on are much better off without the multiplat mode, which ultimately just looks clunky compared singleplat mode prefixes ("X360:", "3DS:"). – czar 15:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Trust me. I'll make use of the tracking category. Who is/are the resident LUA expert(s) here?, as LUA is a language that I haven't dealt with before. - X201 (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Code

I'm new to LUA, could someone give me a hand please. I'm guessing that the code needed can re-use the activeSystems routine, but I think that the syntax of the IF statement is wrong, as the category was added to both single and multiplatform version of the template when I tested it in the sandbox.
if #activeSystems ~= 0 then
return '[[Category:Test cat]]'
end
 From what I've read, the # modifier gives the string length, for some reason the category was added when a platform was set to both true and false. - X201 (talk)

@Jackmcbarn: could you give me a hand implementing this please? - X201 (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@X201: See if it works now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Works a treat. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, the tracking categories are now live:

I'm surprised how few articles use multi-platform mode. - X201 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"standard" sites for primarily mobile games

While many mobile games will get coverage in the usual sources, there are some games that better covered in Mobile (not handheld console)-only game sites. I would like to suggest we add a couple of those as regular titles and add those as recommended sources for games that are primarily in the mobile space. I'm thinking that sites like TouchArcade and Pocket Gamer are well established to be included in this way. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that after I complete my current task. I'm currently checking every article that uses the reviews template, one aspect of it is to clean the rev fields. There are loads of publications that have standard fields that are listed as revs, I've written an AWB module to fix this and I'm working through the articles, after I've finished it I'm going to compile a list of the publications used in the rev fields so we can see which are used the most and deserve a standard field. Based on what I've seen so far, the two you mentioned would be serious contenders. - X201 (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Collapsible option

Do we still need the collapsible param on this template? It messes with the normal navbox function, which detects vg reviews as expanded and thus automatically contracts itself (thus navboxes need to be marked as state=expanded) yadda yadda. The documentation currently says we use "collapsible" for long tables, but haven't we already decided that tables shouldn't be long and that only a handful of reviews are really necessary? – czar 22:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

At least for now, is there any reason why we wouldn't set the template's default collapsible state to "plain" (unless overridden)? That would solve the aforementioned navbox issue. – czar 22:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Per MOS:COLLAPSE, I believe that it should not be collapsible by default. Alakzi (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with making the default non-collapsing. I'm not sure that we should remove the option entirely--articles with reviews on multiple platforms could still use it, if we plan to retain that functionality also. --Izno (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Would a template editor please change the |state= default to "plain"? – czar 20:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Before I do that, would anybody know what the point of the "plain" |state= option is? It simply pushes the title to the right. Are people also aware that this template is in breach of WP:FONTSIZE? Alakzi (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @Alakzi, I originally though I wanted "off" but the documentation made "plain" seem like the right choice. I think the documentation for "off" and "plain" might be switched? Does that sound right? Anyway, we want the one where it's centered on its own. Let's push font size to its own discussion, if that's okay – czar 21:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
        • @Czar: If we're defaulting to uncollapsible, I see no point in keeping either option. How about we trim it down to "autocollapse", "collapsed" and "expanded", with "collapsible" being implied when any of those three is used? Alakzi (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
          • I think that's fine for most uses. My only concern would be that I don't know all the non-traditional ways others are using the template, so might want to leave that open for feedback. For the time being, it'd be nice to change the default so I can start removing the "state=expanded" from my navboxes. – czar 21:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Done I've removed "plain" and "off" and set it to default to uncollapsible. Upon further investigation, "plain" was erroneously transposed into Lua, with "off" apparently having been added to make up for their mistake. It is rather doubtful that either is of any actual use, but I'll revert if proven to be wrong. Alakzi (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion to remove multi-platform option

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Should_multi-platform_Reception_charts_be_removed.3F – czar 17:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request 2015-10-05

Could someone please change the Nintendo Life's display name from "NintendoLife" to "Nintendo Life" per its About page? Takinzinnia (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

✓ done czar 18:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Two missing publications

The Sixth Axis and Push-square have both now covered 1000 games. Should we have them as part of the template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.48.12.195 (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

A discussion should be opened at WP:VG/RS on whether they are reliable sources or not first. Even then the pre-defined parameters are for websites that are frequently used in articles, not necessarily all of them. --The1337gamer (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Add OpenCritic to Video Game Review Aggregators

Hey everyone,

I'd like to request that OpenCritic be added to the list of Video Game review aggregators. For the past several major releases, OpenCritic has been the fastest aggregator when posting reviews. They also have several publications included that both Metacritic and GameRankings do not have, such as Eurogamer, Kotaku, Totalbiscuit, AngryCentaurGaming, Rock Paper Shotgun, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Game-Debate, Gadgets360, Paste Magazine, Pixel Dynamo, WCCFtech, GBAtemp, Examiner.com, and PCWorld.

All of their standards are completely transparent and visible on their FAQ.

Unlike Metacritic, OpenCritic does not have any weighting, and instead takes a straight average. Also unlike Metacritic and GameRankings, OpenCritic includes publications that don't issue numeric verdicts, such as Eurogamer, and instead displays their textual verdict. Non-numeric publications are not included in the aggregate score.

MattEnth (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

See the WT:VG archives about this website. --Izno (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The only problem is that I've not seen it get a lot of attention since it's opening. MC still seems the preferred one. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to add Hardcore Gamer

I think we should include this source into the template. Its considered reliable at WP:VG/RS. Honestly thought it was part of it in the first place until now. GamerPro64 18:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't find anything on how it is decided on what gets or doesn't get added. The closest I see is this old short discussion. I also don't see any decision about max number of sources or if such notion is applicable. I believe silent consensus is that the source has to be WP:VG/RS, but which ones from WP:VG/RS make it here -- I have no idea besides the recommended "usual suspects" list. I suspect so far it has been subjective, probably based on their importance/quality/influence/audience size/usage stats. For example, Hardcore Gamer is linked 695 times, while The Escapist (also not included) is linked 1,950 times. Shouldn't we add the latter first then? Personally, I would abstain deciding on individual items because, while I support including Hardcore Gamer, at that point I'm not sure why I wouldn't agree to include entire WP:VG/RS. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe that should a discussion to have on the main talk about. I get what you're saying. Having all reliable sources part of the template sounds like a good idea but some might see it as excessive. GamerPro64 22:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to stop including GameRankings by default

WT:VG#GameRankings proposal czar 15:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

GameRankings 2 significant figures

Does this convention extend to Template:Video game series reviews? --The1337gamer (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be practical czar 15:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox style

Is there any interest in bringing this template's style more in line with other infoboxes? For example, like this. SharkD  Talk  03:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ew and no. Wikitable, not that hideous thing, is "more in line" with other tables, especially at the normal location in the text. As it is, {{infobox video game}} should be changed to use {{infobox}} rather than its elaborate and presently obnoxious striping and other artifacts present from legacy, a style which a bare handful of users appreciate. --Izno (talk) 12:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 January 2016

Nintendo Life has an article, the template doesn't wikilink it. Change {'Nintendo Life', 'NLife'}, to {'[[Nintendo Life]]', 'NLife'}, on Module:Video game reviews/data. The1337gamer (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Done [1]. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 January 2016

Destructoid should be italicized. It's as simple as it sounds. Lordtobi (✉) 21:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Done [2]. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 January 2016

The line:
{"[[PlayStation Official Magazine|''OPM'' (UK)]]", 'OPMUK'}
needs to be changed to:
{"[[PlayStation Official Magazine - UK|''OPM'' (UK)]]", 'OPMUK'}
as the article has been moved. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 00:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

These need paraphrasing at WP:VGAGG:

"Do not include GameRankings unless it adds value...". I am sorry, but what does "value" mean in this context? With that said, that is not a good word of choice, so how can we clarify the meaning of "value"? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This also needs paraphrasing: "Do not include the fractional portion of the score (i.e., 83% instead of 83.46%).". When it uses the parenthesized passage, does it mean "Do not use 83% when 83.46% is provided on the website.", or does it mean "Round 83.46% to the nearest one."? I am asking because it is written as though "83.46%" should be used even though it says not to use fractional portions. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the second question, it does indeed mean to round the score to the nearest. 83.46% should be rounded down to 83%, and 83.5% would be rounded up to 84%. -- ferret (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Value is for local consensus to determine, not for us to mandate. Generally, I wouldn't argue that the score difference is important if it's within four points across platforms. I revised the second part to Round scores to the nearest whole number (e.g., 83.46% → 83%). though I really don't think it was necessary. czar 04:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"Aggregator score", not "scores"?

With "Aggregator scores" currently here, we want to add only one and the most valuable source, but the plural form of score is quite inappropriate and possibly outdated, making it indicate that we need to fill in empty spaces by adding more sources such as GameRankings when only one source is necessary. We do not call one source "sources" but rather just "source", and we can always omit extra, less valuable sources anyway. Unless someone should contest that we keep it for a reason, I find this minor thing inappropriate. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

In the case where we have different scores for different platforms, the language is still proper. I agree we want to avoid making it seem like more scores should be forced into place. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Why not do it dynamically? If more than one score is listed, have it say "Scores", otherwise, have it say "Score". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The template system approach doesn't make it very easy to do that unless you format the scores into a form that the template system can recognize. It's why, for our infobox, we use terms like "Designer(s)" to avoid the difficulty of using templates to figure it out exactly. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The whole backend is written in Lua. It seems like every time you add to the table of aggregators (table.insert(aggregators, k)) you could also increment a counter. If the counter equals 1, then you set aggregateScores = 'Aggregate score'. You can do the same with reviewers and awards too. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I've mocked it up at Template:Video game reviews/sandbox so that it only adds the "s" at the end of "Score" and "Award" if there are multiple entries. You can see the result at Template:Video game reviews/testcases. If there are no objections, I'll move it over to the live template. @Gamingforfun365 and Masem: let me know what you think. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

No comments in a week so request disabled. Ahecht, I suggest you just make the change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 February 2016

I noticed something. Since many months ago, the "Local Systems" thing is in alphabetical order, except that the lines:{'[[Wii]]','WII'} and {'[[Wii U]]','WIIU'} are always placed between the lines:{'[[Xbox (console)|Xbox]]','XBOX'} and {'[[Xbox 360]]','X360'} I think this is a bit out of order. The "WII" and "WIIU" lines should be placed before the line: {'[[Xbox (console)|Xbox]]','XBOX'} so that it will be in complete alphabetical order. Can you please do that?--Angeldeb82 (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Angeldeb82, ✓ done czar 23:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong redirects when using multiple platforms

I just noticed that, when using multiple platforms, the "PS" field redirects to PlayStation instead of PlayStation (console) and the "PC" field redirects to Personal computer instead of Microsoft Windows - Here is an example. Can anybody please fix this? Thanks in advance. --Niwi3 (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal computer is fine; it's not meant to be Windows. The other should be changed though. --Izno (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough -- I wouldn't consider Personal Computer a proper platform, but I guess it's alright for the sake of simplicity. --Niwi3 (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

In Module:video game reviews/data, change [[PlayStation|PS]] to [[PlayStation (console)|PS]]. --Izno (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Done Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 March 2016

The Multi-platform table is restricted only to console systems. Could computers be added to the list with short codes for the following:

  • Commodore Amiga = AMIGA
  • Commodore 64 = C64
  • Atari ST = AST
  • IBM PC DOS = DOS
  • ZX Spectrum = ZXS
  • Windows = WIN

The platform short coded "PC" is pretty vague and doesn't refer to a specific platform. There can also be some short codes for other consoles not marked like NEO for Neo-Geo and NCD for Neo-Geo CD.

If discussion is required for consideration of this request, please send me a message at my talk page. Thank you.

Deltasim (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: I, just above, objected to changing PC to mean Windows. This is a very similar request in that Windows is not its own machine as-of-the-current day but instead an operating system. We should seek consensus for the rest of those changes. Izno (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Deltasim Would you please make your updates to Module:Video game reviews/data/sandbox - as there is an objection above, additional community review is needed as well. — xaosflux Talk 15:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The edits in the Sandbox have been done. Deltasim (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
In this edit. --Izno (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes Deltasim (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

There is one other point I would like to add. There are a number of reviewers that focus on computer games, such as Your Sinclair (For ZX Spectrum games along with Sinclair User), Amstrad Action (For Amstrad CPC games) and others. However there isn't a system to go with it. Perhaps one can automatically assume that the scores for games of those particular reviewers are of the same platform. But in the case of Adventure Gamers, Allgame, Giantbomb and a number of others, there are numerous platforms that they cater for. So for the sake of reviewers that do multiple computer platforms of the same game (Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1985 video game) for example), the computer systems really should be added to the Video game reviews. Deltasim (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Scores with multiple categories

What is the best way to display scores with multiple categories? For example, how GamePro is shown in Pocky & Rocky. So as in the example, the score for the game provided is:

  • 5/5 (graphics)
  • 4.5/5 (sound)
  • 5/5 (control)
  • 5/5 (fun factor)

There was no overall score. Should I (A) display it like that (how it currently is), or (B) Add it up so it's 19.5/20 with a footnote providing score breakdown or (C) average it so it's 4.875/5 with a footnote providing score breakdown. (I don't particularly like that last idea). I know it's kinda like what is written about multiple reviewers for EGM and Famitsu on the template page, but was looking for some opinions.TarkusAB 20:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Nintendo Power broke down scores like this too. B with a footnote is the common practice for any kind of separate scores, if all parts are equal: Mischief_Makers#cite_ref-20. I've omitted scores in the past when I didn't feel that they were helpful to the article. czar 21:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, that's what I was leaning towards. I appreciate the feedback.TarkusAB 21:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Computer Gaming World

why's Computer Gaming World parameter (CGW) called CWG. it's vaguely :/ --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It was created wrongly at the start. I had considered fixing it, but it would involve a chunk of time to do. It would also need to be done at the same time as another more worthwhile edit as cosmetic edits to the page source aren't allowed on bot runs. - X201 (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@X201: Can we just use next 2 strings in Module:Video game reviews/data
{"[[Computer Gaming World|''CGW'']]", 'CWG'},
{"[[Computer Gaming World|''CGW'']]", 'CGW'},
or it will not work in this case? --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Don't know. I'm not sure if each one needs to be unique. I'll try to test it on the test area if I get five minutes later. - X201 (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

What is with the urge to (re)insert GameRankings scores into templates which contain Metacritic scores?

There seems to be an irresistible urge to (re)insert GameRankings scores into copies of this template which already use the Metacritic parameter, and that creates confusing clutter, so I am thinking about a possible bot which omits the GR parameter (filled with information) whenever it detects that the MC parameter has already been filled in.

I understand that doing this is not vandalism, but what the editors need to realize is that there is no need to use GR when MC is used, and I find scanning many articles for the error exhausting, so could having a bot carefully programmed for this job work? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

A bot does not have the necessary knowledge to understand when an MC link is better (or worse than) the GR link. --Izno (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Surely it would be possible for a bot to remove the GR parameter whenever the MC parameter is simply present, though? – Rhain ☔ 23:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Asking for a bot to remove every GR link where an MC link is present falls into the category where the bot needs to review the GR and MC pages to verify that the GR reviews are fewer in number and lesser in quality. How do you know when the GR link has more, the same, or lesser value than the MC link? You go and look at the two pages. Can a bot comprehend the same? No. Unless you can show consensus (and you won't find it) where GR is unequivocally worse than MC in all situations, a bot is the inappropriate method of making this change. --Izno (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
GR may be more appropriate than MC in some cases, however. MC is not always superior for earlier computer games. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Once again, I have misread this passage: "unless it adds value atop or in the absense of Metacritic...". Sorry. Perhaps, a template such as Template:Use Metacritic and Template:Use GameRankings for use on articles could tell the idea-based bot which parameter to keep, but I am not entirely certain. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
If you take for example Brothers in Arms DS, it has both GR and MC scores. Both scores are almost the same, only different by decimals and the reviews/critics are 29 for GR and 27 for MC. From what I can determine, most but not all the reviewers are the same in the lists of the respective sites. If you exclude one of both, it's possible that you're discarding information that missing on the other site. It does take a lot of consideration, when judging what is valid. I hope this example helps. Deltasim (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This may be possible to do with a bot. Could someone bring me up to speed on the rule please? Is it "If MC is present don't use GR"? An alternative may be a bit of code in the template to list when both are in use and to list the article in a maintenance category. - X201 (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it's "per editorial judgement, decide whether the reviews provided by GR are valuable, and list GR if they are; and if not, use only MC". As I pointed out above, there is no consensus for removal or maintenance of GR without such an evaluation. --Izno (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
In that case, a maintenance category is the best way to go. A bit of code in the template to work out when Both GR and MC are in use, and if so, add the article to a category so that a human can review it. - X201 (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The template appears to be deliberately set up to allow multiple aggregators. Why was this ever supported if it's always been a bad idea? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
It hasn't always been a bad idea, nor is it now a bad idea in a large number of cases. --Izno (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
If there are cases when it wouldn't be a bad idea, wouldn't the maintenance category proposed above be almost impossible to work with, since many of its entries would be legitimate? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
If its based on editorial judgement the only way is to have an editor work through them and OK them. A maintenance cat may make that easier. - X201 (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Without an additional parameter to suppress the category, yes. --Izno (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Polygon

Polygon should be italicised, as it's a website. – Rhain ☔ 13:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The Escapist

The Escapist is listed as a reliable source, so... why isn't it on the list? Grubbwashere (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

New Reviewer Requests

I think it'd work fine if all reviewer requests were one topic on the discussion page.

When adding to a less popular game from 2003 I cited RPGFan in the Reception section and tried to put RPGFan into the Reception table and learned about all this stuff. I'd request RPGFan is included as RPGF. I realize not every reviewer can be included, but RPGFan is old (1997 as LunarNET, becoming RPGFan in 1999), established, and more popular than RPGamer (RPGFan is roughly 156,000 on Alexa vs RPGamer's 186,000), which is included. RPGamer has existed in some form since 1995 but became RPGamer in 1998. Perhaps I don't read enough videogame reviews and maybe RPGamer is more relevant, but it seems odd to me to include a less trafficked website when I can't see anything wrong with RPGF.

That being said, at this time Escapist (~9,000 on Alexa) and PocketGamer (~34,000) are up for request so maybe the Alexa argument is moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.66.226 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


New publication request

Could someone who has permission to edit the reviewers array please add the following element: 

{'[[Super Play]]', 'SPlay'}
I don't think a magazine with a 4 year run focused on a single system is worth adding to the template. Use revN parameters. -- ferret (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
This same magazine was relaunched as N64 Magazine in 1997, relaunched again as NGC Magazine in 2001 and finally relaunched as NGamer in 2006, yet NGC Magazine is already in the template despite focusing on a single format and lasting only a few months longer than Super Play. NGC Magazine probably had much lower sales figures than Super Play too due to the popularity the GameCube vs the SNES and the decline in magazine sales with the emergence of the internet. But what do I know? I'm just some random contributor without a Wikipedia account. Do as you will. I really don't understand the mentality of editing Wikipedia. I give up, it's waste of time. Too much effort required to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.118.133.162 (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Seems I accidently unwatched this page.... I'd remove NGC Magazine too. It's very short scope, revN would suffice. But that's just my personal view. -- ferret (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 May 2016

I have a request to make for Module:Video game reviews/data. I noticed that the link shown here: {"[[Official PlayStation Magazine (Australia)|''OPM'' (AU)]]", 'OPMAU'} has been causing a redirect. So I want you to change this to: {"[[PlayStation Official Magazine - Australia|''OPM'' (AU)]]", 'OPMAU'} Can you do this for me, please? Thank you. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done @Angeldeb82: next time you have an uncontroversial request you should use {{edit protected}}. Thanks! --Izno (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand. And I thank you. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 April 2016

Pocket Gamer is a video game website which occasionally publishes reviews such as [3]. I'd like to request that it be added to the data, with the prefix "PG". Thank you. Omni Flames let's talk about it 11:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Please establish consensus for this change. Not every video game reliable source is added to this template. Izno (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
With Pocket Gamer as a hardworking reviewer, I think that it might be sensible to add that parameter, especially because we have a lot of handheld video games to consider. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 June 2016

I have another request to make for Module:Video game reviews/data. I noticed that the link shown here: {"[[GamesMaster|''GamesMaster'']]", 'GMaster'} only leads to the TV series rather than the magazine edition. So I want you to change this to: {"[[GamesMaster (magazine)|''GamesMaster'']]", 'GMaster'} Can you do this for me, please? Thank you. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux Talk 22:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Video_game_reviews/Archive_3&oldid=1146409039"