Jump to content

Template talk:Video game reviews/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Doc update

If someone could be so kind to update the documentation, I believe it's wildly out of date even before the additions I made today. -- ferret (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Lordtobi (✉) 21:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Metro

I reckon that Metro is an unreliable tabloid. Given this, I don't think it should appear in our review tables. Should it be removed from the template? Lordtobi (✉) 18:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We've got consensus at WP:VG/S that it's unreliable. JOEBRO64 19:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
It does not appear in the template table. You are free to treat each individual article as appropriate. --Izno (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
You're right. I saw this on 10 successive article straight and believed it to be in the template itself. I'm a fool. Lordtobi (✉) 20:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Request: Addition of MobyGames as another Retro-Aggregator along with GameRankings

I already tried to add it myself but I wasn't aware of the special supervision needed for doing so ... I am sorry about that.
MobyGames would be an useful addition since it features many games in its database, which are missing from both Metacritic and GameRankings.
So, would it be possible to add MobyGames to the list of aggregator scores on "Template:Video game reviews", please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuLac4ever (talk • contribs) 18:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Tentatively interested in where this goes. If anyone is unaware, Moby now has a weighted critic aggregation. I'm not sure when it was added but I don't remember it being there before. I picked an old game at random to take a look, Buck Rogers Countdown to Doomsday. The critic score is separate from the user score, so no USERG issue. Note the lack of reviews for this game at GameRankings, while Metacritic has no entry at all. While much of Mobygame's content is unreliable, we regularly consult their review lists as part of source hunts at AFD. -- ferret (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
It had to have been within the last month or two, because I don't remember that being that either. Anyway, I think I'd support this if others do, but only for games where we have no Metacritic score. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll take this to WT:VG/S. JOEBRO64 20:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Request: VG247

VG247 will now do reviews. Already a standard RS, don't see why they would not be appropriate for reviews. Easy enough |VG247= for the template. --Masem (t) 15:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Support, seems reasonable. While we are at it, may I remind about my request in the section above? If you are already changing the template that is, you could add those as well Regards SoWhy 15:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
If there's no other comments in the negative on this by tomorrow, I'll add this and at least the 3 non-Eurogamer ones above you have suggested. I think we need more clarity on the add'l EG sites. --Masem (t) 21:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Added as promised. --Masem (t) 17:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Request: Easy Allies

Could Easy Allies (EZA) be added to the template? The site is listed as a 'situational source' that is "useful for critical opinions". They scored videogames on a 10-point scale (using half stars) from 1 April 2016 to 5 February 2018, before switching to a 20-point scale (out of 10) after this. Reviews made for YouTube but full text versions, including the score, are published contemporaneously on their website (https://easyallies.com/#!/reviews). Fairly prolific, they've put out 35 reviews so far in 2019. They also occastionally review games that receive little coverage elsewhere (Timespinner, Little Dragons Cafe, Pixeljunk Monsters 2). Domeditrix (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Going to second this one. Good source of industry veterans. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I also don't see any real reason to oppose this. Does anybody have any? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Tentatively on board but a discussion at WP:VG/S was opened as well, I'd like that resolved first. -- ferret (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The site has now been added to the WP:VG/S reliable sources list. (Diff.) —Domeditrix (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Added as EZA. --Masem (t) 17:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Request

Can Gamezebo be added to the template? They use stars for their reviews and it's a common reliable source per WP:VG/RS for casual games.Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Added Gamezebo (I see we should have more mobile games coverage, this should help). 4 Players was added below. I used "Gamezebo" for the template abbreviation, but if one can come up with something better, let me know. --Masem (t) 17:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Request: Hardcore Gamer

Kind of surprised it wasn't already on the template by now. Reviews games from 1 to 5. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging the users that posted here Masem, Lordtobi, Dissident93, SoWhy. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Support since it also is a VG/RS. Suggestion of "HCGamer" as the code? --Masem (t) 19:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
"HCG" should be fine as well. -- ferret (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the HCG name proposal of ferret. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Their official shorthand is "HG", which we could use also. The only other entry with H is Hyper, so this is unambiguous. Lordtobi (✉) 19:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll let this float for about a day and unless there are serious objections, will add then. Looks like either HCG or HG, I think the former would be more clear for those editing a use of the template after the fact. --Masem (t) 19:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
No worries! I was expanding Dance Central Spotlight which led me to finding a HG/HCG review of it that I couldn't add normally to the table, which led me here. Thanks for the fast responses. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Added as HCG. --Masem (t) 18:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Request: German sources

Can someone please add

PC Games
GameStar
4Players
Eurogamer.de

to the template? GameStar and PC Games are explicitly mentioned at WP:VG/RS and 4Players was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_20#4players.de. Eurogamer.de is the German sister site of Eurogamer and thus presumably equally reliable. Regards SoWhy 10:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

How many times will they be used? Remember, this template is not to be used to document all reviews, but maybe 5 or 6 + aggregator scores, and I cannot see many cases where there are so few quality reviews in English to require need of the Germany sites that otherwise can't use the "other" parameters. --Masem (t) 13:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't see this as particularly valid rationale. We should support all sources that appear on the VGRS list which also provide numerical ratings. If we want to limit the number of sources displayed, that's a different issue entirely. --Izno (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a fair number of games, especially from Germany and Europe, that are almost exclusively covered in those sources, especially PC Games and GameStar. For example, SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest has not a single US review that I could find despite being a major release. I agree with Izno that the ease of having access to display these sources should not be conflated with the desire to limit the amount displayed which can be handled by the MoS (e.g. by giving preference to English sources where they exist). Regards SoWhy 18:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I just want to make sure that we aren't adding fields that only get used less than ~dozen times across all uses of this template on WP. I'll accept that there are games more EU-centric that fail to get much US coverage for these to be usable sites. --Masem (t) 18:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand that concern but I think there are sufficient articles that would benefit. I can think of three I wrote off the top of my head alone. Regards SoWhy 19:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
PC Games definitely gets used quite often, I get a link notification in what feels like every 2nd day (I am the creator). And GameStar has a reach which is comparable to the other "big" US game mags/pages; I have seen them getting used on quite some articles here too. Additionally as SoWhy noted there are also quite some (relevant) games which only receive marginally if any attention from the English sources; the Petroglyph games (8-Bit Armies, 8-Bit Hordes etc.) are some other examples. So I think adding these sources to the template could be helpful. Dead Mary (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
To both above - if you can vouch that we'll get a fair number of uses out of these, I see no problems, then. Just decide on a decent abbreviation for each. For example, I'd recommend "EUROGDE" for eurogamer.de, etc. to be consistent. --Masem (t) 20:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest PCG for PC Games (since PC Gamer needs specification whether it's UK or US, it should not be confusable), GStar for GameStar and 4P for 4Players. Regards SoWhy 06:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
If we include Eurogamer.de, we should also include the other regional Eurogamer outlets, like Eurogamer.fr and Eurogamer.pl. Lordtobi (✉) 19:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
We would still prefer the use of the English Eurogamer when it exists, right? Similar to our WP:NONENGEL guideline. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
That depends. If reviews from regional outlets (e.g. for games from that region) are better or more expansive than the English-language one, we could use that instead. However, it would kind of feel redundant to include both an English and a non-English Eurogamer-branded review, even if they are independent from one another (except for their employer and policy). Lordtobi (✉) 06:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I see no problem with using both as sources for the article but for the review box, we could append Template:Video game reviews/doc#Guidelines to say that English variants should be preferred where available. Regards SoWhy 06:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
This is what I prefer. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I have added 4 Players, GameStar, and PC Games using the suggestions above. For Eurogamer, we need to decide a code terminology for that. --Masem (t) 17:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Could we use an alternative code for PC Games? I can already imagine how many people will mistakenly use this for PC Gamer. Maybe PCGDE or PCGS? Lordtobi (✉) 20:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe PCGames? (I know then we have PCGUS and PCGUK, this would be a bit more clear? --Masem (t) 18:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Request: Slant Magazine

Can Slant Magazine be added to the template? They use stars for their reviews (1 to 5) and it's a reliable source. They review video games regularly: Slant Magazine games reviews Tiger Trek (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging the users that posted here Masem, Lordtobi, Dissident93, SoWhy, Jovanmilic97. Tiger Trek (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
(pinged) Seems like a plausible addition. SL as code should work. Regards SoWhy 08:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Supporting this as well (oddly, I wasn't pinged up despite the tag). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Support, but why not just Slant for the code? --Masem (t) 13:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Support, though "Slant" is probably a more talking code. It's just five characters after all. Lordtobi (✉) 14:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Is this magazine used a lot? This is the first i heard of it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolute Games

This one scores with percentages from 0% do 100% and is a reliable source per WP:VG/RS, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to add a Russian website to the template. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Some reviewers found at Metacritic

Please add the following: 

{ "''CGMagazine''", 'CGMAG' },
{ "''Nintenderos''", 'Nintenderos' },
{ "[[Hobby Consolas|''Hobby Consolas'']]", 'HC' }
{ "''Nintendo Insider''", 'NIn' },
{ "''Nintendo Enthusiast''", 'NE' },
{ "''God is a Geek''", 'GiG' },
{ "''Metro GameCentral''", 'MGC' },
{ "''Hardcore Gamer''", 'HG' },
{ "''The Indie Game Website''", 'TIGW' },
{ "''Press Start Australia''", 'PSAU' },
{ "''Vandal''", 'Vandal' },
{ "''Video Chums''", 'VChums' },

into reviewers section at Module:Video game reviews/data (CGMagazine, not be confused con Computer Games Magazine). Thanks. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Of the above, the following are already unreliable per WP:VG/S so they won't be included:
{ "''CGMagazine''", 'CGMAG' },
{ "''Nintendo Enthusiast''", 'NE' },
{ "''God is a Geek''", 'GiG' },
Reliable so HC might be included:
{ "[[Hobby Consolas|''Hobby Consolas'']]", 'HC' }
{ "''Hardcore Gamer''", 'HG' }, /* already exists as HCG */
Not previously discussed or inconclusive so they might be included:
{ "''Nintenderos''", 'Nintenderos' },
{ "''Nintendo Insider''", 'NIn' },
{ "''Metro GameCentral''", 'MGC' },
{ "''The Indie Game Website''", 'TIGW' },
{ "''Press Start Australia''", 'PSAU' },
{ "''Vandal''", 'Vandal' },
{ "''Video Chums''", 'VChums' },
Please feel free to open new discussion on WT:VG/S for this last set of items. Please do the homework to review whether they are even worth broaching as potentially reliable. Review the previous discussions on WT:VG/S to see what is expected. --Izno (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Just to stress Izno's point: what MetaCritic considers the sourcing they use to pull in their aggregate score means nothing for reliability on WP. MC tends to be less critical about reliability and more about popularity and covering multiple regions. --Masem (t) 05:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 December 2019

Can you add The Guardian at the Module:Video game reviews/data (in local reviewers section) 

{ "[[The Guardian|''The Guardian'']]", 'The Guardian' },

~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Partially changed. The code is "TG" rather than "The Guardian" with a space in it. -- ferret (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 February 2020

Could someone add Push Square to the Module:Video game reviews/data (in the local reviewers section) 

{"[[Push Square|''Push Square'']]", 'PS'},

Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done with code PSQ to avoid confusion since "PS" is generally the abbreviation for PlayStation (which already exists under systems as such). Regards SoWhy 15:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Great, thank you for doing that.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

custom chronology for the multi-platform list

I was wondering if there was a method to changing the chronology for the template when it comes to the multi-platform template. I am trying to use it on Lumines: Puzzle Fusion and the order of the reviews I want it to show in this order: PSP > mobile > PC > PS2. Does anyone know if this is possible?Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 14:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Not possible currently. I myself always wanted to remove the multi-platform option entirely. Most usages of it result in lots of empty cells. -- ferret (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
That's unfortunate. May be we can set a rules so we don't have too many unnecessary empty cells.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 16:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I also agree, the only uses the template really has are with games that vary wildly between ports, which are kind of rare even in the 16-bit era. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Dissident93: I think it's useful for limited ports that have their own specific coverage. For example Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories. Mercury Meltdown is another good example. In fact the reason why i avoided adding in the template was because of the ordering.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 22:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Ignore "The" when sorting "The Guardian" alphabetically.

The template automatically sorts all reviews alphabetically, but The Guardian shows up at the T instead of the G. If possible, if would be nice if it was sorted correctly. FlippyElectricitySocket (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Forbes

Forbes does game reviews too, can we add it. Forbes (forb), i added into TrWiki already. --RenewableManMESSAGE 11:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@YenilenebilirAdam: Forbes video game reviews are done by Contributors, who are considered situational at best, and generally unreliable sources on Enwiki. We should not put such a source into the template. -- ferret (talk) 14:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Well this is like criticizing a movie. The thing is, forbes is universal and millions of people are following it. Then why do we have The Guardian in the list. Also who can stand by the realiability of other game reviewer sites. --RenewableManMESSAGE 14:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what to tell you. Guardian and other sites have been accepted as reliable. Most of Forbes is reliable. It's specifically Contributor articles on Forbes that are not, as they are known to not have the same editorial oversight. Since the game reviews are done by Contributors, not Staff, they are situational/unreliable, and a source like that should not be in this template. See WP:VG/RS for more information. -- ferret (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
That said, there are a couple contributors that are "fixtures" at Forbes like Eric Kain and .. Paul Tassi? If we can fix a shortlist of these and only allow those reviews, that would be fine. We don't want "Random Forbes Contributor with 2 articles to their Name" added here. --Masem (t) 15:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

UploadVR

I'm asking separately about the RS nature of UploadVR at WP:VG/S, but it would also make sense to ask about adding it here. In wake of HL: Alyx release, it's clear this is the current go-to site for anything VR/AR/XR and they do their own reviews. It would make sense that any VR game should have this site included since that is their focus. If we do include them , "UVR" or "UpVR" would be an easy code to remember. --Masem (t) 15:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Template help

Hi all, I built the TV ratings template (as in ratings in reviews, not viewing figures, which I don't know why some people call ratings but thought I'd be clear) based on a previous template with what now looks like some older code. A recent suggestion I got was to add columns for different seasons to it, and my first thought was to try and transplant the platform code from this template. It doesn't seem to be working, and what I thought was mismatched code doesn't seem to be the problem. I don't really want to rewrite the TV template completely to make it work, but the seasons feature would be useful (the template is used on a mix of single-episode, season, and TV show articles), if anyone who knows how the platform code here functions would be able to compare with this messy module and help out getting the seasons thing to work, I'd be grateful. Kingsif (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Custom/additional publication fields

Could it be possible to add custom publication fields? Or, if it would be easier, a few additional publications? I'm looking to add scores for a game from The Washington Post and PC Gamer Sweeden. OmegaFallon (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@OmegaFallon: The template has long supported such. rev1/rev1Score, rev2/rev2Score, etc. -- ferret (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! That did the trick. Is that described in the template documentation and I just missed it, or is it not described there at all? Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
It's in the documentation. -- ferret (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Platforms

Is there a chance that Commodore 64 and Atari ST could be added to the table "Predefined System Type" under the multiplatform section of the template? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Already done AST and C64 have long been supported by the template. -- ferret (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Documentation is out of date, but I linked to where you can find the full list quickly. don't have time this morning to synch the table. -- ferret (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Making Template

Can someone add a new template called "Movie reviews" and it functions similar to this template but it has the movie reviewers can someone do it please?Gamerknowitall (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gamerknowitall: I think you're looking for Template:TV ratings, which also handles films, or Template:Film and game ratings. Kingsif (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:ACCESS discussion

There is a discussion about how this template is meeting WP:ACCESS requirements for visually-impaired readers (spoilers: it doesn't) and what to do about it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Is the Video game reviews meeting requirements? --PresN 15:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

USgamer rating

Where it mentions USgamer in the code for the template, it says that they rate using stars however as far as I can they have never or at least haven't used stars to score reviews in a while. I believe this should be changed. Captain Galaxy (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Using the "GEN" system type with the multi-platform layout

Recently, I came across a single review that applied to (almost) all the versions of a game (in case anyone is curious what that game is, it is Worms 3D). It should be noted that the review does not apply to the port for the Macintosh—an already niche gaming platform if viewed as a gaming platform. Additionally, I could find only one source reviewing the Macintosh port, which is a Macworld issue.

Anyway, the Worms 3D article has the video game reviews template that has a multi-platform layout. I was thinking of trying to use <ref name=/> once to cover the four platforms (I did not feel like adding the fifth Macintosh platform just to graph a single row in the column and see the rest of the latter as blank). As I was stuck trying to figure out how, I found out about the system type "GEN", or general. It seemed like a solution, but unfortunately, I was dismayed by the fact that I could not add a single score for all the columns by adding a reviewer's name and suffixing it with _GEN. By then, I had conceded defeat, but I added the code anyway so that I would not have to go back to re-editing the code in case this template does become updated this way. As I was writing this talk section, I had a brilliant idea to insert the code GEN = true. It then seemed as if I were wasting my time writing this talk section, but I became even more dismayed than I was relieved after trying and previewing that minutes ago, due the fact that that only added another platform column.

From what I have learned, I concluded that it is possible to only add one same score for each separate platform instead of writing the score once. I was wondering whether this issue is any relevant to improving this template. FreeMediaKid! 06:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say the greater bulk of active participants of WP:VG despise the multi-platform format of this template. It creates large bulky unnecessary tables in most cases, with many empty cells. I can see the use case you're pointing out, and in theory it's possible, but I have little interest in working on the multiplatform code since I'd rather just rip it out. It has no concept of column spanning at this time. -- ferret (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I see that point, and admittedly I am that kind of person, too. The empty spaces really take up all that volume that the single-platform format generally would not use, and it does add the side effect of making us feel as if we need to fill in as many spaces as possible. FreeMediaKid! 17:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Ferret, should we start a proper discussion to remove it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User Aggregate Scale

Many E-Shops have user-reviews, and calculate a star rating or something similar. Steam, for example, categorizes games with "Overwhelmingly Positive," "Very Positive," "Mostly Positive," and so forth. This template might benefit from this addition under a "User Reviews" section, mostly if there are few or no reviews from established outlets. However, there are some downsides, namely review-bombing, and fluctuation over time. Review bombing greatly affects the aggregate score, with a disproportionate vocal minority, and isn't simple to counter. Additionally, when the value of the game changes, the Wikipedia page is immediately outdated and requires an editor to adjust it accordingly. Thoughts on such a proposal? SWinxy (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Hard no, sorry. User reviews are WP:USERG, meaning they are inherently unreliable and cannot be used on Wikipedia. In the cases where we denote user reviews and review bombing, we're doing so because a reliable secondary source reported them. We never source to them directly or otherwise list them. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 August 2020

Could someone please add Pure Xbox to the Module:Video game reviews/data; it should go in the local reviewers section. 

{"[[Pure Xbox|''Pure Xbox'']]", 'PXB'},

Alt (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This needs evaluated at WP:VG/RS first to ensure it's considered a reliable source before being added to the template. Although it's owned by the same company as Nintendo Life, Nintendo Life's reliability isn't the strongest in my view, and as a site that just relaunched this year, Pure Xbox may not have the necessary reputation required yet. -- ferret (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I see I'm behind the times on this one. I'll let this sit a bit to see if any other opinions are offered though. -- ferret (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
That's understandable, though I do want to point out that I began a disscussion a month ago, but only two people responded. Regardless, I added Pure Xbox to WP:VG/RS because the project page states that new sources can be added when the discussion has been archived, which it has, and the people that did respond to my discussion were not opposed to the reliability of this source. Alt (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm tempted to decline at this time, all the same. The FAQ at the top of the page sets two conditions: Reliable source, and commonly in use. There appears to be exactly one article using Pure Xbox as a source at this time. -- ferret (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: per ferret. Primefac (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Request to add "Gamekult"

I request adding the French website "Gamekult" to this template. It is listed on WP:VG/RS as "reliable" and the corresponding discussion can be found [1]. Proposed syntax listed below: 

{"''Gamekult''", 'Gamekult'},

Z1720 (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Request to add "RPGFan"

Used many times and is listed as a reliable reviewer.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 14:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I also support this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary width

Right now the template can accept a width. However, only about 170 do (some 1% of all articles with this template) and of those, 120 are doing it wrong, such that the effect is most-often to make the template smaller.

I propose to remove support for a width parameter. --Izno (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Remove it. I cannot see any reason for arbitrarily having it wider or narrower on any page. -- ferret (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox class

I noticed that this template uses the .infobox class. But is it really an infobox? Looks like a plain table to me. It's not an infobox in the Wikipedia sense. Opencooper (talk) 08:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Correct, it's not an infobox. It simply shares the CSS style of infoboxes so that it retains a familiar look. -- ferret (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Interesting, even if not semantically ideal. Thanks for the explanation. Opencooper (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I've fixed this in the sandbox now. I'll have a note shortly about what other exciting things I've changed. --Izno (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@Opencooper: See #Current sandbox changes. --Izno (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Izno, I see that it now uses ".video-game-reviews" as well as other appropriate classes. Looks good to me. Opencooper (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Current sandbox changes

I've done some things in the current sandbox. Generally, these differences can be reviewed on Template:Video game reviews/testcases. (In Vector, Monobook, Cologne Blue, and Modern, there is only a minor noticeable difference; the difference is more notable in both Minerva and Timeless.) For a high-level summary:

  1. Integrated templatestyles, including cleaner mobile view.
  2. Moved as much of the raw text out of the module into a new configuration module as possible. (Most-useful for i18n efforts.)
  3. Separated what was a table being used for layout into correctly-semantic HTML, including separate tables for reviewers and aggregators. This is more-or-less required for good accessibility.
  4. Removed the width argument per #Arbitrary width.
  5. Other changes than these were code cleaning.

Regarding item 3, I would like some feedback. As a result of correctly marking these items up in HTML, one minor issue has arisen that cannot be dealt with directly except by returning to the old way of marking this table up (which is bad per our accessibility guidelines).

You might notice in the test cases that the columns between reviewers and aggregators do not line up directly any longer, in any format. This is an intended but potentially-undesirable effect. Is this an issue? It is barely noticeable, but I know how Wikipedians generally are. If it is an issue, a fixed width can be assigned to the columns of the tables of interest. This might cause other unintended consequences with wrapping of lines. These consequences would probably be rare in what I'll call "single column" mode with sane defaults. More interestingly in that regard would be the multi-platform form, but I know the multi-platform form is more rare, and I also know that there is at least one user who would prefer the multi-platform super-table form go away entirely.

Your thoughts are appreciated. --Izno (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  • It is barely noticeable, but I know how Wikipedians generally are - Yep, I'm one of those artist sh*theads who don't like it when it looks like "we tried to make it line up but didn't quite get there" - if it's not meant to line up, it shouldn't be so close to lining up, and if it's meant to line up, it should. (I would like to balance this reply by thanking you for your work, even though I'm not a particularly Technical person and don't fully know what all this means)--AlexandraIDV 19:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
    I have expressed no intent on whether it's meant to line up, only that the previous iteration did line up. Whether that was the intent then is on whoever made it a decade and a half ago. ;) Do you have an opinion on which you would prefer, and have you considered the consequences of either? --Izno (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to detect the longest string used in the template and fix the left side's width accordingly? I.e., set minimum/standard fixed width, adjust the width when a row appears to linebreak up to some maximum width. If not, I don't think this is a big deal/publish as-is. czar 03:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
    Possible, but would require inline CSS, which I'm not personally a fan of. --Izno (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This does feel like the kind of thing that should be fixable with CSS, though I'm at a loss as to how that would cover all use cases beyond a minwidth for that first column (which I think would cover most cases?). That said, it's a minor issue in exchange for a major improvement (actual accessibility for the template), so I'm in favor of the change. --PresN 20:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Great work Izno! The misaligned columns is something that classically bothers me but I think this is a case of 'let not perfect be the enemy of good'. I'm in favor of implementing the changes now and leaving the solution to the columns to some other time. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This is live now. --Izno (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Request to add PC Accelerator

It was in circulation for almost 2 years only; however, I'm noticing it show up on more and more PC games from that timespan. Most likely, because in the U.S., this magazine was very widespread and thus was important at the time. Xanarki (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done But I am working several at once so it may not be saved for a few more minutes. The code is PCA. -- ferret (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Request to add Electric Playground

Here's one more. It was both a TV show that reviewed games and also hosted a website that reviewed games. Scores can be pulled from either source. This would be an important addition because, to my knowledge, there is no other source originating from Canada on the template. This would be the first and only one, at the moment. Xanarki (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done But I am working several at once so it may not be saved for a few more minutes. The code is EPD (for EP Daily, the current name). -- ferret (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Request to add PC Games (Germany)

Okay sorry, one more. This magazine is important because it would be the first German source on the template (I could be wrong on this though). Also, it has existed since 1992, and is still being published today, apparently. Xanarki (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done PC Games is already supported as PCG. -- ferret (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

A few requests for additions

Hi all. There are several major publications not currently included in this template that are used as sources across many WPVG articles about older subjects. I think it would increase ease-of-use for editors if these were added:

  • Macworld — the premier Mac magazine
  • MacAddict/MacLife — a top Mac magazine that's reviewed many, many games
  • PC Magazine — for many years THE magazine about computers, also reviewed many games
  • CNET Gamecenter — one of the top game sites of the '90s
  • PC Games/Electronic Entertainment/PC Entertainment — one of America's biggest print PC game magazines of the '90s, clocking fourth behind CGW, PCG and CGSP
  • Computer Game Review — another major print game magazine during the '90s

Thanks! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Izno: These along with the three above should be fine to add. Do you want to handle since your hands are in the sandboxes? -- ferret (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I have left these adds for another. --Izno (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Added as:

  • MW - Macworld
  • ML - MacLife
  • PCM - PCMag
  • CNG - CNET Gamecenter
  • GPPCG - PC Games (US). Note that PC Games (DE) was already in the table as PCG and is unchanged. PCGUS was already used by PC Gamer (US). So I settled on GPPCG (GamePro PC Games).
  • CGR - Computer Game Review

Working several requests so it may not be saved for a few more minutes. -- ferret (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for some additions

These are several major publications not currently included in the template that i have used as sources across various WPVG articles. I think it would help editors if some of these were added into the mix:

  • HobbyConsolas — One of the mayor Spanish gaming magazines from the 1990s. Currently owned by Axel Springer SE and are still active as of 2020.
  • Micromanía — Another Spanish publication. One of the first magazines in Europe exclusively devoted to video games. Currently owned by BlueOcean Publishing and are still active as of 2020.
  • Superjuegos — Another mayor Spanish magazine from the 1990s. Owned by Grupo Zeta.
  • Mean Machines Sega — One of the mayor British publications dedicated to Sega consoles from 1990s. Published by EMAP. Derivated from the earlier Mean Machines magazine.
  • Super Play — One of the more well known British publications dedicated to Super Nintendo Entertainment System from the 1990s. Published by Future Publishing. Had a revival in 2017.
  • Aktueller Software Markt — A German multi-platform magazine published by Tronic Verlag from 1986 until 1995. One of the first magazines published in Germany that focused on video games.
  • MAN!AC — Currently known as M! Games. A German magazine from 1993 published by Cybermedia that is still active as of 2020. They also have a website that hosts their older reviews from the 1990s.
  • Joystick — French computer magazine published by multiple companies that focused on PC games (although on earlier issues, they also covered console games).
  • Joypad — Another French gaming magazine published by Yellow Media until 2011.
  • Tilt — The first french magazine dedicated to video games, covering multiple platforms (consoles, handhelds, PC, arcade). Published by Editions Mondiales S.A.
  • Player One — Another notable French gaming magazine published by Média Système Édition. Covered console and arcade games
  • Super Game Power — A Brazilian magazine first published by Nova Cultural. They featured reviews from GamePro, although they also did their own reviews that were not derivated from GamePro.
  • Beep! MegaDrive — Published by SoftBank Creative from 1989 until 1995. One of the major publications dedicated to the Sega Mega Drive in Japan.

Thanks! Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@KGRAMR: Some of these are already in place. MAN!AC is MG (for M! Games). Joypad is JP. I've struck those two. We have about 15 pending requests right now and a major template update underway so it may be just a bit. -- ferret (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@Ferret:Thanks for the heads-up! Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Added as:

I am reviewing and testing changes for 10+ additions, so may not be saved for a few more minutes. -- ferret (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent requests completed

@Xanarki, JimmyBlackwing, and KGRAMR: Completed. See your respective sections above. -- ferret (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ferret:Awesome! Thanks for your work... Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting the addition of AppSpy and Multiplayer.it

Hi! While editing Super QuickHook, I found score-based reviews from AppSpy and Multiplayer.it, both of which are listed as reliable at WP:VGRS; however, they're not listed on this template, so I had to substitute for the custom rev field, which is generally unpreferable. I think it'd be useful to have them on here. IanTEB (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Those two are under the "other reliable" are just sources that have no real conclusion if unreliable or not. They are generally used in articles but its best to first determine they wont be disputed in the future.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 14:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: "Other reliable" are reliable, just no one took the time to add them to the big clunky tables. It has no special determination, it is not the same as "Situational" which has an entirely separate section. It's literally just "the lazy place to put sources that are reliable" -- ferret (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
i don't necessarily believe that. All "other reliable" sources have been nominated multiple times but never reached a consensus. So who makes the determined they were reliable overall?Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
You'll need to argue that at WT:VG/S, but I believe you're wrong. We have "Situational Sources" for questionable sources, which also has a sub-section of "Other situational". There's no way there is a section of Reliable sources labelled as Reliable that are secretly "situational" because they haven't been grouped into tables. They are there because someone read those discussions and felt they saw enough of a consensus. If you disagree, go put them up for discussion again. -- ferret (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
then let's determine that together in WT:VG/S.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
As the person who did that sorting, Blue Pumpkin Pie, ferret's interpretation is correct. --Izno (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
if that's the case, why are there multiple "other reliable" with no consensus for determining if they are reliable considered as "other reliable".Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep in mind "consensus" doesn't require some # of !votes. There's discussions where someone proposed a source as reliable, and no one challenged it, and that's fine. And they've remained unchallenged now for years. If you want to challenge some of them, go for it. -- ferret (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Blue Pumpkin Pie, if you do not believe specific sources deserve to be in a certain group, you are welcome to challenge their placement. You will likely be seen to be time wasting if you do not have an actual argument about the source rather than some bureaucratic need to see a person close each specific discussion or require a certain threshold for placement into a specific category. (It may be beneficial to outline a quorum mechanism, but not in the context of a specific source. If you decide to pursue it generally, you should consider whether grandfathering may be appropriate, especially for old discussions.) At present, these sources are considered to be reliable, so I see no reason not to add them to the template. --Izno (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Well the system is we get consensus first, then add it in. Not add it in, and wait until someone disputes it. I've definitely seen AppSpy be disputed a couple of times alongside 148Apps before by me personally. It's just not listed in WP:VG/S. And honestly, I do hope it's considered actually reliable, or standards change a bit when it comes to apps, but i just want to know everyone is on the same page.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 16:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Silent consensus is a literal thing. Izno checked discussions, and if no opposition was found, he sorted them out. None of them lack a discussion entirely. For multiplayer.it, is a pretty clear consensus anyway. For AppSpy, is a statement of reliability from an experienced editor, that went unopposed and has remain unopposed for 5 years, 2 years since the page was reorganized. If you disagree with any of the source sorting, you are welcome to go challenge them. -- ferret (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
here Czar is actually against the source as reliable to use for reviews. And i was the one disputing it. I just want to understand how the system works. It seems oversight is common and we need to establish a firm rule.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 16:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
But the source was already listed at that point. It's the failure of the participants of that particular discussion to have updated the page following that discussion. -- ferret (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@IanTEB: As above indicates, this may be delayed while the reliability of these two sources get rehashed. Please see here for more discussion. -- ferret (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Cheers, IanTEB (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for LATimes and EW

I would add Entertainment Weekly and Los Angeles Times to the template. I don't need to say anything else, do I? EW grades their game reviews and I've seen game reviews LA times published in the late 1990s and early 2000s giving scores out of four. I'd also recommend Game Players and Nintendo Magazine System (AUS and UK editions) if you can. HumanxAnthro (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Request to add Game Vortex (gamevortex.com)

Thanks for adding my last 2 requests. I've got one more that I recently noticed, Game Vortex. They've been online since 1997. Upon visiting their site, they delivered consistent news/interviews/reviews up until 2014, including appearances at some E3 shows. Their reviews (across all platforms from mid-1990s to mid-2010s) are still online. They've also got archived content for a few lesser-highlighted platforms, such as the Dreamcast, Neo Geo Pocket, and Mac OS. There are also a boatload of reviews on movies, game soundtracks, books, and anime films, which could be useful for other Wiki editing in the future.

Upon searching Wikipedia, I saw that 91 games already pointed to their website (I searched for both "Game Vortex" and "GameVortex"). I will most likely create an actual Wiki page for them in the near future, then.Xanarki (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

OpenCritic as an aggregator

I think it's worth adding OpenCritic as an aggregator to the Rating system with OC code, as it's a pretty popular aggregator with video game ratings. https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/opencritic.com Rakleed (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

An active discussion on this oft-repeated perennial request is open at WT:VG -- ferret (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for some additions (#2)

As i promised to ferret at the beginning of January, there are a few more major publications not currently included in the template that i have used as sources across various WPVG articles. I think it would help editors if these were added into the mix:

  • Zero (Zero) — A defunct video game-focused magazine published by Dennis Publishing. They reviewed console, microcomputer, handheld and arcade games.
  • MeriStation (MS) — A popular spanish gaming website i found out as a kid prior to joining Wikipedia much later in my life. Currently owned by Prima and was first launched in 1997. They have arcade game reviews but they're somewhat difficult to come by.
  • VideoGames & Computer Entertainment (VG) — Later renamed as VideoGames - The Ultimate Gaming Magazine. Published by Larry Flynt Publications and discontinued in September 1996.
  • Amiga Action (AAction) — Co-published between 1989-1996 by Europress and IDG. An Amiga-focused gaming magazine.
  • Amiga Computing (AComputing) — Another Amiga-focused gaming magazine co-published between 1988-1997 by Europress and IDG.
  • Amiga Format (AFormat) — Yet another Amiga-focused gaming magazine and probably the longest-standing one prior to discontinuation, published between 1989-2000 by Future Publishing.
  • Amiga Force (AForce) — This is the third-to-last Amiga-focused gaming magazine on this second request list. Published by Europress Impact between 1992-1994.
  • Amiga Power (AP) — This is the second-to-last Amiga-focused gaming magazine on this second request list, published between 1991-1996 by Future Publishing.
  • Amiga User International (AUI) — This is the last Amiga-focused gaming magazine on this second request list and another long-standing magazine, published between 1988-1997 by AUI Limited. It was the first dedicated Amiga magazine in Europe.
  • Game Players (GP) — Published by Signal Research and later Imagine Publishing, it ran between 1989-1996 before being rebranded as Ultra Game Players (which has its own reviews) and finally discontinued as Game Buyer in 1998.
  • Génération 4 (Gen4) — Also known as Gen4 and Gen4 PC, it was a popular french gaming magazine published by Pressimage, IXO Publishing and Computec Media France between 1987-2004. They reviewed console, microcomputer, handheld and arcade games in earlier issues.
  • Raze (Raze) — A video game-focused gaming magazine best described as a derivate of The Games Machine (the original UK publication). Published by Newsfield between 1990-1991.
  • The Games Machine (Italy) (TGMit) — The italian version of the original UK publication. Still running as of 2021. They have their own reviews.
  • ST Action (STA) — An Atari ST-dedicated gaming magazine published by Gollner Publishing between 1988 and 1993. They covered both the Lynx and Jaguar later in its lifespan.
  • ST Format (STF) — A long-running Atari ST-dedicated gaming magazine published by Future Publishing between 1989-1996. They also covered the Jaguar later in its lifespan.
  • ST Review (STR) — Yet another Atari ST-dedicated gaming magazine published by EMAP between 1992-1995. Like the other two, they also covered the Jaguar in its latter issues.
  • Games-X (G-X) — I've used this one on various articles, since pretty much all of the issues are now available on RetroCDN (as far as i know). A weekly gaming magazine published by Europress between 1991-1992.
  • Retro Gamer (RG) — Currently published by Future plc. They have their own reviews. I've used them for articles such as the games developed by NG:Dev.Team.

Those are pretty much all the requests from my part for January. I'll try to find others that are not here on the template. Thanks! (P.S.: added another magazine to my second round of requests; P.S.S.: Added possible abbreviations for each magazine). Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@KGRAMR and Ferret:Ive done some of the above. A as an initial was already taken by Amstrad Action, so I settled on starting all the Amiga entries with Am to avoid confusion. Have tweaked a few of the abbreviations for clarity or to avoid clash with existing entry. Have listed below what they are. Will update documentation page after this
I somehow managed to miss Meristation, will fix that in next batch. - X201 (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@X201:Cool! Roberth Martinez (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@X201: Could you please wikilink Total! with the next batch, too? Thanks. Shimarin (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Total linked. - X201 (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done All done - X201 (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I also recommend adding Super Pro (SPro) and Super Action (SAction), SNES publications published by Europress that I've been using a lot since I edit SNES video game articles. Also, Entertainment Weekly (EW) and Los Angeles Times (LATimes) since their reviews have scores (for LATimes, for game reviews in the 90s). HumanxAnthro (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, Super Control (SControl), which is published by Maverick Magazines, and Super Gamer, published by Paragon Publishing. Also, SNES Force (SNESForce) and N-Force (NForce), published by Europress. HumanxAnthro (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, why aren't there two separate review codes for Mean Machines and Mean Machines Sega? HumanxAnthro (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, Game Power which was basically the previous edition of Super Game Power. HumanxAnthro (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
GB Action (GBAction) (published by IDG). HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Some more foreign-language sources to added. Play Time (PlayTime) published by Computec Verlag, Total! Germany edition (TOTde), Revista Oficial Nintendo (aka Nintendo Accion) which is Spain's official Nintendo magazine, an Italian source also named Game Power but not associated in anyway with the Brazilian Game Power source. Also Electronic Games (ElecGames). HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Also another Amiga source. Amiga Games, also published by Computer Verlag HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Another Sega source: Mega Zone (MegaZone). HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Games World] (GamesWorld) published by Paragon Publishing is what I've been frequently using and needs to be coded as well. HumanxAnthro (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Alphabetizing coded and custom reviews

If you use coded reviews and use custom reviewers, the section will start with the coded reviews in alphabetical order, but then the custom reviews will all be listed below those and not be placed within the alphabetical order of the rest of the coded ratings. Is there a way somebody could fix this? Cause I'm pretty sure alphabetical orders for ratings list templates is necessary per [some guideline page I don't know of] HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Honestly if we're to use custom publications they should either be properly added to the template or just omitted and used in prose instead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, there are a lot of reliable publications I've (and others have) been using that should be coded on this template. But still... HumanxAnthro (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Nintendo eShop?

Thanks to @X201 for updating the doc. It seems that we currently sport "ESHOP"/Nintendo eShop as a parameter. Since the eShop is a storefront and not a gaming system, I think it should be removed. IceWelder [✉] 11:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought the same when I saw ESHOP on there. It's only used on a single article, namely Nano Assault, confusingly the review box is showing reviews for two different versions of the game. Reviews under 3DS are for Nano Assault and reviews under ESHOP are for Nano Assault EX - X201 (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
That's obviously not the correct usage of the field, so I fixed that. IceWelder [✉] 12:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

minus Removed Obviously not a platform. - X201 (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for some additions (#3)

Since HumanxAnthro threw more suggestions at my second request batch, i might as well add the suggestions by him into this third request batch, most of which i've also used in certain WPVG articles. I think it would help editors if these were added into the template mix:

  • Mean Machines (MM) — A multi-format video game magazine published between 1990 and 1992 in the UK by EMAP before being split into two magazines: Mean Machines Sega and Nintendo Magazine System.
  • Super Pro (SuperPro) — A SNES-dedicated game magazine published between 1992 and 1994 in the UK by Paragon Publishing before merging with Super XS to become Super Gamer.
  • Super Action (SAction) — Another SNES-dedicated game magazine published between 1992 and 1994 in the UK by Europress.
  • Entertainment Weekly (EW) — A monthly entertainment magazine published from 1990 by Meredith Corporation. In addition to pop culture, they also reviewed video games, which i've used on various articles.
  • N-Force (NForce) — A UK-based game magazine published between 1992 and 1993 by Europress that covered NES, SNES and Game Boy before being relaunched as SNES Force
  • SNES Force (SNESForce) — Yet another SNES-dedicated game magazine published between 1993 and 1994 in the UK by Europress.
  • Electronic Games (ElecGames) — The first US-based video game magazine published by Reese Publishing Company. Covered vintage gaming platforms such as Atari 2600, IntelliVision and ColecoVision. Later relaunched in 1992 under the umbrella of Katz Kunkel Worley Inc., now covering (at the time) more modern gaming platforms.
  • Nintendo Acción (NAccion) — Later rebranded as Revista Oficial Nintendo (RON), it was a Spanish Nintendo-focused magazine originally published in 1992 by Hobby Press before publishing duties were given to Axel Springer SE and discontinued in 2018.
  • Games World (GWorld) — A spin-off magazine of the Sky One TV show first published in 1994 by Paragon Publishing that i've used on some articles. Covered (at the time) modern gaming platforms and sometimes arcade titles.
  • Mega Zone (MegaZone) — A Australian-based Sega-focused magazine published by the Elwood, Victoria-located Megazone Publications between 1989 and 1995. Covered multiple Sega platforms such as Mega Drive and Game Gear.
  • Play Time (PlayTime) — A German-based multi-platform magazines published by Computec between 1991 and 1995.
  • Total! (German edition) (TOTde) — This is basically the German version of the UK-based Total! magazine published by X-Plain-Verlag between 1993 and 2000 but featured their own set of reviews for various Nintendo platforms.

Those are pretty much all the requests suggested by HumanxAnthro from my part for March. The next batch from me will likely be posted here on the talk page between June-July. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) Is there a proper way to suggest new sources to include? 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@HumanxAnthro:Well, this is pretty much the way. You have to do it yourself and wait until someone who is allowed to edit the main template page to list them there. At least, that's my understanding... Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
It's a bit of a pain which is why big requests sit a while. Also, it's best if these are already vetted as reliable sources and listed at WP:VG/RS. In theory, nothing in this template should be missing from the RS list. -- ferret (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm holding off doing any at the moment. I'm cleaning up the numerous errors, incorrect uses and defunct parameters from years ago. The point of all that is that I hope to extract a complete list of every source that's being used in a manual rev field, so that I can compile a list of the most used and we can see if there are any popular ones that we've missed or that fail WP:VG/RS. - X201 (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd add the Los Angeles Times here, since they actually use to give star ratings in their game reviews, such as with the Spice World video game 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I would also like to suggest a platform addition:
  • Amstrad CPC — The magazine Amstrad Action is already included on the template, yet the platform it's based on, Amstrad CPC, isn't included.
Maestro2016 (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Template error, fix needed

For some reason the template is categorizing every use as multiplatform mode. Category:Articles using Video game reviews template in single platform mode is empty. Can someone get the spanners out please. - X201 (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Izno: I think this comes from your rework. There's a line, categorizePlatformCount(div, activeSystems). Inside categorizePlatformCount, it checks if activeSystems ~= 0. However, you passed the entire table instead of #activeSystems, so it'll never equal zero. Easy fix but wanted to run by you first. -- ferret (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like something I'd do. Izno (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@X201: Fixed, but template category updates like this do not trigger cache refreshes so it may take a while to populate. -- ferret (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Izno and Ferret: Thanks both. - X201 (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Older platforms

Several older platforms are missing. For example:

Maestro2016 (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

IndieWire

Can we add IndieWire? One of their reviews. ภץאคгöร 21:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

^Before recommending links to add in, first you should go to WP:VG/S and see if they're considered reliable for reviews. In addition, it won't be beneficial to just list these just becasue they're considered reliable, if they are used in multiple articles already, then that would be something.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

    • Literally all of these magazines are published by publishers that already have other sources they published coded for the review template. They are reliable AND HQ, and some of these are already being used in articles. I've seen several articles using Sega Saturn Magazine and MacAddict in particular. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • You still need to be verified as reliable source there, and on top of that, they have to be used in the articles. Have these magazines been used for reviews as well.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Please look at the FAQs near the top of the talk page to see what we would require.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Even if they are reliable, I don't think we need to add so many genre-specific and/or inactive publications to the template due to how rarely they would be used. The template should be reserved for publications that constantly put out reviews, such as IGN and GameSpot. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • To further add, remember that the review box is not supposed to be a dump of review scores with no connection to the prose. This is a reason we want to keep the named/keyed review sites to a minimum, the ones we know have been or are routinely used in this fashion (eg with prose in the body to go along with the review). So continuing to add every possible review site that even may be reliable isn't really helping towards keeping the review box slim. --Masem (t) 17:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Most of these aren't "review sites". I deliberately left out websites out of my lists because most VG articles I edit are from the era of gaming where most reviews had to be read in print sources with professional writers. I've also encountered video games where most or many of the available reviews aren't keyed (Taz Express). They are officially-published magazines from the 80s up until the early 2000s, and the links I'm using are Archive.org screenshots of those links or wikilinks to article about those magazines. Again, though, it's up to the admins where you wanna go with this. I'm just here presenting suggestions I've frequently encountered when searching for reviews on MobyGames and Archive.org. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I would agree with HumanxAnthro that some of these magazines should be added to the template. Whether or not they're included on WP:VG/S is not a valid argument, as that list is almost entirely focused on modern online websites and almost completely worthless for older print magazines. When it comes to older print magazines, what matters is whether or not the magazine's publisher is a reliable source, not whether or not a specific magazine is listed on WP:VG/S. Most of the magazines listed by HumanxAnthro above are from publishers that already have magazines listed in this template. I don't see why other magazines from those same publishers shouldn't be included. However, I don't think all the magazines listed above should be included, but only the ones notable enough to have their own articles on Wikipedia. For example, most of the Sega magazines, which are already being used in many Sega game articles. Maestro2016 (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Maestro2016: The point is we should limit to magazines actually being used in articles. So if they are being used for reviews, and its done frequently, then i think thats enough. But, even if we recognize a credible reviewer, we have to make sure we're using them. The table is already really large as it is. we shouldn't be adding them if they're not going to be used as Masem already clarified.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I get that, which is why I said only the magazines that have actual Wikipedia articles about them. I know for certain that the Sega magazines listed above are used in Sega game articles. I've come across plenty of Sega game articles listing those Sega magazines as custom reviews. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Mega Drive/Genesis

There seems to be a conflict between the wiki code and output when it comes to the Mega Drive/Genesis. The code says SMD, yet the output is Sega Genesis. There should be some consistency here. I would propose keeping the code as SMD, but changing the output to Mega Drive/Genesis. Most of the Sega magazines listed in this template, and used in many Sega articles, are European magazines specifically reviewing the Mega Drive versions of the games, not the Genesis versions. It is inaccurate and misleading to list the versions reviewed as solely "Sega Genesis" when in fact the versions being reviewed are the Mega Drive versions, not the Genesis versions. Maestro2016 (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Ehhhh. Moving the usual Sega Genesis naming debates here feels... ehhh. Is there a serious argument that the EU and NA models represent significantly different game experiences? This is the same kind of argument of going to every single video game and listing Mega Drive/Sega Genesis in the platform field and leads, and we generally frown on that. -- ferret (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
This has almost nothing to do with the Sega Genesis article title debate. Whenever dealing with American English vs. British/Australian English, the standard practice across Wikipedia is to use American English for US-centric articles/sources and British/Australian English for UK/AUS-centric articles/sources. See WP:TITLEVAR, which states: "If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English." Same goes for Genesis (American English) vs. Mega Drive (British/Australian English). If the sources are specifically discussing the Mega Drive versions, then it would be a misrepresentation of the sources to call it the Genesis version, when that's clearly not the version being discussed by the sources. And yes, they do represent different game experiences, due to the resolution and frame rate differences between NTSC and PAL machines. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
But you haven't proposed anything that differentiates between them. You just want the field to list both names, with "Mega Drive" first. -- ferret (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Makes no difference if it's "Mega Drive/Genesis" or "Genesis/Mega Drive". The point is that many of the reviews listed under the "Sega Genesis" heading are specifically for the Mega Drive version, not the Genesis version. Referring to Mega Drive reviews as "Genesis" reviews is highly misleading and not representative of the sources. The point is about accurately representing the sources. In most of the Mega Drive/Genesis game articles I've come across, the reviews listed are most often British publications reviewing the Mega Drive version, not the Genesis version. Mega Drive reviews from European publications should be listed as Mega Drive reviews, and Genesis reviews from North American publications should be listed as Genesis reviews. Not suggesting we create two separate columns for Genesis and Mega Drive reviews, but it would be easier just renaming the column to "Mega Drive/Genesis" or "Genesis/Mega Drive" to represent both types of reviews. The column already uses the "SMD" code anyway. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I Support adding "Genesis" as part of the parameter. Some might find it confusing why we prioritize mega drive over sega genesis. especially since the article links to genesis. it can cause more confusion for first time readers.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: The template already outputs Genesis, as that's the article's name. The SMD code is a decades old abbreviation from the days of Sega Genesis being constantly move/title warred. -- ferret (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Could've sworn that I saw a mega drive in the template documentation. oh well. I think Genesis is more clear than mega drive as it sounds more distinct, so I'm ok with the current status quo.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
You did. I just fixed it. The documentation was wrong, the template outputs Genesis. -- ferret (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Collider should be added

Reputable site that has a dedicated video game section. They've also done quality reviews for games in the past. TheVideoGameDude (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

They don't do reviews on a frequent enough basis to be added, from my findings, and usually for games that already have lots of reviews (remember: the template is not meant to include every review, just 5-8 or so of the ones most representative). --Masem (t) 13:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Module change request

Under Module:Video game reviews, under the "local systems" header, I have some concerns over which consoles are abbreviated in headers with the multiplatform template. I'd like to suggest some changes to save space but also better uniformity:

  • [[Xbox Series X and Series S|Xbox Series X/S]] --> [[Xbox Series X and Series S|Xbox X/S]]
  • [[Sega Game Gear|SGG]] --> [[Game Gear]]
  • [[Sega Genesis]] --> [[Sega Genesis|Genesis]]
  • [[GameCube|GC]] --> [[GameCube]]
  • [[Atari Jaguar]] --> [[Atari Jaguar|Jaguar]]
  • [[Atari Lynx]] --> [[Atari Lynx|Lynx]]

TarkusABtalk/contrib 06:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 November 2021

Request to add the Gameractor magazine to list of reviewers (local reviewers), I apologize if I'm going about it incorrectly 

{ "[[Gamereactor|''Gamereactor'']]", 'GReactor' },

WutStock (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done User:GKFXtalk 15:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 Undone: This request has been undone. This source is not listed as reliable at WP:VGRS. Please have a discussion there first about it. Izno (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 November 2021

Could someone add Kill Screen and Video Games Chronicle to the Module:Video game reviews/data (in the local reviewers section). Both are considered reliable per WP:VG/RS. 

{"[[Kill Screen|''Kill Screen'']]", 'KS'},
{"[[Video Games Chronicle|''Video Games Chronicle'']]", 'VGC'},

Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Both in WP:VG/RS, and noted that Video Games Chronicle had already been requested above on 12 November with no objections. User:GKFXtalk 19:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Video Games Chronicle

I think it might be worth adding Video Games Chronicle to the table; it's considered reliable, and they seem to review most big titles. – Rhain ☔ 23:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Rhain:, has been added per my request below. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 December 2021

I would like to politely ask Igromania to be added. Igromania is a former Russian gaming magazine founded in 1997, that currently works as Video game website, serving high-quality reviews and critical posts.

Igromania was recently an official jury member at The Game Awards 2021 , futhermore showing its role as a major international gaming reviewer.

Igromania has recently used five-star ranking system. Its scores could be helpful for artciles that focus on video games developed in Russia, among other places.

Thank you in advance.

Kind regards, Snezkov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snezkov (talk • contribs) 09:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Where's Sega-CD and Sega 32X as a platform for the multi-platform field?

Seriously, Sega CD and 32X are separate consoles from the Genesis, and there are games that had versions for the Genesis and Sega CD, Genesis and 32X, and all three, with publications that had separate reviews with different ratings for each version. Also, where's NEOGEO as a platform? 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 17:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 January 2022 (N64 Magazine)

N64 Magazine cannot be linked in any use of this template that uses the N64 column (e.g., Carmageddon II: Carpocalypse Now), as both use |N64=. There needs to be an alternate variable name for the magazine like |N64Mag= to sort this. - Psi-Locked (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Psi-Locked: I'm going to need some clarification about what you're trying to report. I have quickly tested at the testcases page and do not see an issue. To list N64 Magazine in a multiplatform, you use N64_N64. -- ferret (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Video_game_reviews/Archive_6&oldid=1140001731"