Template talk:Video game reviews/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Template-protected edit request on 29 January 2022

Could someone add The Daily Telegraph / The Telegraph (London) to the Module:Video game reviews/data (in the local reviewers section).

{"[[The Daily Telegraph|''The Telegraph'']]", 'TELE'},

The Daily Telegraph / The Telegraph (London) frequently publishes video game reviews with a 5 star rating system (simliar to other UK broadsheet, The Guardian, with respect to video game reviews). It is considered reliable per WP:RSP. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 02:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Awards parameters for Video games reviews template not working

Hello! I'm working on improving the Euro Truck Simulator 2 article and was told that I could use the awards parameter for the video games review template to get rid of the awards section, however for whatever reason when I attempt to add the publisher of the award, it results in the publisher section for that being blank. Anyone know what I"m doing wrong? (reposted after being told I should ask here first before asking at WP:VPT) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Template parameters are case sensitive. -- ferret (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah alright. I was really confused as to what was going wrong. Thanks! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The memory issues among us

The article Among Us uses this template. When not commented out the article uses up all the possible lua memory. When commented out it dramatically reduces the amount of memory used. The two parser reports are below (first not commented out and second commented out):

Lua time usage: 2.003/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage: 52428781/52428800 bytes
Lua Profile:
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::getEntity                          320 ms       15.8%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::getEntityStatements                300 ms       14.9%
    ?                                                                200 ms        9.9%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::gsub                               160 ms        7.9%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::getExpandedArgument                160 ms        7.9%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::callParserFunction                 140 ms        6.9%
    <mw.lua:690>                                                     120 ms        5.9%
    items <Module:Timeline_of_release_years:4>                       100 ms        5.0%
    dataWrapper <mw.lua:668>                                          80 ms        4.0%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::match                               60 ms        3.0%
    [others]                                                         380 ms       18.8%
Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400

Lua time usage: 2.077/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage: 25833682/52428800 bytes
Lua Profile:
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::getEntityStatements                320 ms       14.0%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::getEntity                          260 ms       11.4%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::callParserFunction                 160 ms        7.0%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::match                              140 ms        6.1%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::getExpandedArgument                120 ms        5.3%
    dataWrapper <mw.lua:668>                                         120 ms        5.3%
    ?                                                                120 ms        5.3%
    getExpandedArgument <mw.lua:172>                                 100 ms        4.4%
    type                                                             100 ms        4.4%
    Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::gsub                                80 ms        3.5%
    [others]                                                         760 ms       33.3%
Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 1/400

I have no idea why this is being caused as this doesn't seem to be using all possible memory elsewhere, but to prevent lua errors I've commented out the use of the template on this page. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

See also Template talk:Authority control/Archive 13#Big problem — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@MSGJ and Dreamy Jazz: This is being caused by the absolute monsterous size of the Wikidata entity. I have frankly never seen anything like this. The entry is over 2.5megs with hundreds of properties, covering every price change, every store front selling it, numerous reviews (which is fine), every language it's available for, both the platforms AND their OS, an entire history of version updates, a list of all it's Youtube trailers, a list of multiple community Discord servers, TV shows it has been mentioned on, artists and personalities who have referenced it, a historical tracking of it's views on youtube (not updated to current, but historical record as well). Frankly it just goes on and on. If Wikidata doesn't have some sort of WP:NOT equivalent, this entry is a prime example of why it should. The only option I can see for solving this particular case is to add a "no pull" argument, which I'll work on shortly. -- ferret (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Look at all the references! There are 99 on the genre field alone. - X201 (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

50+ for the supported languages. -- ferret (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Specify "qid = none" to suppress Wikidata where necessary. I've fixed Among Us. -- ferret (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. I thought it may be something to do with wikidata due the lua profile listing get entity items as being the slowest to run, but I hadn't checked the wikidata page for it. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 September 2022

Could you please link Beep! Mega Drive (BMD) to Gemaga? Beep! Mega Drive is the old name of it. M0d3M (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done - X201 (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Can we add GameDaily? and A.V. Club?

Both recognized as reliable sources and their reviews are in articles such as Patapon, Lumines: Puzzle Fusion, and Echochrome.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done GD and AVC respectively - X201 (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 26 October 2022

Description of suggested change: Request that the following video game review websites are added with code:

• Digital Trends
• NME
• TechRadar
• Trusted Reviews
• Video Games Chronicle

Helper201 (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

To editor Helper201: have you consulted the WikiProject Video games members as suggested in the edit notice that appears when this page is edited? Looks like a consensus is needed to make such additions. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 08:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Digital Trends, NME, and TechRadar seem like pretty straightforward additions to me, since they're all considered reliable at WP:VG/S. Video Games Chronicle is already part of the template (but was missing from the documentation). Trusted Reviews requires a discussion, though (seems to be considered reliable but isn't listed at WP:VG/S yet). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 08:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

To editors Rhain and Helper201:  edited – Digital Trends (DR), NME (NME) and TechRadar (TR) have been included in the module data subpage. Respect that Trusted Reviews should first be further discussed. Stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 09:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth I've made an edit request to have it added at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources. If this is the wrong place to do so or if I have made any mistakes pelase do let me know. Thanks. Helper201 (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

To editor Helper201: yes, that should get the ball rolling. Added the sourcing template above your request to help editors make the determination. Trusted Reviews has been discussed there in the past, but very minimally, so they might just be accepted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 00:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 December 2022

Add:

{Metro (British newspaper), code: Metro} Lankyant (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC) and Gamereactor

 Not done: Metro is unreliable per WP:RSP. Gamereactor has an inconclusive discussion at WP:VG/S. -- ferret (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 22 December 2022

Could we get Gamekult linked? and is there any consensus on PC Invasion? Lankyant (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 But Gamekult is already listed, i'm asking for it to be linked to the wiki article. Lankyant (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

It looks like this change has been made. Sorry for misunderstanding; when making an edit request, you are requesting the attention of editors who are not always familiar with the template in question, so it is best to be overly descriptive of the change you want. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you :D Lankyant (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Aktueller Software Markt

How is ASM's scores in the 1980s supposed to be entered into the template? They don't give an overall score. They give a score to 5 different parts: graphics, sound, gameplay, motivation, price/performance. Mika1h (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This has come up before. Add them together e.g if the game gets 4/5 in all fields, add them together so that a single score becomes 20/25, and add a footnote explaining how it was arrived at. - X201 (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Summary

Since there are agreed definitions on "generally positive", "universal acclaim" etc, how about something automatic in this template that indicates by way of a red/amber/green icon which it is? 92.19.132.214 (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It might even making it possible to filter results automatically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.94.29.136 (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is particularly useful as we could only apply it to Metacritic but not GameRankings. The prose should be sufficient for this. IceWelder [✉] 13:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Request for two additions

I'm in the process of translating a lot of the Famicom Disk System articles over from Japanese Wikipedia and a number of major (in Japan) outlets have no code. The ones I need most urgently are:

• Game Side (formerly known as Used Games)
• Family Computer Magazine

These are major enough in Japan to have their own articles. Etotheipi (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Run them past WT:VGRS and get them added to the Non-English section first. See related question in FAQ above. - X201 (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Tilt (French magazine)

Tilt must have the most convoluted scoring system in gaming history: "interest" is scored on a scale of 0-20, "graphics, animation, sound effects, +dozen others" seems to be a 6 star system (not 5), and then there are "language and price" that for some reason get a letter grade (A to F, but why are they using that when academic grading in France is 0-20). I guess "interest" is the overall score but some games like Ultima 4 don't get even that. Mika1h (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Do you have an example? Those I have spotchecked have a lot of subcategories scored 0-20 plus a 0-20 overall average score, a letter grade for the price, and a word descriptor (medium, high, etc.) for difficulty. Ex http://download.abandonware.org/magazines/Tilt/tilt_numero101/tilt%20-%20n%C2%B0101%20-%20avril%201992%20-%20page054%20et%20055.jpg. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually the letter "grade" for the price is not a subjective ranking, it is directly mapped to specific price brackets in Francs: https://i.imgur.com/kfYJmfl.png Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Several "generalist" outlets

Could we add a number of generalist outlets, at least for their reviews of AAA+ titles? For example, there are "scored" reviews for Tears of the Kingdom from major generalist sources not in the module atm:

• Financial Times (4/5 stars)
• Evening Standard (5/5 stars)
• Daily Express (5/5 stars)

Juxlos (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Daily Express is unreliable, so a definite no, while Evening Standard has no consensus and would likely need further discussion at WT:VG/S or WP:RSN first. Financial Times is reliable but I'm not sure they actually review games enough to justify inclusion in the template; if editors feel a review is particularly important, I'd recommend using the custom parameters instead. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Seconding everything Rhain just said. Sergecross73 msg me 10:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Rhain's view. The customer reviewer fields exists for one off situations like this. -- ferret (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, Financial Times does review a number of games, but I suppose they only do it for 2-3 games a month. Can someone guide me through using the custom parameters? Juxlos (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Juxlos: Of course. For the example mentioned above, you'd just use two parameters: |rev1=Financial Times and |rev1Score=4/5 (or replace "rev1" with "rev2", "rev3", etc.). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how come I didn't see that in the template documentation earlier. Oh well, thanks. Juxlos (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Request: WorthPlaying

WorthPlaying has various game reviews. This reviewer listed in Metacritic. Just adding |WP= on a template. Windywalk (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

No. WP:VG/S lists WorthPlaying as unreliable. Do not add it to articles. -- ferret (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 June 2023

Add Intellivision to the system list, so I can add some Intellivision ratings to Pitfall!. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done With the parameter INT -- ferret (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

OpenCritic

I was just wondering what other people thought about possibly adding OpenCritic as a review aggregator next to Metacritic. For the last few years OpenCritic has been gaining a lot more attention on social media, forums, websites and basically any other place used to discuss video games. I think it would be worth considering, also because OpenCritic does not use weighted average, unlike Metacritic. Poklane 12:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Not really relevant to the discussion, but your signature should at least have a link to your talk page per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

OpenCritic has had multiple discussions are WP:VG, WP:VG/S, and I believe MOS:VG. Those discussions thus far have not resulted in it being treated as a reliable, nor as necessary or desired alongside Metacritic. It certainly will not be added to the template until a consensus to use it is established. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Rather disingenous to accuse Opencritic of not being 'reliable' when there have been several concerns raised over the years about the opacity Metacritic's scoring system and their differential weighting to certain review sources. What exactly would the criteria to determine whether or not it is reliable?

The fact remains that it is a currently major aggregator and the second biggest after Metacritic. The same way multiple review sources are listed in the template without passing any judgement on their perceived reliability, and allowing the reader to come to their own conclusions, seems to me the most sensible way to proceed - list it alongside Metacritic and give people the opportunity and respect to appraise it themselves. Not having it in the template is a disservice to the reader IMO. Armuk (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

"Reliable" in this context refers to WP:RS, our guideline. I am not making any personal statement that I believe OpenCritic lies or anything like that. I am also simply relaying to you the current project consensus. This template will not add OpenCritic while that consensus stands. -- ferret (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

My point remains unchanged - what exactly is the specific criteria used to make a determination on its so-called reliability? Who is it that the consensus must be derived from? The linked guideline lists some broad principles but answers neither question.

The faceless monolith that Wikipedia has becomes seems to be far removed from its initial purpose of the democratic provision of information. Armuk (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

There's so many discussions on OpenCritic that it is difficult for me to find the right most recent one. That, is indeed, an issue. However, to suggest we've somehow lost the "democratic provision" and aren't properly discussing and building consensus is just needlessly antagonistic. The last decision was a site-wide RFC. I'm looking for it now. -- ferret (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Template_talk:Video_game_reviews/Archive_5#Adding OpenCritic as a review aggregator I believe is the last major RFC. There have been many other discussion even since then, including Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_23#OpenCritic. -- ferret (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

So OpenCritic's last appraisal for suitability was in 2017, and the main point of opposition was essentially its perceived niche status, that it was not used to the same extent as Metacritic among the industry & consumer base.

Six years on, that status quo has certainly changed; OpenCritic is now a major player in the space. Given that the primary argument against is largely no longer valid, a re-assessment as to its inclusion in 2023 is now most definitely warranted. Armuk (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

You're free to make that argument and broach the subject at MOS:VG. Determining the both the reliability and suitability of OpenCritic's use would best be a topic for that page. -- ferret (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest it's worth another discussion. Reading through the previous topics on this, most were quite long ago. OpenCritic has since been implemented in more places such as GOG.com and has had updates.

Beyond that, some of the arguments against fell into the category of 'we have MetaCritic already', which isn't an argument against OpenCritic's reliability itself. As well as this, with OpenCritic's wider pool of vetted critics, there are niche titles that are not scored on MetaCritic, but are on OpenCritic, so it could be useful at least for those times. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

This has been implemented following conclusion of the RFC at MOS:VG. Please read the instructions before you begin to use it. -- ferret (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Please remove the term XSXS

Per my RfC closure here. Can a template editor or admin help? Thanks. starship.paint (exalt) 00:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: What are you asking to have changed? The template's only use of XSXS is as a parameter name. That parameter outputs Xbox Series X/S when used, as it always has. This template never outputs 'XSXS'. -- ferret (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ferret: - please explain, when I look at Call of Duty#Main series, I see three XSXS? starship.paint (exalt) 01:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Starship.paint That is {{Video game series reviews}}. Please post to that talk page, taking a look now. -- ferret (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Request: Siliconera

It is a commonly used site for reviews, especially of Japanese games, and is listed as a reliable source on WP:VG/S. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I too concur with this request. CaptainGalaxy 03:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Consoles +

Consoles + is unlinked, but there is a French and an Italian article. Since it is a French magazine, I suggest that we add an interlanguage link to the French article like this: Consoles +. Sjö (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Request: Strana Igr (Russia) and Level (Czech)

Since this is indeed the English Wiki, it makes sense that there's only a few non-English sources in the template. But a few more prominent ones wouldn't hurt, so I am requesting these two. Both are print magazines, they're already listed as reliable on WP:VG/S, and they have an extensive history (February 1996 for Strana Igr and January 1995 for Level). Thank! Xanarki (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Just realized it's been about six months since this request. Can anyone help me out? Also, an entry for Personal Computer World would be nice too (a very long-running magazine that I recently discovered, lots of years of content there). Xanarki (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that either of those are going to be regularly used on the English Wikipedia. 6 months of silence probably backs that. Can't you just add them on the custom field instead? Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when using the custom field, it automatically places the custom ref at the very bottom, regardless of where the line is physically inserted..thus the refs aren't in alphabetical order. Unless there's a way around that? Xanarki (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Super power

Can someone please add Super Power, thanks. https://www.abandonware-magazines.org/affiche_mag.php?mag=20&num=2565&album=oui Oz346 (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Dark mode inversion

Implement changes in Module:Video game reviews/sandbox and Module:Video game reviews/data/sandbox, which inverts the color scheme to support dark mode. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 23:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Reopen the request if there are any issues :) SWinxy (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Early home computers

I quickly browsed talk archives but couldn't find anything relevant (please link if discussed already)...

I stumbled upon the Ghostbusters (1984 video game) page which led me to Module:Video game reviews/data.

For some unfathomable reason it seems the support for 80s home computer reviews is very sparse. I could add "C64" for Commodore 64 reviews, but there is neither support for Apple II nor "SMS" (which I presume refers to Sega Master System).

There's an absolute TRUCKLOAD of 8-bit systems not supported by your module.

Is there a reason for this? Before I attempt to Template:Video_game_reviews#How_to_add_a_new_platform, could it be that computer games are meant to use a different template than video game reviews - at least, that's about the only reason I can come up with? CapnZapp (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason for this? No one has asked for it thus far is the primary reason. Template editors can't necessarily be exhaustive or knowledgable on every possible system, and it's been added to as people request. -- ferret (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I just found it hard to believe nobody has thought of using this template for MSX or Apple II reviews, or Atari 400/800 reviews, or TI or Colecovision reviews... so you're saying this is the only review template to use for early game reviews? Is the template perhaps a brand new initiative? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The template has been in use for more than 16 years (see also the aforementioned talk archives). I suspect most editors who have used the template for those platforms simply opted for the single-platform layout instead (as most articles do), or perhaps simply for the |PC= parameter (as Ghostbusters currently does). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Link request

MeriStation should be linked. Skyshiftertalk 18:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Request change in wiklink

Requesting that AllGame in review articles be linked to RhythmOne#AllGame instead of AllGame to avoid the automatic re-direct. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Request to add reviewer

I wish to suggest Final Weapon. I was planning to add this review of Concord. ISD (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This source needs evaluated by WP:VG/S first. -- ferret (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Request to add a reviewer

I would like to add Pure Xbox (Abbreviated as PX). It is the Xbox version of Nintendo Life and Push Square, both of which are already in the template, and it has already been evaluated by WP:VG/S. MK at your service. 14:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Request to update title parameter

Is there a way to change the title and subtitle parameter? The text for these does not show well in dark mode. See Berzerk_(video_game)#Reception for an example (through Dark mode obviously!) Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Request change in the 1Up.com wikilink

I noticed that 1Up.com had been merged to form the 1Up Network a few years ago. Can you consider changing it to "{ "1Up.com", '1UP' }" in Module:Video game reviews/data to avoid a redirect? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, the rename of the article should be reverted. It is principally about the website. The podcast network is a subtopic. IceWelder [✉] 18:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

When I try to get to the 1Up.com article link, it always redirects to the 1Up Network article instead. Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It was moved. IceWelder [✉] 20:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Famitsu scoring

When Famitsu originally reviews games, at least older ones, they did not average out the ratings to be out of 40, which is currently what the article states ("Famitsu (Fam) 0 to 40, based on four individual reviews").

While occasionally shown on their website as an average, it would be wrong to suggest Famitsu initially gave a score out of 40 on given dates or on the initial reception. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication." which means we shouldn't tally them up if we are citing the article. That said, how should Famitsu be displayed in the ratings box? I've made an attempt to clarify it on the Otogirisō i've worked on, but the instructions on Template:Video game reviews seem to be a bit confusing if not a bit contradictory. What's the approach for this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas The documentation currently states Collective scoring: Publications such as Electronic Gaming Monthly and Famitsu review games among a group, with each reviewer offering their individual score. Using the average or cumulative score from these publications will result in the loss of that breakdown, so include the individual scores, either in the table itself or in a footnote.. Otogirisō appears to follow this to me. -- ferret (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I see that, but the documentation also states "Famitsu (Fam) 0 to 40, based on four individual reviews" so it seems to contradict itself @Ferret:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas Yeah, that second part should be updated. Someone was trying to say it in the fewest words possible I think and it make come from a bad effort to condense for the VisualEditor template parameters. -- ferret (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. What steps are required to update it? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly just edit it. It's part of the documentation subpage, not the template itself. I'd take out the "0 to 40" and say "Four individual scores of 0 to 10", or something similar. -- ferret (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Ahh I didn't realize it wasn't locked. I'll go forward with it. Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Request to add Mean Machines to the list of reviewers

The magazine Mean Machines differs from Mean Machines Sega which came about after Mean Machines split into two, along with Nintendo Magazine System (see the article for more info). The lack of a separate reviewer for Mean Machines has lead to inaccuracies in Video game reviews template data such as in the ActRaiser article which lists it as having being reviewed by Mean Machines Sega instead of the original Mean Machines; this is somewhat preposterous given that ActRaiser was a game for a Nintendo system, Mean Machines Sega is a magazine exclusively for Sega games, and the rivalry that existed between the two companies at the time. Please consider adding Mean Machines to the list of reviewers so that inaccuracies such as that of the ActRaiser article can be easily fixed. I also noticed that the Mean Machines Sega link provided by the template is a redirect rather than an article, so you may want to fix that too. Also consider adding Nintendo Magazine System to the list of reviewers for completeness and to help fix other inaccuracies where Nintendo Official Magazine is listed instead. 186.30.182.176 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Updated in sandbox here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Video_game_reviews/data/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1260501092

Successfully tested in testcases here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Video_game_reviews/testcases&diff=prev&oldid=1260502134

186.30.182.176 (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe that I have included a complete and specific description. If there is something that's unclear or if you feel I could give more information on something, please say so and I will be happy to help. 186.30.182.176 (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! 186.30.182.176 (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help! Paine  01:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 December 2024

Request a change to add VIC-20 as a format (perhaps as V20? or simply VIC?) to add scores from rankings for early games for that system. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Request for comment

I've started a section about adding more websites to this template here. Your thoughts would be much appreciated if you'd care to leave them on the linked page. Thank you. Helper201 (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Layout question

Is there any way to fix the layout so that the various system sections will consistently line up? It looks odd the way it works out now.2002:620D:3AF:0:4810:B21:DC5A:6F79 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 February 2025

General consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Template talk:Video game reviews additions for the addition of RPG Site (rpgsite.net) to this template. Helper201 (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC) Helper201 (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. There is not an actionable edit request here. What is the code change you want? What should the abbreviation be? – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Jonesey95 I still don't follow how to do that. I've tried editing Template:Video game reviews/sandbox but all that appears on the edit page is "{{#invoke:Video game reviews/sandbox|reviewbox }}<noinclude>{{template doc}}<!-- Add categories to the /doc sub-page and interwikis to Wikidata. --></noinclude>". Helper201 (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Good point. I think the page you want to edit is Module:Video game reviews/data/sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Mobile dark styles

While looking at a review table in dark mode on my phone, I saw that the Awards section will display the table with a white font on a white background color, which renders it unreadable. The other Aggregate and Individual review tables display properly. Is there an issue with the Award table's CSS? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC))

Please link to an affected page. When I look at Template:Video game reviews#Multi-platform/column layout in the Vector 2022 dark mode (using the option in the sidebar), I see near-white on #d1dbdf for the Awards header and near-white on black for the body cells in the Awards section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I saw this in NHL Hockey#Reception and Time Gal#Reception. However, I should specify that this is within the Wikipedia iOS app and not a browser app. Could it be the vgr-awards class? Here's a breakdown of what I'm seeing:

• the text in the caption tag is black and the background is a dark grey
• the text in the TH tags is black and the background is white
• the text in the TD tags is white (unless it's linked then it's blue) and the background is white

Hope it helps. Thanks for looking into this. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC))

I don't have a way to test this, but it looks like this is almost enough information to report a bug. From what I am reading, the iOS app has at least three settings for the display mode: sepia, dark, and black. Which one of those, if any, do you have selected? Also, are you using the latest version of the iOS app from the Apple app store? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 CSS and styling isn't my forte, but I think this should be fixed. Even on Desktop, I can see that the formatting for the "Awards" sections differ from "Aggregate Scores" and "Review Scores". I can't imagine any reason one section of the table should be formatted differently, so it should probably just be made to match. -- ferret (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Regarding your questions, I am using the latest iOS and the latest version of the Wikipedia app from the App Store. I normally have it set to black, but I just tested it on all four modes: white, sepia, dark and black. Here is what I see:

• Caption - the text remains black while the background color changes with the mode
• TH content - the text is black and the background is a light grey (it looked white to me on the black setting before). This stays the same for all four modes.
• TD content - the background remains light grey for all four modes. The text is black for the two lighter modes and switches to white for the two darker modes (unless it is linked, then it is blue for all four modes).

Hope this helps. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC))

It does help. Does the sandbox version at User:Jonesey95/sandbox look any better to you? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the mobile app appears to be optimized for article space. When I navigate to anything in the user or template space, the app opens it via a web browser, which is using different settings. Not sure how else to test it, and I hate to suggest a live test with a template that is so widely used.

Also, I just noticed this. The "Reception" text with the "vgr-title" class remains black on desktop when I switch to dark mode via option sidebar. Oddly enough though, this text's font color switches just fine on the mobile app and in a mobile web browser. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC))

It sounds like the app is not as useful as just using a browser. I have reported this as T392246. I think the iOS app's dark mode should mirror the Vector 2022 dark mode. We'll see what the developers have to say. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Cool. Thank you very much for your help with this. And to be fair, the app is much better for reading and navigating articles than a mobile browser; editing isn't too bad either. But yes, there is certainly room for improvement. Thanks again. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC))

Edit request 28 March 2025

Description of suggested change:

To add new reviewers for Official Dreamcast Magazine (UK) and Official Dreamcast Magazine (US)

As follows

{ "''[[Official Dreamcast Magazine (UK)]]''", 'ODMUK' },
{ "''[[Official Dreamcast Magazine (US)]]''", 'ODMUS' }

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coyg (talk • contribs) 06:58, March 28, 2025 (UTC)

Has this been discussed somewhere? If not I would suggest starting a discussion at WP:WPVG. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Coyg: Is there any news? Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Unsupported parameter detection needed

This template would benefit from detection of unsupported parameters like |rev 1= and |rev1score=, both of which are in use at this writing or were recently in use. They currently fail silently with no message to the editor, which is not ideal. Because there are so many possible combinations of supported parameter names, this detection should probably happen in Lua code rather than on the Template page, as would usually be done. The standard category name would be Category:Pages using Video game reviews with unsupported parameters, and should be applied only to pages in article space. I hope that someone has the time and ability to implement this improvement. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Thanks. And that problem is because of case sensitivity, so maybe it would be worth changing the manual to more explicitly state that. Another item is that I guess the manual is mistaken, saying that the template only supports 10 custom reviews, but all 11 of them are rendering on Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (video game)#Reception! lol. Should that sentence be deleted from the docs or what? — Smuckola(talk) 00:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I have updated the docs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 8 July 2025

Description of suggested change:

The "notheme" class (currently at line 232) was a temporary measure, and is no longer necessary. Can we please remove it, which will improve/fix the presentation of the table on mobile apps. Dmitry Brant (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Change PC to Windows

Because Linux is also a PC. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Critics do not separate PC reviews by operating system. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 08:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 31 July 2025

Description of suggested change: Per the recent talk page discussion here. I believe we have consensus to remove this statement: "Individual component ratings: If a review scores components of a game separately (but does not give an overall score) e.g Graphics 3/5, Sound 4/5, Gameplay 5/5 etc, add all the components together to reach a single score like 12/15, and add a footnote listing the individual scores." I would suggest either removing it, or replacing it with "If a review scores components of a game separately (but does not give an overall score) e.g Graphics 3/5, Sound 4/5, Gameplay 5/5 etc., do not average out its scores (see WP:STICKTOSOURCE). " I'm open to other phrasing if this is too similar to the previous (and opposite) statement. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion is still active... – The Grid (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

it was open for a month and discourse there seems to have settled down. perfectly fair to bring up here now. Masem (t) 16:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

If we are adjusting language we should explicitly call out Famitsu as to spell out the individual scores if that information is known, otherwise the typical "xx/40" reporting we otherwise see will have to do. Masem (t) 16:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

While I agree on this, that sounds like a separate request. Probably would have to change the phrases "Collective scoring: Publications such as Electronic Gaming Monthly and Famitsu review games among a group, with each reviewer offering their individual score. Using the average or cumulative score from these publications will result in the loss of that breakdown, so include the individual scores, either in the table itself or in a footnote." and "0 to 40" parts. This one is more about not combining scores related to graphics/fun/etc, less so about combining different scores from unique critics within a publication. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I think its the same thought. "If a review uses separate scores for parts of a game, or has multiple scores reflecting multiple reviewers for the game, do not aggregate them." with an EFN about the situation that sometimes we lack the individual scoring that Famitsu used. Masem (t) 01:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not a request to edit the template, but to edit the template's doc subpage. That subpage is not protected and does not need edit request. -- ferret (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair. Would it be acceptable to go forward and change it based on the discussion ferret? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I've made no evaluation of the discussion itself. Edit requests are for when a page is protected and you can't perform the edit. The doc subpage is not protected. -- ferret (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 15 August 2025

Description of suggested change: Change the link from Sega Game Gear to simply Game Gear, as that is what the article is now titled. Probably can change SGG to simple Game Gear as it's a very short name for a system already. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC) Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

CHANGED_TEXT

Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Changing the code would break all uses of it. That would require a bot run. -- ferret (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I bypassed the redirect and also created a new 'GG' shortcut so that the existing ones did not break. Feel free to update any relevant documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

We now have two potential parameters for the same platform but with two different abbreviations. I don't think this is useful and potentially leads to diverging usage. We should rather keep only the old parameter and just update the visible link. IceWelder [✉] 17:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

OK with me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah having to say SGG for the shortform is slightly annoying, but its more annoying to have to change it manually for all of them, so I think how it is now is for the best. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Averaging out detail scores

The current instructions state that "If a review scores components of a game separately (but does not give an overall score) e.g Graphics 3/5, Sound 4/5, Gameplay 5/5 etc, add all the components together to reach a single score like 12/15, and add a footnote listing the individual scores."

Similar to how this was discussed with averaging out Famitsu scores, we should not be doing this per WP:STICKTOSOURCE which states " Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.". By averaging out a score, we are implying that the magazine gave a game an overall rating, which would be false. I would suggest simply removing this statement from the instructions page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

100% agree TarkusAB^talk/contrib 18:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree completely, yeah. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The problem becomes how to show the scores in the review table, because for the older games where this type of scoring was common, we'll run into layout problems with long tables. At least with Famitsu, we have other RS that tell us the summation approach is the most common means of aggregation, but I don't know if that can said for reviews of this scoring style. Masem (t) 20:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, the table is not a requirement, it's an aid to collect the scores from prose to summarize for readability. So if the details of a score cannot easily by summarized in the table, then just keep those scores in prose. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 20:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Masem:. I've taken a stab at this for some older games already. Depending on the scale of the table, I've adjusted them for games like Otogiriso, Donkey Kong Country and Super Mario World. I'd keep in mind that people will be reading this in various formats (i.e: text siE and scale on Wikipedia, on their phones over on a wider computer screen) so it's probably difficult to find one that works for all possibilities. I would just try to apply it as it best fits depending on the scale and scope of the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

That has some weirdness to it. First, Famitsu in reliable sources is normally suammrized as the sum of the scores, so breaking that apart is weird. But when you compare that format like "10/8/8/8" for one review source and have that next to a "90/100" that looks to me like the "90/100" is two scores, a 90 and a 100. I don't think you can use that same format that way. Masem (t) 04:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Often I hear the argument when we do something new or transitional on wikipedia that it looks "weird". The original source has published it score from four unique reviewers for decades. I did leave a hat note on some sources that explains their rating scheme. Otherwise, it is a transitional period and we can find a best fit.

Combining the material makes us lose the out on key information. For example, Super Mario World reads as 9/10, 9/10, 8/10, 6/10 instead of 32/40. As we're supposed to only use reviews in the infobox with prose (something I rarely see with Famitsu reviews), we lose out on the key detail that one Famitsu reviewer gave the game a relatively lukewarm rating, which has been the only non-overtly enthusiastic review to the game I've found at its release. Currently the set-up for Famitsu in the infobox standards is to not average them out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying to average them but to sum the Famitsu scores because that's how I've seen it most commonly done in reliable sources (with the prose to discuss the breakdown if that was the case).

but for others, its the use of the "/" in one case to distinguish between scores and to represent a x out of y score, that makes it confusing, trying to view this from someone that would not be familiar with how review scores are normally presented. If you have multiple scores without a published overall score, it may be better to do something like "8/10, 9/10, 9/10, 7/10", which at least tells me that there are four different scores, each some portion out of 10, and would make a solitary "90/100" also consistent. Masem (t) 12:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Masem is right that there's an implementation concern IMO. It's not simply that the core idea is unworkable – it's that this way of presenting the information looks confusing when the slash is also used to detonate fractional scores (e.g., 8 out of 10 vs an 8 and a 10). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with having it listed as "8/10, 9/10, 9/10, 7/10" for now. To clarify, it's already been established previously that we should be spreading out the Famitsu reviews from a previous request so its a bit off topic to what we are getting at. As the unique four reviews of Famitsu are not always available or we only have a source publishing the overall score, then I suppose its okay to limit it to that, but keep in mind we're only supposed to be putting reviews in the info box if there is prose to go along with it. The main request here was to change the ruling to not tally up other information (i.e:" Graphics 4.5/5, Difficulty: 3/5, Fun: 4.5/5" that displays a review of 80%) which is bridge too far in stating what a publication/reviewer has claimed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I retain my usual stance of indifference in these situations. I don't really see the shuffling around of number values in these instances to be that big of a deal, but I also have no problem with stopping it either. Bigger fish to fry, forest before the trees, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

What if it was just a footnote in the score field but there was no sum or averaged score? We'd only being presenting the individual scores in the source, so STICKTOTHESOURCE wouldn't be violated. It's actually a big deal if we can't list scores from Nintendo Power or GamePro, because those are some of the biggest gaming sources in history. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be no argument for combining the scores per the discussion above. As I feel the discussion has mostly turned to be about the best way to show when publications have multiple reviewers and scores with no average, we can organize that in a separate discussion, which I'm sure we could tie up sooner than later. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to chime in and say that only use the 40/40 format if Famitsu tallied the score in their old cominy website before taking it all down. Like in Cyber Citizen Shockman 2: A New Menace, for example. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

While I do see that they do that there, the original reviews do not. As it's a Japanese language magazine and the editors of the English Wikipedia are not going to have easy access to the original materials its difficult, but we're also not supposed to include scores in the infobox unless we pull content (i.e: the reasoning behind why they did or did not like the game) from the reviews itself, which the original website seems to only sometimes have and sometimes not (at least from my experience). As I showed above, the average score loses the forest for the trees, like that one lower score for Super Mario World for example. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

While the article did jump topics, I do not see any major discussion against the removal of the phrase to average out scores. I will change it following this post. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed addition: Amstrad CPC

Proposing adding this line in the platforms list of the template:

{ 'Amstrad CPC', 'CPC' }

We have Amstrad Action as a source in the template, but no means to differentiate CPC specific titles from other computer systems of the era. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Where's the 32X and Sega CD fields?

Hello. May I ask why there isn't Sega CD, 32X and CD 32XX as platform fields? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd guess it'd be due to the combination of relatively small sizes of their respective game libraries coupled with the even less likely scenario of someone adding a platform-specific review for that platform. For example, there's apparently only about 40 32X games out there, and many, like Knuckles Chaotix and Kolibri wouldn't need it because it's a 32x exclusive and needs no such designation.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I've encountered multiple cases where a magazine reviewed both the Genesis and 32X version of a game, and give them different scores. NFL Quarterback Club (video game) for example User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh for sure, it definitely happens. Just not all that often. I believe all the presets are for the more common platforms. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I was going to ask the same. While I agree its not a common platform, some historically important or popular titles are ported to systems like 32X or Sega CD that had been previously available as Genesis games, or in the case of the 32X, Genesis games. (i.e: Mortal Kombat II, Night Trap). The current version of the Virtua Fighter article even makes its own "fake" review box so it can include the 32X for comparison ratings. I do believe including both of these would be useful for comparisons sake. I'm working on the Mortal Kombat article (User:Andrzejbanas/MetroidII if you want to take a peak) and the critical reviews of the Sega CD version do come up. They are generally lukewarm to bad because critics at the time were like "this is basically the same as the genesis one, and I just bought that last year and its 1994 and I just want to play MK II already geez!!!). I've been shoving the SegaCD scores into the Genesis review box, but its getting very busy there. Allowing us to add these up might be a good for this case and other than its uncommon, I don't really see a downside? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Even if it did happen the minority of the time, it still happened. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

It was neither my decision, nor do I even know who/where it was decided. I'm merely brainstorming. These platforms have been out for 30+ years and have highly developed content on Wikipedia, so I doubt it was merely a case of no one ever noticing until now. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Clearly at least some editors did notice Serge, as it led to them creating their own make-shift box to include it as the Virtua Fighter article does. This has similar helpfulness that another unpopular system that had high cover it in its heyday with the Atari 5200, which also mostly a lot of ports and few new games. I would suggest adding them as clearly they will be just as ignorable for users who don't care as they will be for users who do think it'd be the best way to display some information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure you read my comment correctly. I was saying that it was not the sort of scenario that would go unnoticed. They're platforms that get a lot of attention by experienced editors on Wikipedia. Which was what lead me to believe that was this was not some sort of oversight, but rather, done for a reason. Which lead to the brainstorming. Which I guess I should have kept to myself, as its only lead to people trying to argue with me over something I didn't do, enforce, or propose. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

That Virtua Fighter makeshift box is a really bad idea/example. There was an editor years ago (Now a twice cbanned sockpuppeter) that whenever the template didn't fit exactly what they wanted, they would just substitute the template and edit it instead of engaging this page or the project. They did this in isolation on their own, and other project members have been cleaning the mess up for years. This means that table is never updated with any formatting changes to this template. I'm personally not a fan of the multiplatform format of this template, because like on the Virtua Fighter page it tends to leave a lot of blank cells. But it's easy enough to just add the other systems if they are needed and its appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Ahhh I had no idea. I feel like we can trust our non-banned editors to balance out when it would be appropriate or inappropriate to include such consoles (i.e: not leave a dozen blank spots to shove in the one or two 32X reviews). And apologies Serge if I misinterpreted your post. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 September 2025

I want to add the CPC to local systems:

{'[[Amstrad CPC|CPC]]', 'CPC'}

Thanks. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 22:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Can it automatically get ratings from Wikidata or metacritic.com?

Hi, or should I write a script for that? Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Vitaly Zdanevich Yes, there is support for Metacritic, OpenCritic and GameRankings to be pulled from Wikidata. Please read the doc page and search for "wikidata" to find it. -- ferret (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Here currently we have just {{Video game reviews}} and it render nothing - but in related Wikidata item we have ratings. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Replying at Module talk:Video game wikidata#Render nothing :(. -- ferret (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Adding The Washington Post

Could someone add The Washington Post to the Module:Video game reviews/data (in the local reviewers section)? The site maintains a consistent video game review base (featured on Metacritic) and Washington Post is a great perennial source per WP:WAPO.

The webpage clearly notates video game reviews vs. video game coverage: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/video-games/ Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 November 2025

I request that an edit be made to this template in order to add the Neo Geo to the list of local systems. While this system has its roots within the Arcade classification, it is distinct enough from it as a separate system in that it utilizes ROM cartridges in order to switch out games from the cabinet itself. Numerous titles, from system creator SNK and various third parties, were created using this console format from 1990 to 2004 and it received a home console version of itself in the form of the Neo Geo AES. It should also be noted that the Neo Geo's system board (Neo Geo MVS, eg. the arcade cabinet) and home console (Neo Geo AES) would be classified as the same system in the local system list, due to their architecture being identical between one another.

If this edit were to be accepted, the system would be added at Line 179 and would be sandwiched between the N64 and NES. The system abbreviation would be NGEO. COOPER COOL 23 user page 17:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit would be like this:

{{ 'Neo Geo', 'NGEO' }}

Done. --MikeVitale 19:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

RFC: Slant Magazine

Can we add Slant Magazine to Template:Video game reviews? I'm starting this because responses appear to have stopped on the discussion up to now. Please see posts under the titles, "Adding a publication" and "Template-protected edit request on 14 October 2025" above this for context. Helper201 (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Slant Magazine is a reliable publication with a long history of video game journalism and video game reviews. Helper201 (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

We don't use RFCs for this process, you should have continued from the previous discussion. Masem (t) 12:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

RFCs can be used for this process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Just use revN and revNScore parameters. No one has been able to show that this source is used anywhere for video game reception currently, nor any instant of it currently being in the template. The template is updated to reflect practices, not to cover every possible source that publishes a video game review. -- ferret (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

It does not make sense to create a separate discussion for this. The last one fizzled out (days ago) because there's nothing left to say. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Use custom field. Named fields are for frequently-used sources. Above discussion failed to produce even a single (potential) example review with a score suitable for the template. RfC is overkill. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 13:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment while I was supportive of it previously, it might be better to apply it across the board first. That being said, it has the potential to be a frequently used source, so I feel like even if we did do this, its just pushing one or two editors to do a lot of work just to have re-edit it again later. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Famitsu scores

The infobox parameters on the visual editor say that the Famitsu Scores are based on the combined 40-pt scale, so I usually put the scores as the combined score, and put a note in the infobox on the reviewer scores (eg. 32/40). I've seen many articles, including many GAs and FAs, having the same procedure, but some people instead list out the reviewer scores in the infobox instead of a combined score (eg. 8/10, 8/10, 8/10, 8/10). Since Famitsu review sources put the combined score alongside the critic scores (specifically Gematsu as an example), which one would be the right format so we can come to a good consensus on what to use going forward?

EvanTech10 (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll update this. We've had a few discussions in the past about combining scores and the general consensus each time has been to not combine the scores unless the publication has done so originally. (i.e: early EGM and almost all of Famitsu will have four critics giving four individual scores). While they sometimes are later published as a combination for comparisons sakes, its best to display them to show the discrepancy between critics. (Take Super Mario World, where one Famitsu critic gives it a 6, probably the rare outlier of middling review of the game from the contemporary video game press. Combining the scores would miss/obscure this detail). I've adjusted the template in the infobox to reflect the Famitsu scoring. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Commodore User and The One

Commodore User (later CU Amiga) was a major magazine covering Commodore 64 and Amiga games, yet the only way to add this publication's scores is to use rev_n and rev_nScore. There is no parameter for CU or similar, but this magazine seems to meet all the criteria for inclusion in the code. More than likely, this magazine has simply been overlooked. The same could be said of The One; it may have been a smaller magazine, surely, but I similarly see no reason to not include something like TheOne in the code. FreeMediaKid$ 17:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Considering the conventions used to name this template's parameters, the latter magazine's data might be better served with TO or TOne. Personally, I prefer the latter. (EDIT: "FreeMediaKid!" is my old username. I am going by "Big Blue Gnu" these days.) FreeMediaKid$ 17:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Feel free to make changes in the sandbox and test them on the testcases page so that a template editor unfamiliar with this template can easily implement your suggested change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I've added them. See here. I've gone with T1 for The One. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Strange. I thought I had made it clear what my request was: to add Commodore User and The One to the module. Anyhow, it has been dealt with. Big Blue Gnu 18:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

FiringSquad

FiringSquad (1998–2013) was a website that reviewed both hardware and video games. It has been identified as a reliable source by WikiProject Video games, as "The site's various articles have been cited in many publications and scholarly works." FiringSquad seems to have been a prolific reviewer back in the day, and I do not see why it should not be included in Module:Video game reviews/data. As a note, the website initially used a five-star rating system before switching to the percent-based scoring system by 2000. In addition, there may be multiple reviewers giving a single product their own score, so the scores may need to be added up, depending on the reviewer count (e.g. 9/15 if there are three reviewers before 2000 and 375/400 if there are four reviewers after 2000), and I would propose using the FS parameter for the source if accepted. Big Blue Gnu 18:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template.

I suppose the aforementioned WikiProject Video games would be a good place to gather feedback. If consensus is formed, please make your requested changes to the module's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I guess it had not occurred to me that this would be a controversial edit. Here is the RfC. Big Blue Gnu 18:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Opposed. This appears to be a source added to the project page on the basis that it was not challenged during a FAC 13+ years ago. The FAC in question is not linked. The discussion linked is a two participant discussion in 2012 noting that a LARGE list of sources had been added to the page without a direct or in-depth discussion, and effectively saying "for the record these are here, so if no one opposes, it is a silent consensus". Any source we implement into the template needs to pass two hurdles: 1) That is it unambivalently seen as a reliable source. That isn't met here. It was added without a direct discussion and never really analyzed by the project. 2) That it is regularly and often used in the template, to the point that the revn and revnScore parameters are burdensome. No evidence that this source is widely in use for video game reception is presented. -- ferret (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Their game reviews seemed to be legit. I don't know enough about their popularity to say whether they should be added, but I don't object to it. —LeastConcern 16:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Adding a publication

Hi all. I can't recall, where do I post to recommend a publication be added to this template? Any help would be much appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

This is the right place. Masem (t) 18:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Could we add Slant Magazine and Trusted Reviews to the template please? Helper201 (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Masem? Helper201 (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I've added Trusted Reviews as TR, but for Slant I don't see much specialized video game coverage as to make it a hard coded addition (such can always be added with the additional fields in the template). Masem (t) 13:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Masem, your edit broke things. "TR" was already being used for TechRadar, and you forgot to add closing brackets to the Trusted Reviews wikilink. Please fix ASAP. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, and made Trusted Revies to TRev Masem (t) 14:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 October 2025

That Slant Magazine please be added to this template. Helper201 (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC) Helper201 (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Already objected to above. This is not an uncontroversial request. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

As I outlined here, they have a whole main section dedicated to video games, so they do have plenty of specialized video game coverage. Helper201 (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Did they just recently start up video game coverage or something? I watch over a lot of articles and I have to say, it feels like I rarely see them added to reception sections... Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Just because its rarely used by regular contributors, does not really add up to much. To answer you question, from a quick glance at their site they have been covering video games since at least 2009, so for over 16 years.Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand that sentiment - why add something that's rarely used? Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I had been off Wikipedia for a few days but I was going to say the same, the publication has been covering video games since 2009, so I don't see a problem here. Helper201 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It is used as a source regularly on several well developed articles: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Phantasy Star, Dr. Mario, Ikaruga, Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. Do you require us to provide more as I feel like we've established our case. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas Not a single one of these articles is using a review from Slant, except Dr. Mario. And there it's using the review of a different game to cite a gameplay difference. Are there any examples of a Slant *review with score* being used in an article and included in the template? -- ferret (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Regardless the cite is used for the community for video game content and has over ten years of it. I'm not sure what the resistance is to this. Is overloading this box a problem? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas To a degree, yes. The template does require that any reviews listed within it are used in prose. But no one has presented an example of any Slant reviews being used for reception and in the template. What is the point of implementing a dedicated code for a source that no one is integrating or using? -- ferret (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't "require" anything, I asked a simple follow up question. (??) Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to add Slant reviews to articles but it would certainly be helpful to have the code added first so they could be added to reception tables. Helper201 (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Remember that the review template has field to add any other source that is not already in the code for cases like this. We don't require a source to be codifed in the template to be used as a review, but as others have pointed out, we shouldn't be added every possible review source as a code, particularly, if that source is not heavily used across the project space.. Masem (t) 12:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Has there ever been a metric for sites that are considered "heavily used"? Previously, The Guardian was added in 2019 with little discussion with only one comment. While Slant has covered video games since at least 2009 (over 16 years), and per Metacritic tabulations, has total of nearly 1000 video game reviews. (here) And that's just video games metacritic has picked up for review in their tabulations. I'm not sure what we have to do suggest its "heavily" used when The Guardian isn't even picked up by Metacritic's (as seen here). Has this kind of rulings changed? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)