🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module_talk:Video_game_reviews/sandbox/styles.css
Jump to content

Template talk:Video game reviews

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Related pages

Template-protected edit request on 21 September 2025

[edit]

I want to add the CPC to local systems:

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

Thanks. Cos (X + Z) 22:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adding a publication

[edit]

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)[reply]

This is the right place. Masem (t) 18:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could we add Slant Magazine and Trusted Reviews to the template please? Helper201 (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Masem? Helper201 (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fixed, and made Trusted Revies to TRev Masem (t) 14:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 14 October 2025

[edit]

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)[reply]

Already objected to above. This is not an uncontroversial request. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand that sentiment - why add something that's rarely used? Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
I don't "require" anything, I asked a simple follow up question. (??) Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

Adding The Washington Post

[edit]

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)[reply]

RFC: Slant Magazine

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
We don't use RFCs for this process, you should have continued from the previous discussion. Masem (t) 12:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RFCs can be used for this process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 15 November 2025

[edit]

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)[reply]

Edit would be like this:
{{ 'Neo Geo', 'NGEO' }}
Done. --MikeVitale 19:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commodore User and The One

[edit]

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 revn and revnScore. 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)[reply]

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

Famitsu scores

[edit]

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[a][1]). 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[1]). Since Famitsu review sources put the combined score alongside the critic scores (specifically Gematsu as an example[1]), which one would be the right format so we can come to a good consensus on what to use going forward?

  1. ^ Famitsu's four reviewers each gave XYZ an 8/10 score.
  1. ^ a b c Romano, Sal (December 19, 2017). "Famitsu Review Scores: Issue 1516". Gematsu. Retrieved November 28, 2025.

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

FiringSquad

[edit]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Video_game_reviews&oldid=1325751085"