Module talk:Video game wikidata/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

@

I don't think this is a problem for most video game articles, but

WP:CITEVAR is a concern (and more generally, WP:Citing sources). This is the predominant reason I am unsure whether the references are a good idea for now. --Izno (talk

) 00:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

There's also (going to be) a problem with named references and re-use. You might able to generate an systematic name for each of the various references and then name other references in the same page, but those are likely going to long and difficult to parse. --Izno (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Systematic name is currently "ArticleName-ReviewAliasSystem", i.e. Dark Souls III-MCXBOX. -- ferret (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

One thing comes to mind in that we should have Template:Video game reviews module pull the info directly rather than add a template to each page, keeping in mind the RFC (allowing for local-custom values). --Izno (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Cite web isn't the best template to use in all/most cases. We should instead use Template:Cite magazine for a number. --Izno (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Can make that a parameter. Or choose it based on the review being pulled, via table. -- ferret (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've implemented two new arguments in the sandbox, noSystem and noRefs. The first will turn off the system alias (XBOX) from being generated, in cases where someone may want just the score value. The second suppresses generation of references from Wikidata, so in cases where it conflicts with local needs it can be disabled. I think this is a good solution for now to CITEVAR concerns. I still plan to later implement a way to switch between cite web and cite magazine where it matters, but as we're only experimenting with aggregators at the moment, I'll wait on that. Please check the sandbox and give your thoughts before I move the module live. -- ferret (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oh excellent, I use yyyy-mm-dd date formatting in refs, so the auto-generated refs meant that this wasn't as useful to me, even though I liked the idea of auto-pulling the aggregator scores. --PresN 02:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• You should be able to do df=ymd for that. -- ferret (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• @PresN: Looks like there was a bug for this... df was not being passed to the citation building section, so always defaulted to dmy. I have fixed in the sandbox and added test cases for df. It now outputs ymd correctly. -- ferret (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Because the df parameter was broken and defaulting the date format to dmy, I've moved the sandbox live. -- ferret (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I've filled in a lot more systems at Module:Video game wikidata but anyone who wants to help, please do so. For a given system's article, you can view its Wikidata item by using the Wikidata item link under Tools. The QID will be shown near the top, like Q123456. Take the Q off, then it needs to be added to the tables systemAliases and systemIDs. systemAliases is the alias that will be displayed in output, so there should only be one entry per QID. systemIDs is used to convert from template input (I.e. system=NDS) to the QID in Wikidata. This can include multiple aliases per QID. For example, "DS" and "NDS" might both be used for NintendoDS, so both are in the table with the same QID, 170323. -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Currently testing at

Working on expanding testing to entire Souls series. -- ferret (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This Dark Souls II diff is an example of where I'm trying to go with the proseScore parameter. I don't expect this to be considered a good final solution but it's an illustration of how the template can work with the prose the IP review score maintainers like to insert. Note how the programmatic reference name is used. -- ferret (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: Is there a valid qualifier to use with "review scores" property that could contain the number of reviews behind a Metacritic/GameRanking score? -- ferret (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a generic quantity/number sitting around, but it won't be obvious that it's referring to number of reviews. Let me go look. --Izno (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ferret: And indeed, there is quantity, currently marked for use as a full property and not a qualifier. No qualifiers of this sort. Is there a reason you want the number of reviews? We don't tend to include that information as it is anywhere on our recent FAs. --Izno (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: It's a recent-ish (Last year or two) trend among the IP review score maintainers to include prose such as "score of x out of 100 based on y reviews". The idea is this helps illustrate whether the score is based on just a few reviews or a large sample size. Simply pondering ways to offer that functionality to avoid warring with IPs if we implement more widespread. A lot of people disagree with having aggregators in prose at all though, so... -- ferret (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's avoid implementing something like review quantity for now, since it would be in the context of the prose, which currently does not have consensus for use on Wikipedia anyway. --Izno (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not just used in prose- for example, take a look at Legend of Mana#Reception: "73 / 100 (23 reviews)^[35]". --PresN 21:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

At best, it appears mostly in prose as that seems the exception rather than the rule. There are other things we can work to implement before being concerned about the total number of reviews. --Izno (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dissident93 had some concerns about the order systems are returned in at Dark Souls III. The order currently is from Wikidata and appears to (reliably) return in the order that entries were added to Wikidata. A more consistent sorting may be desired. Ordering by platform alphabetically or by score should be possible with little effort, perhaps even as a parameter. A more complex sort such as ordering by platform release date would require significant more work and cross referencing between the review score property and the platform property. This would require more data input into Wikidata, as currently Dark Souls III lacks this full information of release dates. -- ferret (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm fine with whatever, as long as it's standardized and not by first input as it is currently. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• Alphabet is preferable to score, and make it always so rather than by Wikidata input date. --Izno (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

A first pass at platform sorting is now visible at Template:Video game review score/testcases. This is sorted by platform label (PlayStation 4, Xbox 360, etc. Full name.) -- ferret (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Nice. The only thing I'd suggest now is maybe moving the [±] symbol elsewhere? I don't have any idea where it could go, though. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Originally it was on the end of each line, without a line break. I felt that was a bit overkill, so made it only appear on the last line... However, this puts it up against the final reference, which looks odd as well. -- ferret (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• I removed the line break and switched from sup to sub tags. Thoughts? -- ferret (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Better, but it could still be potentially improved. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I've said this elsewhere, but I think this is a reason to not use this template as is and to instead merge the code into our existing templates. The best location for the symbol is either in the template's header "Reception" or next to "Metacritic" (in this case), which would require reaching outside just the parameter of a single aggregator. czar 01:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

For posterity, via User talk:Czar/2016 Jan–Apr#Wikidata... for aggregators.3F czar 01:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Had already thought briefly about this but you brought it to mind with your question at Infobox video game...... Could Wikidata be used to hold Metacritic/GameRanking/etc scores in some fashion? Having a template like {{Metacritic|Xbox}} that would output the Xbox score for the article could be handy. Or even {{Vgaggregator|MC|Xbox}}. -- ferret (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@

WT:VG for feedback czar

14:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me try some research and sandboxing. I see easy potential for aggregators, which most people are opposed to having in the prose anyways. For other reviews and the fact they should be used in prose, it might be stickier. -- ferret (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ferret, if there's any way to have Wikidata auto-format the citation as well... that'd be wonderful czar 14:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Still researching, Wikidata makes sense but its a warren of stuff I have to map out. Each "property" can have a reference attached. I'm using Dark Souls III as a jumping point. What I want to do is be able to add a statement like "review aggregator". Under that I would add a "Metacritic" property. To that I would add a qualifier with "Score" and "System". To this, you can attach a reference. Then the template here on ENWIKI would pull that all in. That's the theory. Still working through the details. -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

See here where I added a "score by" to the bottom and filled in Metacritic information. Now I need to look at a template that will pull it. -- ferret (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

d:Wikidata:WikiProject Video games and Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings (Q34852) may be useful. --Izno (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Izno, do you know how to go from {{#Property:P444|from=Q34852}} (92/100, 9.1/10, 9/10, 8.8/10, 91.81%) to just the Metacritic score? I don't see options for restricting the property parser. czar 16:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You cannot use the magic word to access only a certain qualified value (last I checked). You have to use Lua e.g. Module:Wikidata. --Izno (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Visit User:Ferret/sandbox for a rough draft. It's Lua based, as Izno already noted. It's not everything but it's a start for a rough sketch. Currently I'm not using shorthand system names. I know how to get them, but the API involved is noted as being expensive so I don't want to jump to it yet. I also had some trouble getting refs/cites output. I built them, but the rendering is off. Either it can't be done or I haven't done it the right way yet. -- ferret (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That was just how I played with Dark Souls III, but what has already been done at Age of Empires might be a better organization. I've got enough of an idea on how to dig through the entity table to do either. -- ferret (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Not just a better organization but is required by how certain properties are used. For example, score by is required to be a Wikidata qualifier (Q15720608), not a first-level statement. --Izno (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, once I saw it I facepalmed. Unfortunately it doesn't seem Wikidata enforces the relations strictly. Side note: You cannot put metacritic into a Reference Url, apparently. It forces you to use Metacritic ID... which is fine. -- ferret (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Wikidata is a wiki.

No, the relations are not enforced strictly (and never will be--this is part of Wikidata's core design), but there is a really soft constraint system provided on the property talk pages, linking to a number of bot-provided reports where constraints are violated. Some extensions currently in the testing phase will probably roll out within the next year which will highlight the use of statements not in keeping with the constraints directly in the HMI, but will still allow you to save non-compliant values.

I fixed your reference--reference URL requires a full URL. Please take a look at the item. --Izno (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox and Dark Souls III wikidata have been updated to reflect the format in Izno's Age of Empires example. Everything is there, with two issues: "Also known as" shorthand resolution for systems, and figuring out how to correctly output/generate reference/cites. But, all the data is there. -- ferret (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Also known as"?

I would recommend against providing the Wikidata citations directly in Wikipedia for the time being. There needs to be a larger discussion about display of citations and whether "other tools" need to be built to support that display (that is probably not on anyone's radar). --Izno (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"Also known as" are the item aliases. For example, Xbox One as XONE, PlayStation 4 as PS4. I can map them locally in the module, but they also exist in Wikidata. Regarding Metacritic URLs, when I added a reference with a "Reference URL" and placed the full URL for Metacritic in, the Save button would grey out. I resolved that by adding a Metacritic ID with the necessary url fragment. Maybe it was something weird with my work laptop, I can do it now. Regardless of issues around providing the citations, I'd like to figure out the correct method for outputting it, even if it's not used, just for learning's sake. -- ferret (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Found the answer I need. Lua modules cannot output other templates or ref tags, they will not process, period. -- ferret (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Not particularly true. They can use other modules (Module:Citation/CS1) as well as tags by extension e.g. result = frame:extensionTag{ name = "ref", args = {name=name}, content=result }; (from Module:Footnotes).

Regarding aliases, I'm not sure why you would want them from Wikidata anyway, but I would definitely recommend having a local map of QID to name, since that would help us avoid the effects of simple vandalism. --Izno (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I was simply looking to avoid having to maintain a list of systems and QIDs. However we can maybe drop them in another module to share amongst different templates in the future, which centralizes it. -- ferret (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. --Izno (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

extensionTag appears to force template transclusion. So that fixed cite web too. See User:Ferret/sandbox. -- ferret (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Module:Sandbox/ferret/Video game aggregator is for an aggregator template. The review printing code is now in Module:Sandbox/ferret/Video game reviews, so it can be reused, and has the systems numeric Id table. Feel free to further populate the systems table. This now is a solid demonstration I think, just need to flush it out then bring it up to broader VG project. And worry about populating values into Wikidata. -- ferret (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Added a link to the Wikidata item just to play with an idea, similar to how software infoboxes link to their release templates for editing. -- ferret (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ferret, do you have a sandbox test where I can see it in action? czar 14:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

See

User:Ferret/sandbox/Video game aggregator/sandbox, including examples with Template:Video game reviews. -- ferret (talk

) 15:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice. I suppose the next step is integrating it into the reviews template sandbox. And re: wikidata:Q20112508#P444, shouldn't the work/publisher be "Metacritic" instead of "CBS Interactive"? czar 16:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I built it off the existing cites in Dark Souls III. CBS owns Metacritic and publishes, is my understanding. Work could be Metacritic. I'll see about adding work to the module. Added it. I also just added a Template:Video game series reviews to the sandbox. -- ferret (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I've continued playing and made various updates. It is now setup to allow aggregators or reviewers (If they are in the table), and only output a single "Edit" link instead of on every line. It also sets reference names now, so that repeated uses won't crowd the reflist. The current idea is to name it Template:Video game review score. -- ferret (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Really nice work. Can you add a flag to make the publisher optional? I used to add CBS but now I just do Metacritic. Also would it be possible to add an "edit" link to the template itself (either in the template's heading or in its header bar) instead of next to the refs? I think that would make the most sense once the rest of the template pulls from Wikidata. I think the whole thing you've written could be vg rev score—that sounds fine—but most people won't need to see that if you bake it right into the vg reviews template. (It should default to showing all referenced scores from Wikidata unless locally overridden methinks.) Of course we'd want to draft that first and get consensus before making it live. czar 19:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding publisher, it's just pulling Wikidata... If publisher isn't defined to Wikidata, it won't pull it. When we broach the broader topic of how to get/keep Wikidata populated we can fine tune the required fields. As for the edit link, this "single reviewer" template doesn't have a header or bar, so there's no where else to put an update link really except at the end. I could add a newline at the end so it's separate from the ref, but that might look odd too. If integrated into the main series box, then it can be put in a single spot in the table header. One benefit of this "single reviewer" template is that it can be used without changing the existing templates, for localized/limited early use. -- ferret (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Flags for the publisher and date formats would still be good because their implementation will vary across articles (regardless of how Wikidata is populated). The change I'd propose: update {{

vg reviews}} to automatically pull {{video game review score}} for each referenced field unless overridden (so integrated into the main series box but still using the new "single" template as the call). czar

19:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Df is an argument already, I added that earlier when implementing date formatting for "retrieved" Wikidata property. I can add a publisher=yes/no. I want to continue doing some optimization, but hopefully will move the template/modules to Template/Module-space tonight. Then we can hammer on it some more. -- ferret (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you kindly delete the redirects left behind at Module:Sandbox/ferret/Video game aggregator/doc and Module:Sandbox/ferret/Video game reviews/doc? -- ferret (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ done czar 21:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Everything is moved and placed, with sandboxes and all setup. Check out Template:Video game review score/testcases. I may make some further edits to the module but I would like to "beta" run the template for Dark Souls III scores. I'll make a section on the article talk page explaining. -- ferret (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's move further discussion of enhancement/updates to

Template talk:Video game review score#Initial enhancements?. We've abused your talk enough. ;) -- ferret (talk

) 21:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: I know you have some reservations about generating references, but I've also ran into a technical problem you might have an idea on... Wikidata has fields for author, publication, published in (work), etc. However, those fields must link to other Wikidata items. If a work or author doesn't have an article and therefore no Wikidata entry, they can't be input. For the aggregators, that is not an issue, but for most other reviews, it would be a barrier against fully populating the citation. Something is better than nothing, but it will be incomplete compared to the local entries we have today. I don't consider this a bar to updating Template:Video game series reviews but probably would be for Template:Video game reviews. -- ferret (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that we cite a number of the same people a large number of times across the board, and per notability criterion #3, we should be able to add a/the set of authors to Wikidata (which may be unlinked to a Wikipedia article). May want to have a look at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData as well. --Izno (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

A testcase example of direct integration with Template:Video game series reviews is available at Template:Video game series reviews/testcases. This is by no means final code, it's just a demonstration, I have a lot of refactoring and reworking I want to do to Module:Video game series reviews/sandbox first. Module:Video game review score/sandbox has been reworked (But again not finalized) to allow it's functionality to be controlled more easily in other modules. There's some performance considerations behind the rework, to try to avoid any unnecessary getEntity() calls to Wikidata. -- ferret (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Lots of reworking, getting close to a more final form. The code related to querying Wikidata is all in Module:Video game wikidata/sandbox now. Module:Video game review score/sandbox is almost stripped bare, and now mostly serves as a demonstration of using the Wikidata module (Plus it works!). Module:Video game series reviews/sandbox is mostly rewritten and is using the Wikidata module now. I have also enabled pulling Famitsu where available. -- ferret (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@

Czar: One particular note on the current approach. This makes gr=no required again in order to suppress GameRankings. I don't believe that WP:VG can influence the inclusion of GR on Wikidata, so local suppression will be required again. -- ferret (talk

) 22:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we just set it to GR off and MC on by default (with manual override available)? czar 00:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but that had been opposed recently, which is what led us to the current auto-detection route. Just noting we may need further discussion there. -- ferret (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The objection was that |gr=yes shouldn't have to be required as a barrier to use |gr1=, etc., which was a (resolved) logistic concern. There isn't opposition to Metacritic's use as the default, so there wouldn't be an issue with the default pull from Wikidata being just the Metacritic unless specified otherwise. czar 01:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

That's some additional logic for gr, I'll look into it tomorrow. -- ferret (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, maybe it was just moving one line. GR now only shows if gr=yes or grN is set. -- ferret (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

How would one override the Wikidata value for gr (not that I want to, but that's a requirement regarding Wikidata implementation)? --Izno (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Bear with me, going for completeness: Using Demon's Souls as example, as it's the only one with GR defined currently in Wikidata. The first requirement is that you must have |game1 = Demon's Souls or |qid1 = Q1153708. If |gr=yes and |gr1=<blank or missing>, then Wikidata's GR will be output (No local gr value, no suppression). If |gr=<no, blank or missing> and |gr1=<blank or missing>, GR will not be output (No local value, Wikidata GR suppressed). If |gr=<yes, blank or missing> and |gr1=?/100 ref, then the local ?/100 ref will be output. (GR not suppress, local value supplied). If you have |game1 = Demon's Souls but not |qid1 = Q1153708, then only local values matter, as Wikidata cannot be pulled. -- ferret (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

At this time, I am considering the module to be completed. Further tweaks can always be made, but I think the basic concept is in place now. If there are no further comments on show stoppers, we can consider getting consensus to move forward. Please see the subsection below concerning new template documentation I drafted. -- ferret (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I have some thoughts about GR above; since the default is not to pull/display GR data, but knowing we need to allow the template to be filled manually:

• where |gr= is either empty or does not exist, display nothing;
• where |gr=Wikidata, use Wikidata--I'm not sure if |gr=yes is preferable;
• where |gr=anything else, use that value.

Is that about what you said, or is there some possible tweak in technical implementation between my above and yours? You might try list formatting and {{para}} and take another shot at the above. --Izno (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Originally, this template always assumed that |gr=yes and |mc=yes, while the others defaulted to no. Following the

WP:VGAGG

discussion, it was first changed so that |gr=no by default. Articles were updated to include |gr=yes. This was contested, and I reworked it to the current "auto-detection" model. If |gr= is set, it will be honored. If it is omitted, then |grn= will be honored for auto-detection. The column flags are ran through the yesno module. This converts any of the expected "positives" like yes, y, Yes, true, to "true", and "negatives" like no, N, false to "false". Missing or unknown values are "nil". For the current new module:

• If |gr= is nil (Due to omission or unknown value), and |grn= is encountered while processing the specified games, then |gr= is updated to true.
• When output the review scores, if |gr= is true, the scores, whether from |grn= or Wikidata, are output.

Compare this to the processing for year, fam and mc (using Mc as example):

• If |mc= is nil (Due to omission or unknown value), and |mcn= is encountered OR data from Wikidata is retrieved while processing the specified games, then |mc= is updated to true.
• When output the review scores, if |mc= is true, the scores, whether from |mcn= or Wikidata, are output.

This means the auto-detection is fully in place for MC, Fam, Year, Sales (Except Sales isn't pulled from Wikidata at this time). But in the case of GR, auto-detection only looks at local values and ignores Wikidata values. This lets people add GR to Wikidata, but

WP:VGAGG will be honored here on enwiki. Articles can choose to display GR per local consensus by adding |gr=yes or simply including a direct score as |grn=. -- ferret (talk

) 15:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest sandbox update includes dropping the template with NO PARAMETERS at all into a series article. If no parameters for games are found at all, the module now fetches the "has part" property from the series' wikidata entry, and uses that list to populate the games. Wiki link, piped label (if different), and all review scores inferred straight from the series article itself. Note, if any games are specified on the template, fetching of "has part" won't occur. -- ferret (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

In light of the previous sorting issue (I.e. review scores are returned in order of Wikidata entry, so we sort by system aliases/names), I have set it up so that going the "full auto-population" route will pull the earliest publication date for each game found in the series, and sort them by that. This makes sure that it outputs "Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, ..." regardless of what order the "has Parts" of Souls (series) was entered into Wikidata. It also populates the year column, but that could be turned off. -- ferret (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

New documentation

I've made an effort to whip up some new documentation for the Wikidata-enabled version of Template:Video game series reviews. The new documentation can be read at Template:Video game series reviews/sandbox. Please give it a look. Feel free to update and tweak. One thing we may need to consider is adding instructions on updating Wikidata. 13:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Go forth?

At this time, I could probably find a few more things to tweak if I really wanted, but the module code works, and can always be further tweaked anyways. Any opposition to promoting the sandboxes? For existing template usage in articles, there should be no noticeable difference. It'll be up to editors to begin populating scores to Wikidata then stripping them from Template:Video game series reviews on enwiki. -- ferret (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I am boldly moving forward, as no opposition has been raised here or at

WT:VG. -- ferret (talk

) 19:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I used this template at Doom (2016 video game) for Metacritic to see how people would take it. A relatively new user and the typical reception IPs so far jumped right in and began editing/updating the scores on Wikidata without asking how, so it seems the basic concept is intuitive. -- ferret (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to watchlist hell czar 22:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't use the enhanced watchlist, so the normal Wikidata integration into the standard watchlist is so far suiting my needs. :) -- ferret (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• In use at Homefront: The Revolution. Doom still going well. Overwatch (video game) planned. -- ferret (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
• Battleborn (video game) -- ferret (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Mirror's Edge Catalyst -- ferret (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I recommend using the "/critic-reviews" page as the Metacritic link over the main page as it only lists the critics and not the user review scores (which confuse some readers). E.g., http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/mirrors-edge-catalyst/critic-reviews czar 23:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, we can do that, but its a little atypical and not widely adopted. -- ferret (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I imagine most editors don't know about it, but I've never been reverted for it czar 23:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@

A while back I did some updated to Template:Infobox video game's sandbox using Module:Wikidata for many of the fields. I didn't get all of them in the first pass but its enough to demonstrate. I've also already updated Template:Video game reviews's sandbox to pull Metacritic directly, but have gotten only one comment in response, and it was more about general expansion beyond Metacritic/aggregators. I've been a little lax on follow up due to low participation in the discussion and being quiet busy at work right now. -- ferret (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(

talk

23:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry IDV, I thought I saw you on more technical threads. Ferret, I think you can interpret silence as approval here. We're unquestionably moving towards using Wikidata—if anything, it's going to be a discussion about how best to implement. Any interested parties will find their ways in. I think you've done more than sufficient outreach. Full steam ahead, czar 23:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, full steam ahead. --Izno (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get to the review template again this upcoming weekend, unless I find time in the evening. The current Lua update is a demonstration, I need to put a little thought into a more dynamic approach. -- ferret (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

local function sortByPublicationDate(a, b)
    local aP = a['pubDate']
    local bP = b['pubDate']
    if aP ~= nil and bP ~= nil then
        return aP < bP
    end
    return aP == nil
end