Template talk:Video game reviews/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Coded and non-coded publications don't alphabetize together

It's clear in the template example. While publications with codes ("GameRev", "GSpot", etc.) are set up to alphabetize properly, the rev1/rev2/etc publications basically start a second list underneath the set with codes.

While I already think this template as is is messy, counterintuitive, and too limited to popular gaming enthusiast publications, the poor-man's solution of combining the coded publications with those not included would at least look fine in articles if they would alphabetize together properly. Can anyone find a solution to this? Pele Merengue (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In the current format the template is in, no, there's no way to fix it without either including those new sources explicitly, or using a template version like episode lists, where you have special tempaltes for each line that you can enter separately to force alphabetization. --MASEM 02:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I've noticed this as well. I don't know how to fix it though.
talk
) 03:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

MobyRank should be changed to MobyGames

In the Template, as for Metacritic, it is written as Metacritic, not metascore. So MobyRank should be changed to MobyGames.--Kukule (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a question

These reviews were added to an instance of this template on Conker's Bad Fur Day:

  • GamesFirst! 100
  • Jeuxvideo.com 19 out of 20
  • Da Gameboyz 9.5 out of 10
  • Game Chronicles 9.2 out of 10
  • Gameplanet 90
  • Gamervision 9 out of 10
  • GamesAreFun.com (GAF) 8 out of 10
  • Game Critics 6 out of 10

I have two questions; please excuse my ignorance.

  1. Is there a way to include these reviews without having to recode the template?
  2. If not, would any of these be worth coding into the template?

I'll worry about notability after I know if it's possible or not.Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding UK site VideoGamer.com

I spent some time updating Wikipedia on VideoGamer.com (including the edit of the article itself) and wanted to add this site to the template, particularly as the two other large UK sites are listed (CVG and Eurogamer).

The site claims to be the second biggest independent in the UK (they do publish reviews inline with the other larger sites - I actually wanted to add their review most recently for Fable II, but could not as they are not in the template - they were one of the few sites with a review).

Apologies for adding this without discussion, I am fairly new and didn't know it was required. Can this be added? Bob1983 (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This site has only been partially added on the template, can it be added fully? Maxehkins (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Copies sold

I was wondering if the template might have a section for copies sold, with maybe a breakdown per region. I know the info is hard to get in many cases, but I believe it falls well enough within the scope of the topic.

talk
) 03:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on this topic has occured here.
talk
) 05:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

GameTab

How about adding a code for GameTab in the aggregators section? It's part of the 1UP.com, network I believe.

talk
) 03:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

New template for reviews section.

Because I found the template on The Force Unleashed, a tad ugly, I decided to create a better (in my opinion) option for the reception section.

The template {{

Quantum of Solace (video game)
.

The template is finished but there are quite possibly errors, so I would like if you find any errors to alert me and I will fix them ASAP. I hope fellow users will use this, I do plan to convert the Force Unleashed over soon. Thankyou.  The Windler talk  07:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ick, it's huge!!
talk
) 16:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Awards

Any chance of changing the "Publication" title in the awards section to something like "Awarded by"? So that awards given by organisations like BAFTA, that are not magazines or websites can be added without the heading looking a bit odd. - X201 (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

New outlets

I propose that GameDaily and Just Adventure be added to the template. They're both listed as reliable on the WPVG sources page. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Switch aggregate reviews and singular reviews

Could someone make the switch as suggested at

n
23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there overall consensus to do such a move, it didn't seem so from that discussion.  The Windler talk  05:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is actively opposed to it. I was going with Guyinblack's trial period idea, we can revisit this in a few weeks if there's opposition. You can voice your opinion at
n
12:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, done but you can't just have aggregate scores, you still need a review score. This template is used on so many articles, it will probably become evident if there is opposition.  The Windler talk  12:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I spotted that while considering whether to do it myself. The template is missing the top border still. -
n
12:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully thats fixed it.  The Windler talk  13:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
If there are no aggregate ratings, the formatting breaks. See
n
15:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to fix it as I couldn't really be bothered right now, get someone who knows what they are doing, rather than I just moving the two.  The Windler talk  20:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As per the request on my Talk page, what is currently broken and needs to be fixed?

talk
) 01:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the recent template history. The objective is to switch it so that aggregate scores and review scores are switched around. -
n
02:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Check and see if it is working now.
talk
) 02:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

NGamer

Although it appears in the documentation, code NG (NGamer) does not work and does not appear in the source for the template. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Move to
Template:VG reception

We've added awards (which is cool) but it expanded the scope of the template. Anyone agree we should now move it to

Template:VG reception? –xenotalk
03:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to automagically replace all occurrences of the template? It'll be a huge amount of work otherwise! Thanks!
™
11:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
No need, the redirect will be fine. –xenotalk 02:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good so! Thanks!
™
07:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It's still primarily used for reviews. I think that the current name makes more sense. –
T • C • L
) 15:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Since it doesn't matter that much, we can leave it where it is. Redirect from Template:VG reception is in place already. Still makes a bit more sense to me and a bit more intuitive because we don't have sections enttiled "Reviews". –xenotalk 14:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Metacritic references

Why do references in the Metacritic parameter always show up as the first numbered reference in the template? I've worked on a number of articles where, when editing the reception section alone, Metacritic shows up as the 1st reference even if it is shown and defined after GameStats or GameRankings. Is there anyway to fix this? GS and GR should be first. (this is also still visible when viewing the article, which makes it look kind of jarring). See, for example,

T • C • L
) 15:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

ActionTrip

Please note that discussion at

T • C • L
) 15:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't quite describe one person's views, where that editor concludes its use is "really an editorial decision" as a proper discussion showing it to be unreliable, though I do agree with the sentiment. -- Sabre (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorting

Would it be possible to have a method of sorting additional reviews (via rev#) as well since the template lacks a number of prominent publications and there does not seem to be much interest in adding more? Currently, they are placed below all the ones included in the template and as far as I can tell you cannot even force them to be correctly placed, let alone an automated sort which would be ideal. --Kamasutra (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't possible right now to my knowledge, however I'd be happy to add in some more if you have suggesstions for specific ones that are missing and are considered reliable (see
T • C • L
) 14:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok. There seem to be quite a few checked on
WP:VG/S that I notice are missing, but the most notable ones in my opinion are GameDaily, IGN UK, IGN AU, and Giant Bomb since this is for editorial reviews. --Kamasutra (talk
) 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

bug/problem

I encountered a problem using this template on

GameStats, and it doesn't appear in the table even though I entered the data into the template. I looked at the source, and I don't see an obvious problem. Any idea why this would happen? JohnnyPolo24 (talk
) 14:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Cite original scores

Not sure whether this is an issue, but it might be good to remind editors to write the scores using the same scoring system as was used in the cited source.

talk
) 01:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

All sections optional

{{

talk
) 00:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide an example? I created a
sandbox. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk
) 06:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 Not done. Please prepare the code before you do editrequest. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The "No Reviews" and "No Scores" test cases are what I'm talking about. There are no review scores, yet the "Review scores" section is still present.
talk
) 04:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The change would require lots of code similar to this, except for review publications instead of aggregators:
{{#if:{{{MC|}}}{{{GR|}}}{{{GMS|}}}{{{GRO|}}}{{{TTR|}}}{{{MG|}}}{{{GTab|}}}
This is kind of unworkable given the sheer number of review publications. Therefore, I also suggest replacing these conditional statements with a single condition for each section. I.e. something like:
{{#if:{{{ShowReviews|}}}
{{#if:{{{ShowAwards|}}}
{{#if:{{{ShowAggregates|}}}
This would simplify the code by removing a lot of junk, but unfortunately would not be backward-compatible with the existing code.
talk
) 04:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to your suggestion, I created a new option, 'noreviews', which when set to any value other than false, will hide the reviews section. I left the logic alone for the Aggregates, since there aren't that many of them, and for the Awards, it's enough to check to see if the first award is defined. You can check the behavior, compared with the current live version, on the

testcases page. As this does not appear to break current functionality, I will make the change if there are no objections in the next day or two. However, let me know if you see any problems. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk)
21:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference sorting?

I've used this template in Disgaea: Hour of Darkness#Reception & Awards and something odd occurred in the Aggregator section, the order in which refs were listed in the reflist were non-alphabetical even though the aggregators themselves were listed alphabetically, e.g. GameRankings has refs 7, 8 and 9, followed by Metacritic with refs 4, 5 and 6. Is this an issue with my input or the template itself? BlazerKnight (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me an example? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 09:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The template lists the input you give it in the order set aside in its source code, which is alphabetical; the order of the references, the order they are cited in the article, and the order they are input into the template do not matter. The only thing the citation order changes is the number in the link next to the score in the template.
... Actually, scanning the template now I see what you're talking about. Disregard my first paragraph. You gave the citations for GR first, then MC, and yet the references list lists MC first. That is indeed peculiar, and is not due to your input. I imagine it is due to this line in the template:
{{#if:{{{MC|}}}{{{GR|}}}{{{GMS|}}}{{{GRO|}}}{{{TTR|}}}{{{MG|}}}{{{GTab|}}}|
Someone should put those in alphabetical order so they are processed in order for the software. - MK (t/c) 10:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 Done Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for the quick response. It seems to be fixed now. Cheers! BlazerKnight (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem. It's ironic actually; that exact line of code was not only mentioned in the post above, but appears to have been suggested in it. And yet, I didn't see it since I used edit section :P But all is well. - MK (t/c) 08:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Alignment

It would be useful if there was a parameter that allowed the table to be aligned left. It would reduce some of the clutter at

sesuPRIME
04:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather hesitant to agree. It would reduce cluter, but so would adding more content to the article. So for, the article only has and intro and two sections, while it has three boxes. Another problem with left-aligned tables is it detracts from the prose, which should be the focus of the article or section. Anyway, those are just my views. I actually have thought about suggesting this before, but it is possible that if the article is so short, maybe it doesn't need the chart. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, MPT will be released in a few days so the article will soon see rapid expansion. But for now, the article as it appears on wider displays is an absolute eyesore. -
sesuPRIME
05:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
1) Adding left alignment should be possible. but 2) You may need to rethink that box that you have about the Metroid chronology. I know it's trying to be a summary of the metroid story, but you're effectively duplicating the Metroid navbox at the bottom. Particularly for this game (which is not really any one of those games, but just a repacking+some), it's not helping that much. --MASEM (t) 12:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I mostly agree.
sesuPRIME
22:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Extend Awards

I am requesting to extend the awards limit to 15 or 20, perferably the latter. It would become extremely useful for many articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatSnake666 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see the template changed so that it can take an arbitrary number of arguments for each category instead of having dozens of IF statements for all the different publications. I don't know how this could be accomplished however. IIRC, MediaWiki syntax doesn't support arrays or FOR loops, which is the only solution I can think of.
talk
) 23:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
20? Where do you need to put 20 awards—and thereby an extra 20 lines that would make the template look rather unwieldy in the article? The current limit of 12 is usually more than enough, but if you really need to deal with that many, it would be far better to do it properly in the prose than in template. I'm imagining this has something to do with your recent additions
here, in which case I strongly recommend the prose approach as it never looks good to have a template that significantly go beyond the section its meant to be in. -- Sabre (talk
) 00:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. The infobox is not supposed to replace prose. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Blast magazine

Is Blast worthy of inclusion in the template? I had never heard of them until a user tried to add their score to the reviews template on

sesuPRIME
03:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Collapsability

Per

MOS:COLLAPSE, tables should not collapse in the body of an article. This template violates this. OrangeDog (talk • edits
) 22:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Said guideline contains a specific exemption for infobox material, as it shouldn't be unique and is only presented in a table to make comparisons easier. {{
VG reviews}} should supplement an article's "Reception" section, not replace it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk
09:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

OPM names + requests

Currently, OPMUS and OPMUK are listed as "Official PlayStation Magazine (US)" and "Official PlayStation Magazine (UK)" respectively, however, these are not the correct titles of these magazines. OPMUS's name is "Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine", and OPMUK is "PlayStation Official Magazine". I believe they should be named correctly. If they were both "Official PlayStation Magazine" then it'd be warranted, but that simply is not true. OPMAU (Official PlayStation Magazine (Australia)) should remain as it is.

In addition, I'd like to request 2 additions to the template for Predefined Reviewer Fields:

  • OPMUKO,
    Official UK PlayStation Magazine
    , which had a very long run before the current OPM in the UK, and
  • NGM,
    Next Generation Magazine
    , which can be used as a source as well.

- MK (t/c) 22:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If the code is wanted, here are the changes:
{{#if:{{{OPM|}}}|
{{!}} ''[[Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine]]''
{{!}} {{{OPM|}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{OPMUK|}}}|
{{!}} ''[[PlayStation Official Magazine]]''
{{!}} {{{OPMUK|}}}
{{!}}-
}}
And the additions:
 {{#if:{{{NGM|}}}|
 {{!}} ''[[Next Generation Magazine]]''
 {{!}} {{{NGM|}}}
 {{!}}-
 }}
 {{#if:{{{OPMUKO|}}}|
 {{!}} ''[[Official UK PlayStation Magazine]]''
 {{!}} {{{OPMUKO|}}}
 {{!}}-
 }}
Please ensure they are in alphabetical order. - MK (t/c) 11:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Stacking's broken

{{

editprotected
}}

Because we're hand-cooking the floating code rather than using class="infobox", the template doesn't stack properly. See the

test cases. This is fixed in the sandobox, so should be synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk
09:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The borders look horrible for me on Safari. Gonna play around with this for a few minutes. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Got it. I just hope it doesn't degrade too much on older Internet Explorer versions... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Specifying reviewer

I think it would be valuable to add an additional, optional field to the template for Reviewer. Many websites, 1UP.com perhaps most strongly, make a point of stating who wrote a game's review. This is to re-enforce the fact that the review is the opinion of a specific person, not necessarily of an entire publication. I think it's important for Wikipedia to reflect this. It would also be useful to the reader who may know specific writers and would interpret a score differently depending on who wrote it. It wouldn't me necessary to add another column to the table, just display the reviewer's name below the publication name in brackets:

Thoughts? Chimpanzee -

Talk | Contribs
14:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That function's already pretty well covered by the reference itself, where the author should be noted if the publication has given it. It just strikes me as redundant to put it in this template as well. -- Sabre (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

G4

{{

editprotect
}}

The link to G4 needs to be fixed. It should be G4 (TV channel), not G4 (TV Channel). TJ Spyke 21:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. — RockMFR 01:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

GameDaily?

Is there an entry for GameDaily on the template? Metacritic cites them and they do reviews.24.190.34.219 (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a free-form reviewer option where any reviewer can be specified. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

a

align left?

Is there a way to force this to the left? At Call of Duty 2: Big Red One there is a long white space section while it's waiting for the infobox to end before starting the reviews box. Can I wrap it in a div tag with align left or something? RJFJR (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In any case, with this particular article, the problem can be solved with proper article expansion, though that's obviously not an immediate solution. -- Sabre (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
You could place the {{
 Talk 
07:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems the template already supports left-alignment, but the margins are buggy.
 Talk 
 07:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the margins. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

MobyGames

MobyGames is in under the main Aggregate scores column, shouldn't this be used only for old and obscure games? I can't see any other reason for having it over other sites like

GameFAQS and GameTab etc. I think it should be removed but kept under the Predefined Aggregator Fields for the purpose I described above.--Lorson (talk
) 22:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

GameSnob

I think it would be valuable to add GameSnob as an aggregator. GameSnob is a new site that aggregates reviews from only a small set of top review sites (e.g.

1UP and a few others). Based on the site's focus on top-tier reviews, the resulting aggregate scores are very reliable. Gameresearch (talk
) 01:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to get it listed as a reliable source at
WP:VG/RS first. Just copy your above message on the talk page there. - X201 (talk
) 09:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I added it to the aggregator sites table on

WP:VG/RS with a similar note to the one above. Gameresearch (talk
) 06:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding it yourself doesn't count. You need to find a consensus within the community. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 06:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed the entry from the table but added it to the checklist. As Bovinebou said, needs to be discussed with the community first. Leave a note on VG:RS:Talk. Hope that helps. CrimsonFox talk 07:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Left a note on VG:RS:Talk Gameresearch (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of IGN in the template

IGN is already considered a reliable source and is already in the template, obviously. However, IGN UK and IGN AU now also operate regularly and often give games separate reviews and scores. As a result, I think these should be added to the template alongside the main IGN. Does anyone agree/object?

Talk
) 23:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

MobyGames removal

{{

editrequest
}}

Remove MobyGames from the Aggregator list. Discusssed here.--Lorson (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

{{

editprotect
}}

Please revert.
 Talk 
02:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
As you didn't make any comment in that thread for 13 days, it was reasonable to assume there were no objections, so I don't think it's fair to say that "Lorson jumped the gun" ... In any case I suggest you continue the discussion over there, try to obtain a consensus for which of the parameters should be included, and then make the request here again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MSGJ (talk • contribs) 07:32, 28 February 2010
Er, what? I objected immediately after the thread was started.
 Talk 
 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to add Hardcore Gamer to review list

The website Hardcore Gamer is not on the list of review sites. Considering their extensive history I believe they should be added to the list, since they aren't already. They are a legitimate gaming publication that is still continuing to produce new articles on a weekly basis. Delvano (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been a reply on this, such as the potential procedure of how to formally request such an addition, I have looked through the post for what others have done to follow in this process. Looking through it, it seems to meet all the credentials that it would have to meet to be added to the template, such as it being on the list at
WP:VG/RS
. It has been on that list since July 2008, so I don't believe there there is a dispute with it's credibility. I have went ahead and made the code if someone wishes to add it to the template:
{{#if:{{{HCG|}}}|
{{!}} ''[[Hardcore Gamer]]''
{{!}} {{{HCG}}}
{{!}}-
}}
If there are any problems with this addition, or any other prerequisites that must be met, can someone make me aware of them? Otherwise, this addition would be appreciated. Thanks. Delvano (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Add support for custom aggregators

{{

editprotect
}} For the modified code, see here:
 Talk 
04:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Because of the nature of aggregators, I feel that this should be avoided; and that if there is an aggregator missing, it should be added as a called-out entry after discussion. What aggregators have we not accounted for already here? --MASEM (t) 04:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I have similar concerns. Is this really wanted ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a

edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk
) 21:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional discussion is
 Talk 
02:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

{{

editprotect
}}

Discussion now archived here.
 Talk 
 08:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, the code on
User:SharkD/Sandbox/VG Reviews 1 seems to contain other changes apart from adding the custom aggregators. Can you confirm if you are still requesting this code, and whether all these changes are supported by consensus. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk
) 09:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Disabled request for now as no response. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't contain subsequent changes made since my original request. I'll see about updating it shortly.
 Talk 
 04:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
SharkD- Do we really need 3 parameters for aggregates? Outside MobyRank, how many more are there other than the ones that are already predefined? If you don't mind, I'd like to bring this up again at
WT:VG because I don't think the first discussion addressed the aggregate issue well enough. There are other things I'd like to bring up too: do we need 8 extra parameters for regular reviews and what about G4/Xplay? (Guyinblack25 talk
14:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

List of changes

{{editprotected}} Per a discussion that took place at

WT:VG (now archived
), I'd like to request the following changes.

  • Remove the following parameters:
    • TTR - TopTenReviews
    • Atrip - ActionTrip
    • GZebo - Gamezebo
    • Playr - Playr
  • Updated the formatting for the text displayed by the following parameters (not discussed in the link, but I don't think these warrant consensus):
    • OPM
      • Current wikicode: ''[[Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine|Official PlayStation Magazine (US)]]''
      • Corrected wikicode: [[Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine|''Official PlayStation Magazine'' (US)]]
    • OPMUK
      • Current wikicode: ''[[Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine|Official PlayStation Magazine (UK)]]''
      • Corrected wikicode: [[Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine|''Official PlayStation Magazine'' (UK)]]
    • OPMAU
      • Current wikicode: ''[[Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine|Official PlayStation Magazine (Australia)]]''
      • Corrected wikicode: [[Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine|''Official PlayStation Magazine'' (Australia)]]

(Guyinblack25 talk 16:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

Done. Although, there are some typos in your link corrections (e.g., they don't all point to the same place?). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Whoops! Thanks for catching that, reading my mind, and doing it the way I intended. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC))

Custom parameter changes

{{

editprotected
}} Per another discussion, there are more changes to the VG project would like to make to this template.

1. Remove three of the aggregate score parameters: {{{GRO}}} → Game Ratio, {{{GMS}}} → GameStats, and {{{GTab}}} → GameTab.

2. Custom parameters for aggregate scores. Please add the following code right after the code for GameRankings and Metacritic. 

{{#if:{{{agg1|}}}|
{{!}} {{{agg1}}}
{{!}} {{{agg1Score|}}}
{{!}}-
}}
{{#if:{{{agg2|}}}|
{{!}} {{{agg2}}}
{{!}} {{{agg2Score|}}}
{{!}}-
}}

3. Remove the eighth custom parameter for regular review scores, which should be any code associated with rev8 and rev8Score

(Guyinblack25 talk 20:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

  1.  Done
  2.  Done
  3.  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

Giant Bomb

Is it possible to add Giant Bomb to the reviewer list? The staff used to work for GameSpot back when it was in its prime. It is a very popular website among the hardcore gamer crowd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdornan (talk • contribs) 15:37, May 5, 2010

Given that not every author on the site would be considered reliable, I suggest against it. If you'd like to discuss it further, you can start a thread at
WT:VG. (Guyinblack25 talk
22:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC))
How is this reliability being decided? Jayrossss (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
This needs to be revisited, Giantbomb is a legitimate source for reviews. --JonnybobT 15:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Older publications

This template is currently heavily weighted towards contemporary sources, as I found when updating Knight Lore. I reckon all of the following are good, reliable sources for use in articles for 8-bit home computer games:

C&VG is already provided under "CVG", but the old name was in use for the publication's first decade so I think it should be supported as well.

If there's no opposition I'll get these added. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Your Sinclair should be added as well. - X201 (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 Done I've added all of the above (including Your Sinclair), and updated the documentation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Move to Template:Video game reviews

I suggest, just like Template:Infobox video game, moving this template to Template:Video game reviews. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done, along with the talk archives and redirects. Ping me if there's any fallout. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Turn reviews off

There needs to be a way to turn the "Review scores" section off for pages that only use the Aggregators and/or Awards sections. See

 Talk 
02:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Table should use the CAPTION element

The very first row with the text "Reception" should use the caption HTML element. See [1].

 Talk 
02:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

gamrReview

Can we add gamrReview (http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com) to the main site list? It is listed on GameRankings and I believe soon to be added to MetaCritic. --TadjHolmes (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I would definitely lean towards a 'no' here. None of the staff have the required professional journalistic background, and the site has no physical street address, indicating it's not a professional company. --Teancum (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Update style to conform with standard infoboxes

{{

editrequest
}} I suggest updating the style of the template to conform with other infoboxes. I've done so
 Talk 
12:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are you using "px" units for the box width? I believe the standard is to use "em" units, e.g., "23em" is what is used by {{Infobox}}. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI, the units are the same as {{
 Talk 
23:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Considering that this isn't an infobox, but rather just a way of standardising a commonly used table across multiple articles, I don't see why we need to implement an ugly scheme like that. The current scheme is far superior and clearer. -- Sabre (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Meh, tastes vary. ;) Also, I would debate whether it is an infobox or not.
 Talk 
 23:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a

edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk
) 20:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

More discussion
 Talk 
02:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Play (UK magazine) cleanup

OK, so I've

Play (US magazine)
isn't even on the list.

Yet if we take a look at

n
14:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sega magazines?

Suggest adding MegaTech and Mega (magazine) to the list, as they were the two biggest mags for the MegaDrive in the UK. Maybe use "MT=" and "Mega=" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.15.46 (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

collapse

Can we make it so that the indivisual reviews will collapse if there are aggragate ones? Over at Dragon Quest V its causing page alignment issues with the reference section, but I feel collapasing all of it because there are tons of reviews isn't the best way to handle things.陣内Jinnai 17:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

From a style/content approach, if you are sourcing all those reviews in the table but not mentioning them in reception (which would expand it), that's a problem; you shouldn't just add a score just to have a score there, but instead talk about what the reviewers said in reception.
From a technical side, I don't know if it can easily be done without hacking the table. However, you can add {{
-}} after the reception text to force the next section to wait until the sides are clear - it would leave a lot of white space but fix the references. (But again, a longer reception section would also fix that). --MASEM (t
) 17:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Masem. Expanding the prose and reducing the entries in the table would solve this and is the best practice for article writing. The table should supplement the prose, not overshadow it. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC))
I didn't add those, I just noticed when checking the article out for possible cleanup. While I think the reception section could be expanded, but it may not be enough as I believe there are still be a few more sources/awards out there for this game.陣内Jinnai 17:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I suggest removing some of the scores as part of your clean up. For example, I question whether Nintendo Land is a reliable site and there are several scores that are repeated:
  • GamesRadar 9/10, IGN 8.9/10 and Official Nintendo Magazine 90%
  • GameSpot 8.5/10 and Nintendo Power 8.5/10
I'd say only one from each bullet point is needed. There's four scores that could be cut to shorten the table. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC))
Okay. My point still stands though. And there may be other games articles like this out there too, but have already been edited and still have that issue. This is a remake title so there may be scores for other systems out there even though it wasn't "officially" released in English.
Also, I'm not sure if those scores are really "repeat" scores. Just because 2 places have the same score doesn't mean its a repeat, although I agree with your opinion on Nintendo Land.陣内Jinnai 18:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
A slight tangent. The main point I was trying to convey was that the table should not be that long to begin with. I think leaving the template as it is will discourage editors from bloating it while neglecting the reception prose. In regard to repeat scores, the template is meant to supplement the prose and provide an overview of the scores. Some variance in the scores should be in there, otherwise the aggregate scores are all that is needed. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

Collapse, revisited

I've been thinking a bit, and it seems to me that the important thing are the aggregate scores, and what makes this table unwieldy are the individual review. Why not tweak the collapse behavior to collapse the individual reviews, rather than the whole table?

books
} 19:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds similar to the suggestion made in the thread above.
scripts
) 19:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Adding spanish language magazines

Please, can add this spanish-language magazine of videogames?

Another Argentinian media. http://www.irrompibles.com.ar/industria/medios-argentinos-de-videojuegos

--190.221.111.220 (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Typically, we use English language sources because that is the primary language of this Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that they can't be added via the rev1 and rev1Score parameters. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC))
Yes, they can be added on a case-by-case basis through custom field. The only non-English language we might add another source from would likely be Japanese due to the prevelence of games initially released in Japan.∞陣内Jinnai 20:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I say this because, for example, Metacritic has many notes of Spanish-language media. --190.221.111.220 (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
That's okay for them. We aren't metacritic though. We are the English Wikipedia. The only reason we have review score for Famitsu is because a large majority of the notable games are released in Japan and many of those get a Famitsu score and we always cover the original language of any work.
If in the hypothetical future a lot of notable games are released in a Spanish-speaking country and get reviews consistantly by Spanish RSes, then we may add some.∞陣内Jinnai 04:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Cutecutecuteface2000

Please remove the link to

Cutecuteface needs attention
) 18:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with edit request and suggest that Game Wire be delinked as well. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC))
 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

+Nintendo Life field