This template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
I'm seeing a number of issues with this grouping but don't have time to comment right now other than to ask why "blogs" are separated from "websites". I see no reason why those set few were excluded—they should be combined. czar⨹13:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also why "critics" instead of "journalism" (would be spurious since many more outlets are vg "critics" than vg "journalists")? And news websites should be italicized per WP:ITALICS: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized". Is there a precedent for such a list of "active" publications? Isn't "active" assumed, else they become defunct? Groupings shouldn't be in title case. czar⨹13:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it is no longer active doesn't mean its historical significance as being the first game review aggregator becomes meaningless. ~ Dissident93(talk)21:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it no longer has content. I'd agree with you if we were able to browse gamerankings.com as a historic archive, but the fact that it no longer even exists makes me question why have it here? I'd noticed other publications were removed when they shut down (ex: GamesTM) - is there a reason GameRankings is special in this regard? MomentHeart (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Wayback machine exists, doesn't it? I just don't see why we should remove platforms if they still have historical significance, regardless of them being active or not. ~ Dissident93(talk)22:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the edit history, it appears that publications that cease operations are typically removed (and restored if they resume operations). And from the closure announcement, it seems that the Gamerankings team has merged into Metacritic. It seems inconsistent to not remove them.
But I may be wrong. I'm new and am not clear what the purpose of these templates is. I saw it while browsing and thought it made sense to remove it. If you feel strongly that GameRankings should remain there, I'll back down.MomentHeart (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are we lacking a basic definition?
I worry that this template may be unworkably vague. If we look at List of video game magazines and Category:Video game journalism we can see potentially a hundred or more entries that might be described as "Video game journalism". How do we decide which ones belong in the "Video game journalism" template? If this template is to persist I think it needs a basic definition to be spelled out. Is this a list of historically significant publications? Or the most reliable/prominent publications? Is this an international listing? Does it cover only currently published journals and websites? Who determines prominence, reliability, historicity, etc. and is there any cut-off?
WP:NAVBOX suggests that the template should define a "small, well-defined group" with "a single, coherent subject". Guideline #5 asks: "If not for the navigation template, [would] an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles"? and suggests in Guideline #3 that "The articles should refer to each other". Do any of these entries refer to each other? And I echo Czar's question above: Is there a precedent for such a list of "active" publications? -Thibbs (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
