This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Video game reviews. 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.
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 WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654500:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
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 Jazztalk to me | my contributions12:58, 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)
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 Jazztalk to me | my contributions22:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 2 September 2022
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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 + [fr]. Sjö (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
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? Sergecross73msg me13:58, 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)
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? 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)
