Template talk:Video game reviews/Archive 7

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

Template-protected edit request on 29 January 2022

Could someone add The Daily Telegraph / The Telegraph (London) to the Module:Video game reviews/data (in the local reviewers section). 

{"[[The Daily Telegraph|''The Telegraph'']]", 'TELE'},

The Daily Telegraph / The Telegraph (London) frequently publishes video game reviews [1] with a 5 star rating system (simliar to other UK broadsheet, The Guardian, with respect to video game reviews). It is considered reliable per WP:RSP. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 02:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

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#6545 00:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Template parameters are case sensitive. -- ferret (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah alright. I was really confused as to what was going wrong. Thanks! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The memory issues among us

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 Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

See also Template talk:Authority control/Archive 13#Big problem — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:22, 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)
Look at all the references! There are 99 on the genre field alone. - X201 (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
50+ for the supported languages. -- ferret (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Specify "qid = none" to suppress Wikidata where necessary. I've fixed Among Us. -- ferret (talk) 15:01, 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 Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 September 2022

Could you please link Beep! Mega Drive (BMD) to Gemaga? Beep! Mega Drive is the old name of it. M0d3M (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done - X201 (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Can we add GameDaily? and A.V. Club?

Both recognized as reliable sources and their reviews are in articles such as Patapon, Lumines: Puzzle Fusion, and Echochrome.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done GD and AVC respectively - X201 (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 26 October 2022

Description of suggested change: Request that the following video game review websites are added with code:

Helper201 (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

To editor Helper201: have you consulted the WikiProject Video games members as suggested in the edit notice that appears when this page is edited? Looks like a consensus is needed to make such additions. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 08:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
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)

To editors Rhain and Helper201:  edited – Digital Trends (DR), NME (NME) and TechRadar (TR) have been included in the module data subpage. Respect that Trusted Reviews should first be further discussed. Stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth I've made an edit request to have it added at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources. If this is the wrong place to do so or if I have made any mistakes pelase do let me know. Thanks. Helper201 (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

To editor Helper201: yes, that should get the ball rolling. Added the sourcing template above your request to help editors make the determination. Trusted Reviews has been discussed there in the past, but very minimally, so they might just be accepted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 00:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 December 2022

Add:

{Metro (British newspaper), code: Metro} Lankyant (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC) and Gamereactor

 Not done: Metro is unreliable per WP:RSP. Gamereactor has an inconclusive discussion at WP:VG/S. -- ferret (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request 22 December 2022

Could we get Gamekult linked? and is there any consensus on PC Invasion? Lankyant (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@Jonesey95 But Gamekult is already listed, i'm asking for it to be linked to the wiki article. Lankyant (talk) 01:11, 23 December 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)
Thank you :D Lankyant (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Aktueller Software Markt

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)

It might even making it possible to filter results automatically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.94.29.136 (talk) 13:38, 11 February 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:

These are major enough in Japan to have their own articles. Etotheipi (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Run them past WT:VGRS and get them added to the Non-English section first. See related question in FAQ above. - X201 (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Tilt (French magazine)

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)

Actually the letter "grade" for the price is not a subjective ranking, it is directly mapped to specific price brackets in Francs: https://i.imgur.com/kfYJmfl.png Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Several "generalist" outlets

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:

Juxlos (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

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)
Seconding everything Rhain just said. Sergecross73 msg me 10:48, 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)
@Juxlos: Of course. For the example mentioned above, you'd just use two parameters: |rev1=Financial Times and |rev1Score=4/5 (or replace "rev1" with "rev2", "rev3", etc.). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how come I didn't see that in the template documentation earlier. Oh well, thanks. Juxlos (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Request: WorthPlaying

WorthPlaying has various game reviews. This reviewer listed in Metacritic. Just adding |WP= on a template. Windywalk (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

No. WP:VG/S lists WorthPlaying as unreliable. Do not add it to articles. -- ferret (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 June 2023

Add Intellivision to the system list, so I can add some Intellivision ratings to Pitfall!. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done With the parameter INT -- ferret (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

OpenCritic

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)

Not really relevant to the discussion, but your signature should at least have a link to your talk page per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:54, 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)
Template_talk:Video_game_reviews/Archive_5#Adding OpenCritic as a review aggregator I believe is the last major RFC. There have been many other discussion even since then, including Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_23#OpenCritic. -- ferret (talk) 16:43, 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

Per my RfC closure here. Can a template editor or admin help? Thanks. starship.paint (exalt) 00:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: What are you asking to have changed? The template's only use of XSXS is as a parameter name. That parameter outputs Xbox Series X/S when used, as it always has. This template never outputs 'XSXS'. -- ferret (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Ferret: - please explain, when I look at Call of Duty#Main series, I see three XSXS? starship.paint (exalt) 01:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Starship.paint That is {{Video game series reviews}}. Please post to that talk page, taking a look now. -- ferret (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Video_game_reviews/Archive_7&oldid=1221506446"