Template talk:Video game reviews

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?

Reception

Review score

Publication	Score
1UP.com (Justin Haywald}	8/10

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 {{clear}} template directly before the Reception section. But adding support for left-alignment wouldn't hurt. SharkD  Talk  07:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems the template already supports left-alignment, but the margins are buggy. SharkD  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 TopTenReviews, GameStats,Critics.gr, 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. GameSpot, IGN, 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? Cipher ^(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. Lorson seems to have jumped the gun here, as discussion is still ongoing. SharkD  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. SharkD  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: User:SharkD/Sandbox/VG Reviews 1. SharkD  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 for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

{{editprotect}}

Discussion now archived here. SharkD  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. SharkD  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)

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:

• Amstrad Action
• CRASH
• Your Spectrum
• Amtix
• Computer and Video Games
• Sinclair User

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 Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader#Reception and development for an example. SharkD  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]. SharkD  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)
  • It is also a guideline for inclusion in the template that being included in Metacritic is not an applicable argument for inclusion in the template. While Metacritic itself is reliable, they do not follow the same standards that we do. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:07, 12 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 here, and you can see it in action here. SharkD  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 {{infobox video game}}. SharkD  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. SharkD  Talk  23:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Play (UK magazine) cleanup

OK, so I've never liked the implementation of the VG Reviews template. I don't like how everything is hardcoded, making mistakes in the template dispersed over many articles. One such mistake is assigning the longest running PlayStation magazine, Play (UK magazine), the "Play" identifier in the template. This is confusing, because another reliable source, the now defunct multiformat Play (US magazine) isn't even on the list.

Yet if we take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Play_(UK_magazine), we see that there are dozens of links from non-PlayStation games. These links are clearly meant for Play (US magazine) (or even in some rare cases, play.tm). It would be helpful if we introduced the US magazine into the template as PlayUS, and move the UK magazine to PlayUK for disambiguation purposes. This however, means making changes to the template and every article using Play in the template. Shall we proceed? - hahnchen 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 refereces. (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? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Adding spanish language magazines

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

• Loaded (article on Wikipedia on Spanish) (Also is the publisher of Blizzard and some Disney games on Latin America) (The only magazine printed in Argentina)
• MeriStation (article on Wikipedia on Spanish) (Since 1997)
• 3DJuegos (article on Wikipedia on Spanish)
• Hobbynews (article on Wikipedia on Spanish)

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

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