Template talk:Video game reviews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q: Will you add my website to this template?
A: No, we only add reviewers who are (1) vetted as reliable (having a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and editorial confidence), and (2) already commonly used in the article prose. Note that adding links to your website on Wikipedia is a conflict of interest—it creates cleanup for us and no added favor for your site.

Request[edit]

Can these be added to the template? These are 90's French and German video game print magazines. Mobygames cites thousands of reviews for each of them. They are most useful for import reviews, and games that only got Euro or JP-Euro releases. I've used all of them on many pages.

M! Games is also still around, and have been uploading all their 90's print magazine reviews online under the Klassic Test section, showing thousands of reviews. I've already used them on something like 51 pages, and I plan on using it more extensively.

Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

All of these magazines are no longer in production, so their inclusion does not seem necessary for long-term usage. Consider using the custom rev parameters where necessary. Lordtobi () 06:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
We have websites in this template no longer in production.... That's not a sufficient cause to leave works out of this template. --Izno (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, we have to consider the historical perspective. 1up.com was a valid site for reviews in the 00's, for example. Amiga Power was great for reviews in that period. The only concern is how many times those magazines or sites will be used in the template to add specific parameters rather than delegate to the customizable fields. --Masem (t) 14:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
What I mean is that these noted here were never frequently used and due to their discontinuation probably won't be outside a handful of uses. Most that are already in the template had previously seen mass-usage in the custom rev paramters or were/are still active. Lordtobi () 15:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

These are all mags that I've used quite a bit, and will plan on using more too. My feeling is that they're most useful for Japanese import reviews. M! Games has been used on about 50 pages, and considering that they're uploading something like 1,400 old reviews from over 20 years of reviewing, they can be used much more. Even something like Super GamePower has been used 15 times because they do a lot of import reviews. Oh, and is Mean Machines listed? That's used on a lot of pages too.

Background is that there's several online projects which do nothing but archive old game reviews (the germans are especially good at this), and sites like Mobygames record these scores. So even a game that seems pretty obscure like Gley Lancer can have a crazy number of Euro import reviews listed. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  • FWIW I have used Joypad and Consoles+ before and found them extremely useful. Support adding these to the template. JOEBRO64 00:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

uvlist.net lists a lot of French mag review scores. Mostly Joypad, Player One, Consoles +. Very useful, especially for niche games. Those mags had really good import review coverage. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done as JP, CP, VGS, MF, TOT, and MG. -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Could these be added?[edit]

Hi! So i've been doing a major expansion on Go Vacation since early 2018 or so, and I have been using a few foreign language sources (that have been deemed to be reliable, of course) as some of the major citations for the page (mostly because they go into more depth than most English sources). Could they be added? Below is the sources, and the code I suggest be used for them.


Impress Watch IWatch

Jeuxvideo.com JuexVid

Video Game Music Online VGMO

Thanks! TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Jeux is JXV. Are the others vetted as reliable sources at WP:VG/S yet? -- ferret (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
ImpressWatch is, VGMO is classified as situational (all content by the site staff is reliable, aside from composer bios). I don't see any problem with adding them. JOEBRO64 00:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I feel like VGMO is a weird fit for this template since its about soundtracks only. -- ferret (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Just curious: what template (if any) do you think would be a better fit for it? TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
None as far as usage in video game articles. And you should use the custom fields to include any unusual exceptions. TarkusABtalk 11:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh! I was not aware of the custom fields- thanks! TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I also disagree with this, since they only review soundtracks and not games. There is no reason for them to be forced into a template if they don't fit. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't aware it was just soundtracks. ImpressWatch should still be added though. JOEBRO64 19:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
My only argument against ImpressWatch being added is how rare they are currently used in the prose/custom fields, which I brought up in the section below. But it seems like it was added a few days ago regardless. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Just now realizing Impress watch is actually called Game Watch... I think? Its not really clear but it looks like its a part of the larger "Impress" unbrella and I got them confused- not really sure though. Maybe GWatch should be the code then? TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Since no one has objected, I have gone ahead and added Game Watch. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Uhh, I have undone that since I just realized I might be being silly here... I don't think Game Watch even does scores... TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
As information, adding it to the documentation does not add it to the module behind the template -- ferret (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, whoops, thanks! TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Impress watch is a really high quality site that we should use more of. I didn't know they handed out review scores though. If they do, we should add more of them.

Video Game Music online looks like a fan site. We should avoid using fan sites. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

VGMO isn't a fansite. Content from the staff is considered usable on Wikipedia. JOEBRO64 20:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Impress Watch as IW. -- ferret (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Requests[edit]

Can we add both VentureBeat (VB) and Shacknews (SN) into the template? Both are commonly used reliable sources that still give out review score. I particularly find VentureBeat useful when I am writing the reception section. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I'd support this, but I've personally never really seen them used much in prose for reviews in articles. Thus, I don't think we should be adding sites to the template if they aren't that common, regardless of their reliability. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I think the fact that they aren't included in the review template is the main reason why they aren't used commonly. I usually stick to the likes of IGN or Game Informer for most of the time because of convenience, but I think the inclusion of these well-known publications would still be useful. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
      • That's true, I didn't really think of that. I don't really see any other reason to oppose them now, so I support their inclusion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done As VB and SN -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

A request for Pocket Gamer[edit]

Can we add Pocket Gamer? it's a reliable source and still actively makes reviews. It could go under PG or PocketG. I personally prefer PocketG as it doesn't look to close to the "PC" coding already available.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Would generally support. One of the few sites, along with Touch Arcade, that are reliable and cover mobile gaming, which we otherwise drastically lack coverage of. --Masem (t) 21:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I would like to include Touch Arcade into my request too. If no one objects, it could use TA.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Refreshing the discussion and see if anyone can assist on this.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd support adding these. I've used Pocket Gamer and TouchArcade a lot when writing reception sections, so their addition could be beneficial. JOEBRO64 20:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
If no one seriously objects I will add this to the template in the next day or so. At worst, if you don't like it, don't use them :P --Masem (t) 20:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done As PG -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Also added TouchArcade as TA. Lordtobi () 21:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Doc update[edit]

If someone could be so kind to update the documentation, I believe it's wildly out of date even before the additions I made today. -- ferret (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Lordtobi () 21:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Metro[edit]

I reckon that Metro is an unreliable tabloid. Given this, I don't think it should appear in our review tables. Should it be removed from the template? Lordtobi () 18:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We've got consensus at WP:VG/S that it's unreliable. JOEBRO64 19:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
It does not appear in the template table. You are free to treat each individual article as appropriate. --Izno (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
You're right. I saw this on 10 successive article straight and believed it to be in the template itself. I'm a fool. Lordtobi () 20:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Can Gamezebo be added to the template? They use stars for their reviews and it's a common reliable source per WP:VG/RS for casual games.Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  • UPDATE: Can 4Players also be included (they review in 0 to 100%), also a very reliable and used sourcing. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Request: Easy Allies[edit]

Could Easy Allies (EZA) be added to the template? The site is listed as a 'situational source' that is "useful for critical opinions". They scored videogames on a 10-point scale (using half stars) from 1 April 2016 to 5 February 2018, before switching to a 20-point scale (out of 10) after this. Reviews made for YouTube but full text versions, including the score, are published contemporaneously on their website (https://easyallies.com/#!/reviews). Fairly prolific, they've put out 35 reviews so far in 2019. They also occastionally review games that receive little coverage elsewhere (Timespinner, Little Dragons Cafe, Pixeljunk Monsters 2). Domeditrix (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Going to second this one. Good source of industry veterans. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I also don't see any real reason to oppose this. Does anybody have any? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Tentatively on board but a discussion at WP:VG/S was opened as well, I'd like that resolved first. -- ferret (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The site has now been added to the WP:VG/S reliable sources list. (Diff.) —Domeditrix (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Request: Addition of MobyGames as another Retro-Aggregator along with GameRankings[edit]

I already tried to add it myself but I wasn't aware of the special supervision needed for doing so ... I am sorry about that.
MobyGames would be an useful addition since it features many games in its database, which are missing from both Metacritic and GameRankings.
So, would it be possible to add MobyGames to the list of aggregator scores on "Template:Video game reviews", please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuLac4ever (talkcontribs) 18:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Tentatively interested in where this goes. If anyone is unaware, Moby now has a weighted critic aggregation. I'm not sure when it was added but I don't remember it being there before. I picked an old game at random to take a look, Buck Rogers Countdown to Doomsday. The critic score is separate from the user score, so no USERG issue. Note the lack of reviews for this game at GameRankings, while Metacritic has no entry at all. While much of Mobygame's content is unreliable, we regularly consult their review lists as part of source hunts at AFD. -- ferret (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
It had to have been within the last month or two, because I don't remember that being that either. Anyway, I think I'd support this if others do, but only for games where we have no Metacritic score. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll take this to WT:VG/S. JOEBRO64 20:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Request: German sources[edit]

Can someone please add

PC Games
GameStar
4Players
Eurogamer.de

to the template? GameStar and PC Games are explicitly mentioned at WP:VG/RS and 4Players was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_20#4players.de. Eurogamer.de is the German sister site of Eurogamer and thus presumably equally reliable. Regards SoWhy 10:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

How many times will they be used? Remember, this template is not to be used to document all reviews, but maybe 5 or 6 + aggregator scores, and I cannot see many cases where there are so few quality reviews in English to require need of the Germany sites that otherwise can't use the "other" parameters. --Masem (t) 13:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't see this as particularly valid rationale. We should support all sources that appear on the VGRS list which also provide numerical ratings. If we want to limit the number of sources displayed, that's a different issue entirely. --Izno (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a fair number of games, especially from Germany and Europe, that are almost exclusively covered in those sources, especially PC Games and GameStar. For example, SpellForce 3: Soul Harvest has not a single US review that I could find despite being a major release. I agree with Izno that the ease of having access to display these sources should not be conflated with the desire to limit the amount displayed which can be handled by the MoS (e.g. by giving preference to English sources where they exist). Regards SoWhy 18:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I just want to make sure that we aren't adding fields that only get used less than ~dozen times across all uses of this template on WP. I'll accept that there are games more EU-centric that fail to get much US coverage for these to be usable sites. --Masem (t) 18:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand that concern but I think there are sufficient articles that would benefit. I can think of three I wrote off the top of my head alone. Regards SoWhy 19:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
PC Games definitely gets used quite often, I get a link notification in what feels like every 2nd day (I am the creator). And GameStar has a reach which is comparable to the other "big" US game mags/pages; I have seen them getting used on quite some articles here too. Additionally as SoWhy noted there are also quite some (relevant) games which only receive marginally if any attention from the English sources; the Petroglyph games (8-Bit Armies, 8-Bit Hordes etc.) are some other examples. So I think adding these sources to the template could be helpful. Dead Mary (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
To both above - if you can vouch that we'll get a fair number of uses out of these, I see no problems, then. Just decide on a decent abbreviation for each. For example, I'd recommend "EUROGDE" for eurogamer.de, etc. to be consistent. --Masem (t) 20:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest PCG for PC Games (since PC Gamer needs specification whether it's UK or US, it should not be confusable), GStar for GameStar and 4P for 4Players. Regards SoWhy 06:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
If we include Eurogamer.de, we should also include the other regional Eurogamer outlets, like Eurogamer.fr and Eurogamer.pl. Lordtobi () 19:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
We would still prefer the use of the English Eurogamer when it exists, right? Similar to our WP:NONENGEL guideline. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
That depends. If reviews from regional outlets (e.g. for games from that region) are better or more expansive than the English-language one, we could use that instead. However, it would kind of feel redundant to include both an English and a non-English Eurogamer-branded review, even if they are independent from one another (except for their employer and policy). Lordtobi () 06:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I see no problem with using both as sources for the article but for the review box, we could append Template:Video game reviews/doc#Guidelines to say that English variants should be preferred where available. Regards SoWhy 06:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)