Template talk:Video game reviews/Archive 5
 | 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Adding OpenCritic as a review aggregator
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For various reasons, I had been shamefully neglecting to actually sit down and write this proposal for a number of months. Thankfully, in the intervening time, the guys at OpenCritic have been knocking it out of the park in terms of features and the games and games press community have likewise embraced it, making my job a lot easier. Simply put, OpenCritic now rivals Metacritic in terms of actual use by gaming communities as a measure of a game's critical consensus. For some evidence, see the litany of external links collected here.
Still not convinced? Here are some supplemental reasons why OpenCritic should be added, which pale in comparison to reason #1, but are still worth noting. 2a) With the de facto ousting of GameRankings from the reviews template, Metacritic has a monopoly on taking the temperature of critical consensus on Wikipedia. 2b) Metacritic's "metascore" is not a simple average, rather, there are hidden weights given to publications and we have no insight into the relationship between these weights and Metacritic's moneyed interests and corporate overlords. 2c) Considering 2a and 2b, you are concerned about Wikipedia's role in entrenching Metacritic's most favoured nation status within the games industry. 3) OpenCritic has a robust feature set that goes beyond simply averaging all scores, such as a Rotten Tomatoes-style % recommended metric and a histogram depicting where this game's score falls in the distribution of all game scores, both of which I find more useful and meaningful than the simple arithmetic mean.
I think OpenCritic is at a point where they've established their presence and credentials within the industry and we can't continue to ignore them. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support I would be okay with having OpenCritic be used as a source on Wikipedia. It's been over a year since its creation so I believe it has a place in the industry as well. GamerPro64 20:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Been discussed before. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_12#OpenCritic. My opinion since that discussion has not changed. We don't need a third aggregator. The decision to cull GameRankings was because their scores are almost always identical Metacritic. And the same goes for OpenCritic, the variation between OpenCritic and Metacritic scores is negligible. Metacritic scores serve their purpose just fine in Wikipedia articles, no reason to replace or add another aggregator. No doubt, if OpenCritic gets added, there will be plenty of pointless edit wars about which aggregator to use since we don't need both at once. It'll just be a giant waste of time and effort. Aggregate scoring and reviews scores in general should not be the focus of reception sections and be given less weight anyway. Too many noobie editors fall into the trap of adding tonnes of review scores to articles, which has no encyclopedic value. Also one sentence that gives a general consensus on how a game was received critically is enough, we don't need pointless statistics like "Game X is the in the top Y% of games on platform Z released in year 20**". --The1337gamer (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- First, that discussion was extremely premature, coming just two months after the website launched. A lot of things have changed since then and it's a demonstrably more mature site now both in terms of itself and its adoption rate elsewhere. Second, if your argument is to go strictly one-aggregator, would you choose the one with a spooky voodoo calculation or the one with the open verifiable calculation, all else being equal? Axem Titanium (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I appreciate that OpenCritic is transparent about how they calculate their scores. But it doesn't bother me that Metacritic uses a weighted mean as a opposed to an arithmetic mean like OpenCritic. The scores of both sites are are similar and using a weighted mean isn't necessarily a bad thing. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's not the fact that it uses a weighted mean that's bad. I am, in fact, in support of certain types of weighting, after a fashion. My problem is that we have no access to the weights to verify that they're being used properly. What if Warner Bros. went to Metacritic with a stack of cash and said "hey, the New York Times gave Shadow of Mordor a good review, maybe you could turn the knob up on that review in our Metascore and I'll just 'forget' that I walked in here with a wad of bills"? Maybe it bumps the score up 1 point, maybe it bumps the score up 3 points, the point is that we don't know and we would have no way of knowing if it even happened. It could happen in only 0.1% of all games listed on Metacritic but that would still be bad. All other things being equal, why would you choose to support, nay feature exclusively, the site with the voodoo formula that stands to directly profit from the traffic Wikipedia generates for them? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't buy that whole Metacritic is corrupt conspiracy theory to be honest. If that's your argument for removing Metacritic, then you may as well start proposing the removal of sites like IGN, GameSpot, etc. because every large gaming website that we consider to be reputable has been influenced by publishers at some point. I just don't see how adding another aggregator benefits video game articles when Metacritic already serves that purpose. The way you're try to spin the Metacritic is an evil boogeyman narrative seems pretty ridiculous. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it's a corrupt conspiracy; I'm saying if it is (or becomes one), we would have zero ability to detect it. This boils down to an existential argument for why we should report aggregated scores at all. Do we care about the exact number that falls out from the data? If we do, then we should use OC only because it's the most verifiable source for that number. If we don't, then we might as well make up a number or else not report an aggregate at all. If we only care a little, then we should report both to use as a jumping off point for the tone of the Reception section. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't even have to be a "whoops dropped this stack of cash" kind of corruption; Metacritic is owned by CBS Interactive, who owns GameFAQs, GameSpot, Giant Bomb, and onGamers. The top management of MC is going to be biased towards their sister companies, unconsciously or consciously. CBS is definitely going to have a vested interest in their brands being considered top quality in the industries leading aggregator (that they also own). By definition they can't be objective about that when making up subjective weightings, and it's not like MC sets itself up as a bastion of fair practices in subjective review score averaging. Are they purposely rating other CBS properties too high? Probably not- but as you said, there's no way to know. --PresN 02:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- At the risk of appearing to spread conspiracy theories, I'll remind folks that CBSI once fired one of its employees for giving a bad review score because it was hurting the advertising arm of the business. I can chalk this one up to the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing in a big corporation, but it's not the first time this has happened and it won't be the last. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Gerstmann was fired by GameSpot management. He then founded Giant Bomb. He then sold Giant Bomb to CBSI. To this day, he still runs Giant Bomb and works for CBSI. He doesn't appear to have animosity to what happened to him in the past and works in the same office as GameSpot, the company he was fired from. I don't recall anyone ever suggested banning GameSpot from Wikipedia because of this incident. Regardless, that is not relevant to Metacritic or this discussion. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's relevant because the particular company in question, CBSI, has a pay-for-play transaction on the record. Gerstmann was fired for failing to uphold the terms of the transaction, on account of personal ethics. On point of fact, we should be wary of Gamespot reviews during that era (not including Gerstmann's) as well as reviews of Eidos games in that time period. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Gerstmann was fired by GameSpot management. He then founded Giant Bomb. He then sold Giant Bomb to CBSI. To this day, he still runs Giant Bomb and works for CBSI. He doesn't appear to have animosity to what happened to him in the past and works in the same office as GameSpot, the company he was fired from. I don't recall anyone ever suggested banning GameSpot from Wikipedia because of this incident. Regardless, that is not relevant to Metacritic or this discussion. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- At the risk of appearing to spread conspiracy theories, I'll remind folks that CBSI once fired one of its employees for giving a bad review score because it was hurting the advertising arm of the business. I can chalk this one up to the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing in a big corporation, but it's not the first time this has happened and it won't be the last. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't even have to be a "whoops dropped this stack of cash" kind of corruption; Metacritic is owned by CBS Interactive, who owns GameFAQs, GameSpot, Giant Bomb, and onGamers. The top management of MC is going to be biased towards their sister companies, unconsciously or consciously. CBS is definitely going to have a vested interest in their brands being considered top quality in the industries leading aggregator (that they also own). By definition they can't be objective about that when making up subjective weightings, and it's not like MC sets itself up as a bastion of fair practices in subjective review score averaging. Are they purposely rating other CBS properties too high? Probably not- but as you said, there's no way to know. --PresN 02:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it's a corrupt conspiracy; I'm saying if it is (or becomes one), we would have zero ability to detect it. This boils down to an existential argument for why we should report aggregated scores at all. Do we care about the exact number that falls out from the data? If we do, then we should use OC only because it's the most verifiable source for that number. If we don't, then we might as well make up a number or else not report an aggregate at all. If we only care a little, then we should report both to use as a jumping off point for the tone of the Reception section. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't buy that whole Metacritic is corrupt conspiracy theory to be honest. If that's your argument for removing Metacritic, then you may as well start proposing the removal of sites like IGN, GameSpot, etc. because every large gaming website that we consider to be reputable has been influenced by publishers at some point. I just don't see how adding another aggregator benefits video game articles when Metacritic already serves that purpose. The way you're try to spin the Metacritic is an evil boogeyman narrative seems pretty ridiculous. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's not the fact that it uses a weighted mean that's bad. I am, in fact, in support of certain types of weighting, after a fashion. My problem is that we have no access to the weights to verify that they're being used properly. What if Warner Bros. went to Metacritic with a stack of cash and said "hey, the New York Times gave Shadow of Mordor a good review, maybe you could turn the knob up on that review in our Metascore and I'll just 'forget' that I walked in here with a wad of bills"? Maybe it bumps the score up 1 point, maybe it bumps the score up 3 points, the point is that we don't know and we would have no way of knowing if it even happened. It could happen in only 0.1% of all games listed on Metacritic but that would still be bad. All other things being equal, why would you choose to support, nay feature exclusively, the site with the voodoo formula that stands to directly profit from the traffic Wikipedia generates for them? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I appreciate that OpenCritic is transparent about how they calculate their scores. But it doesn't bother me that Metacritic uses a weighted mean as a opposed to an arithmetic mean like OpenCritic. The scores of both sites are are similar and using a weighted mean isn't necessarily a bad thing. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I think that OpenCritic has matured enough to be a valuable addition for recent games, in addition to having a different and transparent method of building scores, and find the evidence in the linked talk page to be compelling that it's considered a serious metric. Gamerankings was a bit too similar to MC to be worth it, even if it has some older magazine scores included. I'd be interested to see what your future proposal to change the aggregator part of the reviews template turns out to be as well. --PresN 20:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Since you asked so nicely, here's a preview. There are a couple of issues with a barebones average (arithmetic mean), which is a nice, easily agreed upon number to be sure. First, an average score of 85 based on 30 reviews is very different than an average score of 85 based on 100 reviews. The latter is much more robust to outliers and it does readers a disservice to hide the number of reviews that go into an aggregate score. Second, what is the value of 1 point? The answer is that it can vary a lot! Because games reviews are so incredibly left-skewed, moving from an aggregate score of 75 to 77 ranks you higher than 7% more games but moving from 85 to 87 only increases your rank by 3% (i.e. it's progressively MUCH harder to achieve aggregate scores per point higher than 85 than 75). An aggregate score of only 86, which you might at first glance consider "generally positive" but nothing special, actually puts you in the top 5% of all game scores. An 89 is top 1%. And finally, an average tells you nothing about the modality or variance of a game's reviews. What if reviews converged at two different modes with a sharp divide between them? A single number can't capture that at all. There are other issues but that's the gist of it. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I'll be interested to see what you come up with. I personally always try to put the score as "X% (20 reviews)" for that reason, though that breaks wikidata pulling, but hadn't thought about how it's not an even or even normal distribution. --PresN 02:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Since you asked so nicely, here's a preview. There are a couple of issues with a barebones average (arithmetic mean), which is a nice, easily agreed upon number to be sure. First, an average score of 85 based on 30 reviews is very different than an average score of 85 based on 100 reviews. The latter is much more robust to outliers and it does readers a disservice to hide the number of reviews that go into an aggregate score. Second, what is the value of 1 point? The answer is that it can vary a lot! Because games reviews are so incredibly left-skewed, moving from an aggregate score of 75 to 77 ranks you higher than 7% more games but moving from 85 to 87 only increases your rank by 3% (i.e. it's progressively MUCH harder to achieve aggregate scores per point higher than 85 than 75). An aggregate score of only 86, which you might at first glance consider "generally positive" but nothing special, actually puts you in the top 5% of all game scores. An 89 is top 1%. And finally, an average tells you nothing about the modality or variance of a game's reviews. What if reviews converged at two different modes with a sharp divide between them? A single number can't capture that at all. There are other issues but that's the gist of it. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support for the simple reason that OpenCritic is now mature enough and Metacritic should not have the "monopoly". The other reasons are just bonuses. Previously, we had GameRankings, and we don't have it anymore for new games. Previously, OpenCritic had just been launched, but it is now used much more widely and by reliable sources, such as our WP:VG/RS. I was generally neutral, leaning oppose on the last discussion, but I believe we're at a point where OpenCritic would be a good addition. I also really like their more open attitude, which is more in line with our own. Video game industry is notorious for relying too much on Metacritic (even for developer salaries!), so--while not really a content reason--Wikipedia not endorsing one or the other is a great direction. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment As far as Wikidata goes, I've gone ahead and added the data for OpenCritic to Module:Video game wikidata. Doesn't hurt anything to do so. Module:Video game reviews will automatically support wikidata for OpenCritic, once OpenCritic is a valid argument. As of yet, I'm not sure how I'll !vote on inclusion, will watch for a bit. -- ferret (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. We follow the sources, not vice versa. I would need to see more (and conclusive) discussion on how the industry's reliable sources have adopted OpenCritic in addition or in lieu of Metacritic. For what it's worth, the kerfuffle over Metacritic's closed nature is a tempest in a tea pot—if their system was abhorrent, I'd expect OpenCritic to be widely accepted by now. I (and apparently everyone else in this thread) sympathize with the mission of openness broadly construed, as it is one that the Wikipedia project shares, but that does not circumvent the fact that including the aggregator score in our articles is a recognition of a verified standard.
- Re: interpretation—we are significantly wrong to start attaching significance to the difference between 77 and 86 percent on our own. What does it actually mean to differ by that average? That's for an analyst to decide, not Wikipedia editors, and I've yet to see the proof that OpenCritic's metrics/analyses have been widely adopted by our vetted sources. Until then, I don't see a difference between 77 and 86—they're both "generally favorable, according to review aggregator Metacritic" and we should not be encouraging readers to see it as anything more.
- Re: "monopoly", I have one more thought here on authority (aside from the point about OC's acceptance and our nature as a tertiary source already covered above). The point of removing GR was twofold: (1) It often aggregated sites that we found unreliable, and (2) Its scores did not differ significantly from Metacritic's. Even today, GR is most often used on 90s games pre-Metacritic that have (hopefully) more vetted than unvetted reviewers in its amalgam. Do we need OC as an alternative? If it repeats the Metacritic data, like GR, it's just clutter. I've already made my case to the OC rep on several pages here that of course we would prefer more robust statistics and conclusions about game reputation rather than simple mighty/weak (unhelpful in my opinion) qualifiers, but I genuinely do not see the value OC brings to articles in its current form by both of the reasons why we remove GR when MC alone is adequate. That is not a monopoly but a recognition that OC does not offer something different/better/more accepted than MC. For now. On all points, the only case I currently see for OC is activism. It's a fine point—WP has done activism before—but it's also a precarious box to open. czar 21:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'll toss this one back in your court. By what metric would you consider that "the industry's reliable sources have adopted OpenCritic in addition or in lieu of Metacritic"? Based on the sources I linked, it meets my criteria so I'm curious what yours are. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- If you mean this list, I'm not impressed by the site founder's list of unreliable and user-submitted sources that use OC. I am, however, impressed by a search engine comparison of "site:polygon.com opencritic" and "site:polygon.com metacritic". The former has a single hit. Similar for IGN and GameSpot (our premier sources, per the documentation of this template) outside of their forums/boards. As a community, we should be much more careful about getting canvassed by OC's founder like this... czar 21:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not going to defend every link on the list, but when I see things like Forbes, Game Informer, Gematsu, The Escapist, and PC World on there (none of which are user-submitted, I'll have you know), I'm going to pay attention. And if we can step away from the Games Journalism Ivory Tower(tm) for a hot minute, I don't think actual player discussion should be discounted so it's notable that NeoGAF and Reddit confer equal weight to MC and OC. And call it activism if you want, but Wikipedia readers should be educated about statistics and if we can do it in the review section of a video game article, we should do it, damnit. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's clear that I was referring to the vast majority of the list as unreliable and the slew of specific NeoGAF/Reddit links as user-submitted. But even in the examples mentioned, the PC World article links (doesn't even mention) OC, the Forbes' author is a "contributor" and not the Forbes (reams have been written about Paul Tassi's reporting on our talk pages), and the rest, at best, are mentions. That's not insignificant, but it certainly isn't, for example, reliable sourcing saying "OpenCritic is as reliable/trusted a standard as Metacritic". czar 23:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I would consider the links in which OC is not mentioned as "tacit" approval/trust in the site. It's not often that a review aggregator itself becomes news, unless there's controversy like [1] or [2]. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- The owner added about a dozen more supporting links culled exclusively from sources listed at WP:VG/S. I have neither the time nor the website hosting tools to track these down as effectively as them so forgive me for leaning on their volunteering this info. Does this contribute to the sense that the industry is moving toward adoption of OC? Also worth noting that GameSpot regularly does "Review Roundups" which explicitly name MC as their sister site, so it's unlikely that OC will ever get mentioned on any CBSI site, even if it becomes bigger than sliced bread. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's clear that I was referring to the vast majority of the list as unreliable and the slew of specific NeoGAF/Reddit links as user-submitted. But even in the examples mentioned, the PC World article links (doesn't even mention) OC, the Forbes' author is a "contributor" and not the Forbes (reams have been written about Paul Tassi's reporting on our talk pages), and the rest, at best, are mentions. That's not insignificant, but it certainly isn't, for example, reliable sourcing saying "OpenCritic is as reliable/trusted a standard as Metacritic". czar 23:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- The company's founder has made numerous review threads on Reddit and NeoGAF since he created OpenCritic, in which he deliberately omits Metacritic and pushes OpenCritic. I'm pretty sure he got temporarily banned on NeoGAF at one point for over-promoting. I don't think Wikipedia should be used as a platform for legitimising OpenCritic, which is MattEnth's obvious goal here. Czar's analysis is right here. We should be following the sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ummm citation needed? And now, it seems that most review threads include it as a matter of course [3] [4] (multiple users, multiple threads, over multiple months, this can't be sockpuppetry). I don't think Wikipedia should be used as a platform for maintaining Metacritic's monopoly on review aggregation ad revenue, which we are doing for free right now de facto because we only list MC in the prime position of our review box. I think a lot of the latent opposition here is because it feels like we'd be adding OC because the founder asked us to. That's not the primary tack of my argument for inclusion and I'd ask that you discount that position in evaluating this discussion. I think OC has better tools and better data than MC and it's more transparent about it to boot. That it breaks the optics that Wikipedia has thrown in with Metacritic is a bonus. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't imply sockpuppetry. However, the founder has made plenty of review threads on reddit and NeoGAF. Here's a handful of the reddit ones: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Notice that on all of them, OpenCritic is listed first and Metacritic is absent. His Dark Souls 3 review thread was even removed by moderators for self-promotion due to spamming OpenCritic: [22]. Now, I'm not saying this is foul play or anything. Obviously he needs to get his site out there and well known on social media. My point is that it is very easy for a single user to manipulate and influence other users on forums like this. So they should not be used as a measure of OpenCritic's prevalence in the industry. Reliable sources should. I'm not really concerned about Metacritic makes money off ad revenue from traffic through Wikipedia (just like every other game website that gets used as a source...) That has 0 effect on the quality of the encyclopedia. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Most of those are from when the website was first started a year ago, when they were starting from zero recognition. See more recent threads like [23] and [24] for comparison. At this point, he barely starts threads himself. You say "manipulate and influence" as if that delegitimizes the impact somehow. If his single-user influence is so great as to become a real trend followed by many people on Reddit/NeoGAF/elsewhere, doesn't it become real enough for Wikipedia to follow suit? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- No. I could go create a bunch of review threads on forums and use Mobygames aggregate review score. If I created many reviews threads which got 1000s of views by forums readers, I guarantee other users would create review threads linking to Mobygames. This doesn't suddenly make Mobygames the de facto aggregator that we should now use in place of Metacritic on Wikipedia. That's the point I was getting across for OpenCritic. If reliable sources starting reporting OpenCritic like they do with Metacritic, then it is worth considering. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- No, it would mean that Mobygames is a de facto aggregator that people use and would find useful to be reported on alongside Metacritic. Why shouldn't it be added if people actually do the behavior in question? Under a one-aggregator system, Metacritic is problematic because it simply publishes a worse version of the stat you go there looking for, which is the simple average review score. If your argument is that Metacritic's metascore always matches the simple average, then why bother messing with a complicated and opaque formula? Further, any time the metascore fails to match the simple average becomes immediately suspect. There must be a reason for the discrepancy and there's honestly no reason that they can come up with that wouldn't smack of unfair partiality. Under a multi-aggregator system, Metacritic can be tolerated because it currently is an aggregator that people de facto use to measure the broad critical response to a game. Who are the gatekeepers for acceptance here? If it's not the people, and we insist it's not us, then who? RSes? Discounting the unreliable ones, there are still dozens of RSes linked here in the only capacity that a review aggregator could conceivably be mentioned on a games press website (i.e. a statement of fact about the current aggregate score according to X website). Axem Titanium (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think you've sufficiently made your case and we disagree for points already said succinctly. Let's give this discussion room for some new voices. czar 01:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- No, it would mean that Mobygames is a de facto aggregator that people use and would find useful to be reported on alongside Metacritic. Why shouldn't it be added if people actually do the behavior in question? Under a one-aggregator system, Metacritic is problematic because it simply publishes a worse version of the stat you go there looking for, which is the simple average review score. If your argument is that Metacritic's metascore always matches the simple average, then why bother messing with a complicated and opaque formula? Further, any time the metascore fails to match the simple average becomes immediately suspect. There must be a reason for the discrepancy and there's honestly no reason that they can come up with that wouldn't smack of unfair partiality. Under a multi-aggregator system, Metacritic can be tolerated because it currently is an aggregator that people de facto use to measure the broad critical response to a game. Who are the gatekeepers for acceptance here? If it's not the people, and we insist it's not us, then who? RSes? Discounting the unreliable ones, there are still dozens of RSes linked here in the only capacity that a review aggregator could conceivably be mentioned on a games press website (i.e. a statement of fact about the current aggregate score according to X website). Axem Titanium (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- No. I could go create a bunch of review threads on forums and use Mobygames aggregate review score. If I created many reviews threads which got 1000s of views by forums readers, I guarantee other users would create review threads linking to Mobygames. This doesn't suddenly make Mobygames the de facto aggregator that we should now use in place of Metacritic on Wikipedia. That's the point I was getting across for OpenCritic. If reliable sources starting reporting OpenCritic like they do with Metacritic, then it is worth considering. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Most of those are from when the website was first started a year ago, when they were starting from zero recognition. See more recent threads like [23] and [24] for comparison. At this point, he barely starts threads himself. You say "manipulate and influence" as if that delegitimizes the impact somehow. If his single-user influence is so great as to become a real trend followed by many people on Reddit/NeoGAF/elsewhere, doesn't it become real enough for Wikipedia to follow suit? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't imply sockpuppetry. However, the founder has made plenty of review threads on reddit and NeoGAF. Here's a handful of the reddit ones: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Notice that on all of them, OpenCritic is listed first and Metacritic is absent. His Dark Souls 3 review thread was even removed by moderators for self-promotion due to spamming OpenCritic: [22]. Now, I'm not saying this is foul play or anything. Obviously he needs to get his site out there and well known on social media. My point is that it is very easy for a single user to manipulate and influence other users on forums like this. So they should not be used as a measure of OpenCritic's prevalence in the industry. Reliable sources should. I'm not really concerned about Metacritic makes money off ad revenue from traffic through Wikipedia (just like every other game website that gets used as a source...) That has 0 effect on the quality of the encyclopedia. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ummm citation needed? And now, it seems that most review threads include it as a matter of course [3] [4] (multiple users, multiple threads, over multiple months, this can't be sockpuppetry). I don't think Wikipedia should be used as a platform for maintaining Metacritic's monopoly on review aggregation ad revenue, which we are doing for free right now de facto because we only list MC in the prime position of our review box. I think a lot of the latent opposition here is because it feels like we'd be adding OC because the founder asked us to. That's not the primary tack of my argument for inclusion and I'd ask that you discount that position in evaluating this discussion. I think OC has better tools and better data than MC and it's more transparent about it to boot. That it breaks the optics that Wikipedia has thrown in with Metacritic is a bonus. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- "I would need to see more (and conclusive) discussion on how the industry's reliable sources have adopted OpenCritic in addition or in lieu of Metacritic. For what it's worth, the kerfuffle over Metacritic's closed nature is a tempest in a tea pot—if their system was abhorrent, I'd expect OpenCritic to be widely accepted by now." I think Wikipedia should be relying on its own criteria of what a reliable source is, not whatever IGN or GameSpot's criteria are. Wikipedia should remain independent and not a puppet of ZiffDavis or CBS Interactive or whatever. I find your comments troubling. SharkD Talk 04:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- What you quote is the exact definition of a reliable source. (1) A pedigree of editorial reliability (last I checked OC was built by hobbyists, not industry pros), (2) acceptance by other RS as reliable (see above re: Polygon, IGN), and (3) some indication of quality control (OC aggregates without discern to reviewer and its co-founder, on our own talk pages, has repeated an interest in expanding to upstart hobbyist blogs without any editorial control—which is, prima facie, worse than weighted averages, but that's another discussion). So let's rely on WP's criteria of a reliable source and let's not pretend that is divorced from industry acceptance. czar 05:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's built by industry professionals who made the site in their spare time as hobbyists so... it's both? Also the hobbyist blog expansion already happened and it's their Contributor Program, which is a completely separate score that doesn't impact the main score at all. So that point is moot. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Pros meaning journalists who write about the industry, not people who develop games. If the same OC staff opened its own blog, we wouldn't consider it reliable by virtue of the staff's pedigree. czar 06:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- There's the issue of neutrality, however. Metacritic (CBS Interactive) is citing itself (Gamespot) as a reliable source. I don't think we can count on them being 100% impartial under these circumstances. Metacritic is not a separate disinterested party. I mean, even Wikipedia is not able to cite itself, per our own rules. This is an unimportant issue to too many Wikipedians, IMO. SharkD Talk 06:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- The fact that other magazines (Polygon, Giant Bomb, whatever) don't consider this an issue either is disturbing. SharkD Talk 06:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that's a red herring. If you think CBS should be investigated for rigging Metacritic's scores in favor of its subsidiaries (without showing evidence whereof...), that's well outside our purview and definitely outside this discussion's scope. And you already quoted my thoughts on that matter. Point remains that OC is uncontroversially not a reliable source. czar 07:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- It behooves me to point out that OC is not uncontroversially unreliable (ha! Sort out that triple negative!). Axem Titanium (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Why exactly are we discussing whether to use OpenCritic as a review aggregate source when we haven't made consensus on its reliability? GamerPro64 22:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that's a red herring. If you think CBS should be investigated for rigging Metacritic's scores in favor of its subsidiaries (without showing evidence whereof...), that's well outside our purview and definitely outside this discussion's scope. And you already quoted my thoughts on that matter. Point remains that OC is uncontroversially not a reliable source. czar 07:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- The fact that other magazines (Polygon, Giant Bomb, whatever) don't consider this an issue either is disturbing. SharkD Talk 06:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's built by industry professionals who made the site in their spare time as hobbyists so... it's both? Also the hobbyist blog expansion already happened and it's their Contributor Program, which is a completely separate score that doesn't impact the main score at all. So that point is moot. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- What you quote is the exact definition of a reliable source. (1) A pedigree of editorial reliability (last I checked OC was built by hobbyists, not industry pros), (2) acceptance by other RS as reliable (see above re: Polygon, IGN), and (3) some indication of quality control (OC aggregates without discern to reviewer and its co-founder, on our own talk pages, has repeated an interest in expanding to upstart hobbyist blogs without any editorial control—which is, prima facie, worse than weighted averages, but that's another discussion). So let's rely on WP's criteria of a reliable source and let's not pretend that is divorced from industry acceptance. czar 05:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'll toss this one back in your court. By what metric would you consider that "the industry's reliable sources have adopted OpenCritic in addition or in lieu of Metacritic"? Based on the sources I linked, it meets my criteria so I'm curious what yours are. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support. I don't think OpenCritic is controversial, and I don't like a monopoly. A monopoly limits our ability to remain objective and critical about the world we see around us. I don't think Wikipedia should sacrifice its independence from the corporate media just because some editors find a little bit of edit warring annoying. SharkD Talk 04:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- I started taking notes on this subject: User:SharkD/Arguments/GameRankings vs. Metacritic vs. OpenCritic. SharkD Talk 21:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- A thought: What does it mean for a review aggregator to be "reliable"? If the requirement is to include only RSes in its aggregate, then all aggregators fail. Mostly RSes? That's a sticky argument to have to pin down an exact % and different games will have different %s of RS reviews even within one aggregator. I think an aggregator is reliable if it 1) has wide coverage of the data space for the reviews of a game, the wider the better in fact because the point of aggregators is to provide the highest possible bird's eye view of the data. Any of our personal editorial judgments about individual reviews' reliability is artificially injecting a bias into the data. And 2) it accurately quotes the score from the review. I don't think anything else matters in terms of reliability of aggregators. I don't think we criticize Rotten Tomatoes for including every local newspaper review, do we? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think WP:VG pathologically tries to align itself with IGN and other McGaming Journalism sites. There is no neutral view. SharkD Talk 22:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- A thought: What does it mean for a review aggregator to be "reliable"? If the requirement is to include only RSes in its aggregate, then all aggregators fail. Mostly RSes? That's a sticky argument to have to pin down an exact % and different games will have different %s of RS reviews even within one aggregator. I think an aggregator is reliable if it 1) has wide coverage of the data space for the reviews of a game, the wider the better in fact because the point of aggregators is to provide the highest possible bird's eye view of the data. Any of our personal editorial judgments about individual reviews' reliability is artificially injecting a bias into the data. And 2) it accurately quotes the score from the review. I don't think anything else matters in terms of reliability of aggregators. I don't think we criticize Rotten Tomatoes for including every local newspaper review, do we? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support, per above arguments. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I think this discussion is a bit of a jump ahead. Putting the cart before the horse. The argument is essentially that we should add OpenCritic to the template as a balance against Metacritic, at least that's my take. But we shouldn't even be having this conversation, for one very important reason: No one has discussed or deemed OpenCritic to be a reliable source. And beyond that, in regards to the template, we should be asking, "Is this reviewer/aggregator commonly used and inserted into articles, warranting a place in the template?" It's not used in any articles except No Man's Sky, and even there its used inappropriately to discuss the OpenCritic community (I.e. WP:USERGenerated) reaction. I never see any editors add it to articles, not even drive by first time editors who like to come by and add GameRankings repeatedly in clear cases where WP:VGAGG supports its omission. The ability to use OpenCritic with this template doesn't preclude it being used in articles, the simple fact is: No one is using it. We shouldn't be "forcing" adoption by adding it to the template, we should be reacting to general adoption by editors as a source. And that just isn't happening yet. If a bunch of articles were already using OpenCritic through the agg1 and agg1Score parameters, I'd support the case for its inclusion. The fact (I know I'm repeating myself) is that it's simply not used. -- ferret (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I wasn't even aware that you could add a custom aggregator until you just pointed it out. To me, your latter argument feels tautological because it's basically saying it's not used because it's not used. Custom reviews and aggregators are implicitly discouraged because they lack the authority inherent in publications that are already hardcoded into the template. It seems backwards to expect editors to custom fill it in as a prerequisite to being added here, and as far as I know, that has never been a requirement for adding something to this template. As for your former argument, I asserted OpenCritic's reliability in my opening statement by citing examples of it being trusted explicitly and implicitly by other VG/RSes. To be unconvinced of its reliability based on my examples is one thing, but to say no one has ever discussed it is quite another. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- With respect to NMS, I don't see anything wrong with its mention in that article. OpenCritic was acting in the capacity of a news outlet by reporting the lack of review copies, based on information from their sources. They also report review embargo dates as news to a high degree of reliability. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- We decline several reviewer parameter requests a year, generally based on their limited scope or lack of usage. Meanwhile, custom reviewer parameters are frequently used, even by SPA editors. Beyond that, even without using the template, I want to stress that it is simply not used ANYWHERE. OpenCritic is in exactly four articles, and only one of those is a video game (And even there, it is used about the review copies, not about review scores). Even without the template, drive by editors frequently drop their favorite blog reviews and the like into reception sections all the time. I don't see any evidence that this kind of usage or adoption exists for OpenCritic. I stand by my position that this template isn't the place to drive adoption. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm looking through the talk archives and I can't find a single instance where "lack of use" is cited as a decline reason (or "widespread use in the custom field" as an inclusion reason, for that matter). Meanwhile, there was a proposal to deprecate the custom aggregator parameter here, the result of which is that field was manually emptied. Even the original discussion to add the custom aggregator field explicitly cautioned against using it but that caveat seems to have been lost when it was implemented and documented in the actual template. Also, there's inherently less enthusiasm for SPAs/drive-bys to add "your favorite aggregator" because there are fewer of them and the promotion/self-promotion of your favorite blog personality aspect is diminished. In all, I find the "lack of use" argument highly suspect, between the lack of strong "fandom" (for lack of a better word) around aggregators and the inertia of needing the obscure custom aggregator field to even use it. Are you asking me or others to start adding it to articles to drive adoption? I think inclusion on the template absolutely drives adoption and the path to inclusion has never included evidence of adoption. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I appreciate your position, and I absolutely agree with you: adding it to the template WOULD drive adoption. My position is that we SHOULD NOT be using the template for that purpose. This template doesn't stop anyone from adding OpenCritic to prose or leads or wherever else. To me, the lack of any use or activity around the source in mainspace is an issue. Why is no one using it, at all? If no one has ever argued that point in the past, it's a bit moot: I am now. My question to you would be: What has stopped you personally from using OpenCritic in articles? I don't think "The template doesn't support it" is really a strong argument. The template isn't even required for reception sections. -- ferret (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- If you're asking me specifically, it's because before now, I was not aware that the custom parameter existed and even if I had known, I probably would have been dissuaded by its lack of official inclusion in the template. If you're saying it's fine, I'm happy to begin including it in places where I find it is appropriate. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not endorsing it as a reliable source or anything (I leave that to your own discretion or WP:VG/S), but from the view point that you feel the template is dictating what you can use in prose, I completely support you including it where you feel appropriate. The template should never be viewed as a restriction on which reviewers (or aggregators) can be in prose, only their reliability as a source should matter. The template is only suppose to contain reviews that are used in prose anyways (Per documentation). Prose > Template. -- ferret (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sure there's a feeling that since GR is still getting deleted from articles, a custom aggregator will not last much longer. SharkD Talk 22:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Which is a good point, why get GR deleted as alternative to MC? I also don't understood why we granted MC a monopoly for free in the first place.... Shaddim (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sure there's a feeling that since GR is still getting deleted from articles, a custom aggregator will not last much longer. SharkD Talk 22:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not endorsing it as a reliable source or anything (I leave that to your own discretion or WP:VG/S), but from the view point that you feel the template is dictating what you can use in prose, I completely support you including it where you feel appropriate. The template should never be viewed as a restriction on which reviewers (or aggregators) can be in prose, only their reliability as a source should matter. The template is only suppose to contain reviews that are used in prose anyways (Per documentation). Prose > Template. -- ferret (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- If you're asking me specifically, it's because before now, I was not aware that the custom parameter existed and even if I had known, I probably would have been dissuaded by its lack of official inclusion in the template. If you're saying it's fine, I'm happy to begin including it in places where I find it is appropriate. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I appreciate your position, and I absolutely agree with you: adding it to the template WOULD drive adoption. My position is that we SHOULD NOT be using the template for that purpose. This template doesn't stop anyone from adding OpenCritic to prose or leads or wherever else. To me, the lack of any use or activity around the source in mainspace is an issue. Why is no one using it, at all? If no one has ever argued that point in the past, it's a bit moot: I am now. My question to you would be: What has stopped you personally from using OpenCritic in articles? I don't think "The template doesn't support it" is really a strong argument. The template isn't even required for reception sections. -- ferret (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm looking through the talk archives and I can't find a single instance where "lack of use" is cited as a decline reason (or "widespread use in the custom field" as an inclusion reason, for that matter). Meanwhile, there was a proposal to deprecate the custom aggregator parameter here, the result of which is that field was manually emptied. Even the original discussion to add the custom aggregator field explicitly cautioned against using it but that caveat seems to have been lost when it was implemented and documented in the actual template. Also, there's inherently less enthusiasm for SPAs/drive-bys to add "your favorite aggregator" because there are fewer of them and the promotion/self-promotion of your favorite blog personality aspect is diminished. In all, I find the "lack of use" argument highly suspect, between the lack of strong "fandom" (for lack of a better word) around aggregators and the inertia of needing the obscure custom aggregator field to even use it. Are you asking me or others to start adding it to articles to drive adoption? I think inclusion on the template absolutely drives adoption and the path to inclusion has never included evidence of adoption. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- We decline several reviewer parameter requests a year, generally based on their limited scope or lack of usage. Meanwhile, custom reviewer parameters are frequently used, even by SPA editors. Beyond that, even without using the template, I want to stress that it is simply not used ANYWHERE. OpenCritic is in exactly four articles, and only one of those is a video game (And even there, it is used about the review copies, not about review scores). Even without the template, drive by editors frequently drop their favorite blog reviews and the like into reception sections all the time. I don't see any evidence that this kind of usage or adoption exists for OpenCritic. I stand by my position that this template isn't the place to drive adoption. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- support, no substance and reason for an unhealthy metacritic monopoly. we should remain neutral and open to alternative significant (minority) interperations of the reality. Limiting ourselves to MC is the opposite of that. Shaddim (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Still doesn't address the fact that OC has not been deemed a reliable source in the first place. Tackle that first, at WT:VG or WT:VG/S, before seeking templates changes. That remains my position. -- ferret (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Firstly, I disagree as to OC being reliable. Secondly, what we've achieved here is consensus, and I think that should take precedence. SharkD Talk 19:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't really see a consensus, but anyone is free to request an uninvolved editor to read the discussion and perform a close. When I last checked, OpenCritic was only used on about 4 articles, and is now only used on 2. Still not seeing any adoption as a source within prose that warrants inclusion into the template. Again, remember the template should only include reviewers that are covered by the prose. So if it's not used in any prose..... -- ferret (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Firstly, I disagree as to OC being reliable. Secondly, what we've achieved here is consensus, and I think that should take precedence. SharkD Talk 19:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Still doesn't address the fact that OC has not been deemed a reliable source in the first place. Tackle that first, at WT:VG or WT:VG/S, before seeking templates changes. That remains my position. -- ferret (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
RfC on OpenCritic
I would like to start a formal RfC on the question of allowing OpenCritic in this template. Please indicate below whether support this or not. SharkD Talk 20:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging @Axem Titanium:, @GamerPro64:, @The1337gamer:, @PresN:, @Hellknowz:, @Ferret:, @Czar:, @Dissident93:, @Shaddim:. SharkD Talk 23:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I think the quality of this site is just as good or better than Metacritic. It is focused solely on video game reviews, and is more transparent, showing graphs and charts and so forth. This would also balance the exposure sites like Metacritic get at no cost from Wikipedia. SharkD Talk 20:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Opposed For the reasons I stated in the above section. OpenCritic has not been vetted by the project as a reliable source, despite numerous suggestions to those seeking it's inclusion that it be taken to WP:VG/S first. Secondly, discussion has focused on adding it to the template, rather than discussing it's use in general more broadly with the VG project, which requires changes to WPVG guidelines such as WP:VGAGG. Thirdly, this template should reflect a need to make it easy to use common sources that often appear in articles. OpenCritic is currently used in exactly two articles, including its own. This template's documentation requires that aggregators or reviews listed in it be used within prose, and it already supports the ability to list OpenCritic in those articles where it makes sense, through the use of the agg1 and agg1Score parameters. This source simply has seen no adoption within the project or the readership, and the template should not be used to try to drive such adoption. -- ferret (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- But do we stick with one site if reliable sources say the other site is better? There have been numerous complaints in reliable sources about Metacritic.[25][26][27] Do we ignore the superior site (according to reliable sources) because the other site is more popular? SharkD Talk 15:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- You're basically asking "Isn't OpenCritic a more reliable source than Metacritic?" As I've continuously brought up, this talk page is for discussion of changes to the template, and is the improper venue for discussing reliability. WP:VG/S is (Or alternatively the RS notice board), and there is now a discussion there about the reliability of OpenCritic, separate from THIS RFC, which doesn't even ask for editors to evaluate reliability, a core policy. Until the reliability question is settled, changing the template shouldn't even be discussed. -- ferret (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- My post was in response to yours. And, there are plenty of other posts in this RfC discussing reliability, not just mine. SharkD Talk 15:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- You're basically asking "Isn't OpenCritic a more reliable source than Metacritic?" As I've continuously brought up, this talk page is for discussion of changes to the template, and is the improper venue for discussing reliability. WP:VG/S is (Or alternatively the RS notice board), and there is now a discussion there about the reliability of OpenCritic, separate from THIS RFC, which doesn't even ask for editors to evaluate reliability, a core policy. Until the reliability question is settled, changing the template shouldn't even be discussed. -- ferret (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- But do we stick with one site if reliable sources say the other site is better? There have been numerous complaints in reliable sources about Metacritic.[25][26][27] Do we ignore the superior site (according to reliable sources) because the other site is more popular? SharkD Talk 15:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. I think this was adequately covered in the above, recent discussion. OpenCritic doesn't have widespread adoption in our reliable sources and as a tertiary source, we follow their lead, not vice versa. I also agree with Ferret that this review template, in specific, follows general adoption across the encyclopedia (and popular media), and OC has not shown such adoption. But even if this RfC were to be about using OC as a source (and not just this template), I'd refer to my original point about its usage in secondary sources, which has been sufficiently elaborated at length in the previous discussion. czar 21:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support of the usage of open critic; reliable/good enough. More general and important, the existing usage monopoly of Metacritic is against our goal of being independent, NPOV and granting due balance the whole spectrum of interpretations. About the argument "we don't lead we follow": this should mean that we should not step forward with such drastic measures like granting a monopoly to a single information provider when the outside world relies on a multitude of sources, yes, even from us as "unreliable" classified ones. We should follow them here instead of taking the lead by trying to establish standards "better/more strict" than in the outside reality. Shaddim (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - per Ferret and Czar. Sergecross73 msg me 00:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose: I am not seeing OpenCritics being discussed by reliable sources the same way as they do for Metacritic. AdrianGamer (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support inclusion, but with the cavaet that only one aggregate should be used and if MC has a score available, it should be used first and foremost. --MASEM (t) 02:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Ferret and Czar have summed up my thoughts. Metacritic is widely adopted by reliable sources. The predefined fields in templates are for websites that are already used frequently on Wikipedia articles and OpenCritic isn't. The template and Wikipedia itself should not be used to increase the exposure of a website that hasn't yet been adopted by the industry. --The1337gamer (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. The scores from OpenCritic and Metacritic are almost in equal, and as a thing for rough description, Metacritic is enough. Whether OpenCritic is reliable or not, add a same thing to the template is unnecessary.--A Sword in the Wind (talk | changes) 08:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support, I've already spelled out my reasoning amply above. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Towards the end of the discussion above, you and I went down a line of discussion about including it in prose first, and that the template does not dictate whats allowed in prose. I still see zero efforts by supporters of OpenCritic to integrate this source into prose. OC cannot be used in the template if it's not in prose. Is there any particular reason you haven't added it anywhere since? There's only one article that could even use an "OC" parameter at this time, and it is already using agg1/agg1Score for that purpose. -- ferret (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- The particular reason is that I've had virtually no time to spend on Wikipedia in the past few months, as can be seen by my edit history. I only noticed this discussion due to the ping. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Towards the end of the discussion above, you and I went down a line of discussion about including it in prose first, and that the template does not dictate whats allowed in prose. I still see zero efforts by supporters of OpenCritic to integrate this source into prose. OC cannot be used in the template if it's not in prose. Is there any particular reason you haven't added it anywhere since? There's only one article that could even use an "OC" parameter at this time, and it is already using agg1/agg1Score for that purpose. -- ferret (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose: Per above points. TarkusAB 17:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose: Per above opposition. Despite what I said previous, the industry standard is Metacritic, not OpenCritic or GameRankings. Both of which are mostly redundant as well, and don't offer anything that Metacritic doesn't. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Here from RSN. Adds nothing per above comments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. Although I like OpenCritic, it does nothing Metacritic doesn't already do. Metacritic is more widespread, and I think OpenCritic will need to become more well-known before we start replacing stuff with it or adding it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Although I personally support the spreading of the usage of OC over MC, there is no denying that Wikipedia, as a tertiary source (technically quatenary in the case), must resolve to use the aggregator that is still considered "industry standard". We cannot decide to use one over another, because Wikipedia doesn't decide things, it only reflects what is used amongst reliable sources. Re Shaddim's "
the existing usage monopoly of Metacritic is against our goal of being independent, NPOV and granting due balance the whole spectrum of interpretations. About the argument "we don't lead we follow": this should mean that we should not step forward with such drastic measures like granting a monopoly to a single information provider when the outside world relies on a multitude of sources, yes, even from us as "unreliable" classified ones
" -- There is no reason for Wikipedia to evaluate the merits or (dis)advantages of OC vs. MC; Wikipedia should only ever evaluate what is being used the most in reliable sources.. "we" are not granting monopoly to MC, we are following the monopoly of its usage amongst reliable sources. And that remains MC for the time being. Advocates for OC should stop trying to change Wikipedia's mind and start changing the industry's mind first. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Commodore Amiga
Is there a particular reason why some older consoles (Such as the Amiga) isn't included on the list of consoles? I see the Atari Lynx and 2600 are, but not the Atari ST.
Could they be added? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- For the multi-system format? Is there a particular article you need to use it? Generally, many of us frown on using that format anyways, as it tends to result in large tables with many holes in it. -- ferret (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Italicization
Gaming magazine and website names should both be italicized. It appears you are only italicizing the former. SharkD Talk 22:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- SharkD, don't act like this hasn't been discussed ad nauseam...
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Italic type
- November 2007: Template_talk:Video game reviews/Archive 1#Bad template
- May 2014: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 106#Italics in vg reviews
- March 2014 – March 2015: Template talk:Video game reviews/Archive 3#Loss of italics in Lua transition
- May 2015: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 113#RFC: Italics for websites
- August 2016: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 124#On gaming website italics or not...
- Please read and reconsider your request:☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Um, in this template, he's basically right. It might be reasonable for the aggregators to be normal text (since those produce no particular original work), but each and every one of the others assigning a review, since those constitute parts of the larger works (which are the websites), should be italicized. Per every single one of those discussions, and most especially SMC's contribution to the most-recent discussion. Masem, Axem, myself, and SMC are all in accord, and I think czar was willing to let it go from there, and we even now have the guidance at both MOS and WP:VG/STYLE that these should be italicized. @Salvidrim!: Tone it down a notch. --Izno (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry if I sounded a bit irritated, I just feel like this is nearing WP:PERENNIAL levels of rehashing, but maybe I'm completely wrong. It just seems like we haven't gone even a year recently without re-affirming "print publications are italicized, websites aren't". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Salvidrim!: Because "print publications are italicized, websites aren't" isn't the consensus; all major works should be italicized. It looks like you need to reread both the discussions and the applicable guidelines. --Izno (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- *embarrassed and apologetic emoji* ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Salvidrim!: Because "print publications are italicized, websites aren't" isn't the consensus; all major works should be italicized. It looks like you need to reread both the discussions and the applicable guidelines. --Izno (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry if I sounded a bit irritated, I just feel like this is nearing WP:PERENNIAL levels of rehashing, but maybe I'm completely wrong. It just seems like we haven't gone even a year recently without re-affirming "print publications are italicized, websites aren't". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Um, in this template, he's basically right. It might be reasonable for the aggregators to be normal text (since those produce no particular original work), but each and every one of the others assigning a review, since those constitute parts of the larger works (which are the websites), should be italicized. Per every single one of those discussions, and most especially SMC's contribution to the most-recent discussion. Masem, Axem, myself, and SMC are all in accord, and I think czar was willing to let it go from there, and we even now have the guidance at both MOS and WP:VG/STYLE that these should be italicized. @Salvidrim!: Tone it down a notch. --Izno (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, so if I dig into the recesses of my memory, I recall this template's italics formatting going to hell after it was converted to Lua, and we've been manually converting most of the publication/website parameters to display in italics as needed (with IGN and other "networks" at notable holdouts, though those pubs are cited as creative works). Are we talking about just displaying all publication titles in italics by default (finally)? Sounds like that would be easier than adding italics formatting to each pub parameter, but I'll leave that to the implementer. @Ferret? czar 15:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't implement this template in Lua. However, Izno appears to already be working on the Lua module's sandbox to fix italicization on some entries. The Lua module has a table for each reviewer, and italics can be applied individually as needed (Including to all). -- ferret (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Czar and Ferret: I've converted the rest of them now in the sandbox data module. I would like to have a one-off "italicize everything" in the main module, but some publications have parenthetical statements of the
Work (place)sort e.g. PSM (UK). If we want, we can tweak the data table to add another value for each key to pull the place into a separate value, with a subsequent code change in the main module both to process the new column and input it into the wikilink for each publication, but I think what's there now is probably Good Enough. --Izno (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Czar and Ferret: I've converted the rest of them now in the sandbox data module. I would like to have a one-off "italicize everything" in the main module, but some publications have parenthetical statements of the
- I didn't implement this template in Lua. However, Izno appears to already be working on the Lua module's sandbox to fix italicization on some entries. The Lua module has a table for each reviewer, and italics can be applied individually as needed (Including to all). -- ferret (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think we should make exceptions for IGN or Metacritic. Just make them all italicized. SharkD Talk 19:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Czar, Izno, and Ferret: Did anything ever come of this? The topic was brought up by Alexandra IDV here a day ago (second collapsed box). Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pretty sure full italicization was implemented last year, but if we missed some, call 'em out czar 03:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, that's my bad. Turns out the ones that weren't in italics on Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine were custom ones. I've given italics to all publications on the doc which appear in italics in the template as some were forgotten. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
GamesRadar
Minor request, but GamesRadar should now be GamesRadar+. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'd consider the plus symbol a stylization, regardless of whatever's happening at the GamesRadar+ article. Other sites don't use the plus in reference to the publication. czar 02:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Czar. --Izno (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well then the article should be moved back for the same reasons, yes? Looks like @Lordtobi: moved it last October. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- GamesRadar merged with twi other sites, TotalFilm and SFX, in September 2014,[28] and the site was subsequntly renamed GamesRadar+ to reflect this expansion, in November 2014.[29] Hence, this was an actual renaming and not just a stylization change, wherefore the article move (which occured over two years late) is also valid. I agree with Dissident that the name here should be adjusted, but the article should not be moved back. Lordtobi (✉) 09:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- The article is now renamed as GamesRadar+, FYI. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- BTW, how do I make an edit request to change the article name on the template from GamesRadar to GamesRadar+? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Angeldeb82: Since this discussion has stood still for a month, I went ahead and updated it in the table. Can be reverted if opposed and if necessary. Lordtobi (✉) 10:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- GamesRadar merged with twi other sites, TotalFilm and SFX, in September 2014,[28] and the site was subsequntly renamed GamesRadar+ to reflect this expansion, in November 2014.[29] Hence, this was an actual renaming and not just a stylization change, wherefore the article move (which occured over two years late) is also valid. I agree with Dissident that the name here should be adjusted, but the article should not be moved back. Lordtobi (✉) 09:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Pocket Gamer and Cubed3
Upon researching various DS games I came upon websites called Pocket Gamer and Cubed3. I see that both sites are rather common as they appear in the top 10 of searches when it comes to DS games reviews via Google. Yet, those 2 sites are not included into our Video game reviews template (which they should). Is it possible to add those 2 somehow? They seem like valid RS for DS games to me. Any thoughts @Ferret:?--Biografer (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- I would add both Gamezebo and Pocket Gamer, both very big with iPhone and Android.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.183.49 (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't remember being pinged on this, maybe missed it. Both Pocket Gamer and Gamezebo are reliable sources per WP:VG/S. Cubed3 is not. -- ferret (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Ordering
This template needs to present the consoles in chronological order, not alphabetical order, since the chronology of releases is more relevant than arbitrary alphabetical ordering. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 03:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- First, that would extreme difficult to implement via template, templates really can't sort on data. Second, I strongly disagree that the "order" has any importance. I do recognize there are situations where a site holds off on a review until after a certain patch or fix is added, so the later reviews may be more reasonable, but that should be noted in prose, its too difficult to discuss in text. --Masem (t) 03:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- I must respectfully disagree. For games which are classics, console order in reviews is extremely important. Take Donkey Kong Country (the article I am currently working on) for example. The SNES version was the original release. The GBC and GBA ports were 5+ years later, and the scores for them are influenced by the quality and the reputation of the original SNES version. For newer games, this is probably less true, but for older games, it's essential. I can see your point about consoles, and different game versions, but I'm talking about generational differences. I can see two separate possible solutions if it's too hard to have it sort by console release date: manual ordering, based on the order the consoles are declared true, or year of release as an optional part of the console parameter initialization. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 03:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- So what if a game was released on newer consoles before an older one? It happens. Personally still in favor of scrapping the "multi-system" option in this template. It's almost always a mess of mostly empty cells. -- ferret (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- +1 Amen. czar 02:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- That's why I suggested solutions which would be driven by the template initialization. The first one would probably be easier to implement, but might mess with a bunch of templates, which is why I suggested the second option, which wouldn't affect existing templates. For some games it is important (particularly games with multiple distinct ports—these are major resolution, sound quality, even a bit of level design differences in DKC, for example), but for newer games, probably less so, as I said. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 12:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Edit: I will make a distinction. In my DKC example, I'm completely in favor of removing the Wii option from the consoles, since the Wii version is literally the virtual console emulated version of the the SNES version. Reviews for that should really fall under the SNES version, since the Wii virtual console is a sufficiently non-buggy emulator. I only care about the console-specific reviews when the differences are significant. I don't really care about the minute differences between two versions released around the same time. But consoles should be an option in the template. Some game's ports aren't notable enough to merit their own page, but they are notable enough to have significantly different review scores. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 12:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not personally interested on working towards this, since I'm not a fan of the multi-system table anyway. Even here, there's bunches of empty N/A cells. My personal recommendations is to just abandon the format and use the standard list style that most VGs use, which of course would let you list them in whatever order you want. I.e. one parameter per reviewer with system abbr designated in front. -- ferret (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of that. It looks cleaner. It's already used like that on some articles. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 13:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not personally interested on working towards this, since I'm not a fan of the multi-system table anyway. Even here, there's bunches of empty N/A cells. My personal recommendations is to just abandon the format and use the standard list style that most VGs use, which of course would let you list them in whatever order you want. I.e. one parameter per reviewer with system abbr designated in front. -- ferret (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- So what if a game was released on newer consoles before an older one? It happens. Personally still in favor of scrapping the "multi-system" option in this template. It's almost always a mess of mostly empty cells. -- ferret (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- I must respectfully disagree. For games which are classics, console order in reviews is extremely important. Take Donkey Kong Country (the article I am currently working on) for example. The SNES version was the original release. The GBC and GBA ports were 5+ years later, and the scores for them are influenced by the quality and the reputation of the original SNES version. For newer games, this is probably less true, but for older games, it's essential. I can see your point about consoles, and different game versions, but I'm talking about generational differences. I can see two separate possible solutions if it's too hard to have it sort by console release date: manual ordering, based on the order the consoles are declared true, or year of release as an optional part of the console parameter initialization. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 03:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 18 March 2018
 | This edit request to Module:Video game reviews/data has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please, add the following systems:
{'[[Neo Geo (system)|Neo Geo]]','NG'},
{'[[Neo Geo CD]]','NGCD'},
{'[[Neo Geo Pocket]]','NGP'},
{'[[Neo Geo Pocket Color]]','NGPC'},
{'[[WonderSwan]]','WS'},
{'[[WonderSwan Color]]','WSC'},
ThiagoSimoes (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Please make the required changes to Module:Video game reviews/data/sandbox and reactivate the request — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Rowspan appears to be broken on mobile view
The rowspan added to the publication cell in the example provided in Multi-platform -> Usage does not display properly in mobile and causes the table to be misaligned --Selketdaly (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- See this example on the test case page --Selketdaly (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Actually it's more than just that. Most of the test cases have issues when viewed on the mobile site, including the last row not being bordered. -- ferret (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 9 June 2018
| This edit request to Template:Video game reviews has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- Computer Gaming World needs to be citable without copying the very confusing typo in this template. The "CWG" code needs to stay (it's already on hundreds or thousands of WP articles), but add "CGW" as an alternative.
- Add Computer Games Magazine ("CGM") to the template—one of the most important and recognizable computer game magazines, already cited on hundreds of Wikipedia articles.
- Add Computer Games Strategy Plus ("CGSP") to the template—the name of Computer Games Magazine until 2000. This is because it would make no sense to cite CGSP-era issues as "Computer Games Magazine". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. Additionally, I will run AWB to fix CWG -> CGW. Lordtobi (✉) 22:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Much appreciated! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 29 June 2018
| This edit request to Template:Video game reviews has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer to the list of consoles. The code "3DO" should do just fine, and it's commonly called 3DO so that can be how it's displayed in the template. TarkusABtalk 02:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Done I can't believe we have like the N-Gage but didn't have 3DO. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Pocket gamer
Could Pocket Gamer be added in as "PG"?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Can someone add ACE Magazine to the reviewers publication list please, cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Lordtobi (✉) 13:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Could do with adding it on the Code list. Govvy (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Is there code for Raze Magazine? Or is it not on the list? Govvy (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- The list in the doc is definetly outdated, you can check the full version here. Lordtobi (✉) 14:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Lordtobi: Doesn't look like Raze mag is in the list, was trying to add scores for old games earlier, maybe we can add that too, cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- The magazine ran for just 12 months, consider using the custom |rev= parameters for this instead. Lordtobi (✉) 17:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Lordtobi: Doesn't look like Raze mag is in the list, was trying to add scores for old games earlier, maybe we can add that too, cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
USgamer
Can we add a dedicated USgamer parameter to the template? While still the US branch of Eurogamer, they still provide scores (Eurogamer hasn't for a while) and are located on a different URL. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Done (code is USG). Lordtobi (✉) 17:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Perfect, thanks. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
PCGamesN
Requesting that PCGamesN be added to the list, as its on the WP:VG/RS list and gives out review scores. Key would be PCGN. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- Dissident93, done, key is 'PCGN'. Lordtobi (✉) 22:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion: Add the Metacritic User Score value to the Template
The Video game reviews template currently reports on a range of different review values captured into wikidata, but there is no aggregated User Score; which tends to be currently the most accurate reflection of the overall player rating. Is it possible to add this as a new field, perhaps with a (number of ratings) for context? For example, Fallout 76 would have a User Rating of 2.7 (4720). Aeonx (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Aeonx, user scores one high-visibility sites like these are not and have never been reliable for various reasons, primarily that Metacritic does not verify whether user reviewers habe actually played the game, and criticizing players give as bad reviews as possible to give their opinion more visibility. Especially with Fallout 76, this poses a great problem, as people are complaining about the game and writing 0/10 reviews without even having played or purchased the game. Same goes for Artifact, where people complain about its monetization system (without having bought the game), and on Big Rigs, where people are opposingly giving he game 10/10 reviews because apparently it is the best game ever made. WP:USERG was implemented specifically to prevent the inclusion of such unencyclopedic content; at most, we quote another reliable secondary source that has talked about fan reception in prose. Lordtobi (✉) 00:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- {u|Lordtobi}}, I read WP:USERG to be about user-generated content. What we're talking about here is not really user generated, but a computerised statistical aggregation of user reviews; which is completely different. What you are saying amounts to opinion polls also being unencyclopedic. If we can accept that the results of an opinion poll are in fact encyclopedic; I think there is no argument here. The question of reliability is also a null point, you could make the EXACT same comment about any of the "critic" reviews too. I mean, how do you know they have actually played the game? Reliability is one thing, venerability is another. There have been numerous times when it's been found out they haven't and they simply create a review for money or a free copy. General users on the other hand are less likely to be biased by such things. Whilst it is true that any user can leave a review, they do have to register to do so. I think it's important statistic information that needs to be presented in Wikipedia video game articles; and I don't accept that the WP:USERG is grounds not to implement it. Aeonx (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Aeonx, there are striking differences between opinion polls and user Metascores: Polls are curated manually by larger companies (not aggregated automatically without any curation), are presented to people whom it concerns (not random people who might just as well have never had to do with the problem), and score based on a yes/no scheme (not a 0-10 score).
- On Metacritic, people who think their opinion matters more than others' give scores in either extremety. Some might also create bot accounts to post multiple reviews of such kind, manipulating the score further. In such scenarios, the louder people win (I guess that's equivalent to Populism), and that's not something we want to reflect here. This does not happen with critic scores because they literally have a multi-page in-depth review associated with their score, and have to be accepted by Metacritic, with policies similar to ours, beforehand.
- Yes, fan reception for Fallout 76 was negative, but Metacritic scores are not the way to go. I really have no interest in continuing this discussion by this point as it was already handled at lengths on Fallout 76's talk page, also to disagreement. If you really need to reflect user reception, look for a reliable secondary source that has talked about the issue and include that, and consider WP:STICK-ing Metacritic user scores. Lordtobi (✉) 07:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm confident enough to state this clearly: You'll never have consensus to add user-submitted reviews or scores to this template, from any source or site. They run afoul of WP:USERG, and we only mention them in cases where secondary sources mention it. The recent Battlefront II is an example because secondary reliable sources made mention of the all time lows for that game's user Metacritic score. Same for Mass Effect Andromeda. If you want them mentioned in Fallout 76, you're going to have to find a secondary source that took note, which so far no one has found. This template will never include them. -- ferret (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- {u|Lordtobi}}, I read WP:USERG to be about user-generated content. What we're talking about here is not really user generated, but a computerised statistical aggregation of user reviews; which is completely different. What you are saying amounts to opinion polls also being unencyclopedic. If we can accept that the results of an opinion poll are in fact encyclopedic; I think there is no argument here. The question of reliability is also a null point, you could make the EXACT same comment about any of the "critic" reviews too. I mean, how do you know they have actually played the game? Reliability is one thing, venerability is another. There have been numerous times when it's been found out they haven't and they simply create a review for money or a free copy. General users on the other hand are less likely to be biased by such things. Whilst it is true that any user can leave a review, they do have to register to do so. I think it's important statistic information that needs to be presented in Wikipedia video game articles; and I don't accept that the WP:USERG is grounds not to implement it. Aeonx (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Can we add this to the template? Suggesting that the key should be JV.com JOEBRO64 16:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Would support this. --Masem (t) 17:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Key should just be JV for simplicity's sake, otherwise I support it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- How about the code "JXV"? X becuase of the plural, and it keeps it in line with other three-character codes. Lordtobi (✉) 18:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine, I just didn't see the need for .com ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah the only reason I suggested it with a ".com" was because that's how I'm used to seeing it. I'd be fine with either JV or JXV JOEBRO64 22:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine, I just didn't see the need for .com ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Lordtobi (✉) 10:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
TouchArcade
Could TouchArcade be added to the reviewers list? They're listed under WP:VG/RS and give ratings to their reviews. Perhaps TA could be the code. – numbermaniac 05:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's under reconsideration:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#TouchArcade czar 06:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Digitally Downloaded
This is listed at WP:VG/S as reliable and I've used its reviews before (and seen others use them), so I think it'd be useful to add a dedicated parameter. I'm thinking that the code would be DgD. JOEBRO64 22:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Zzap!64
Would it be possible to add Zzap!64 to the template? GamerPro64 20:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @GamerPro64: Would
Z64be an appropriate code for this magazine? Lordtobi (✉) 20:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)- I think so. GamerPro64 21:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Z64 it is; Done. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordtobi (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Z64 it is;
- I think so. GamerPro64 21:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Centering vs. left justified
user:ferret did not like that I center justified the review scores in this template for multiple platforms as it was "atypical" (See Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, for example). My question is why would this be atypical? They are center justified when there is one platform and the "NA" is also automatically center justified in all cases. It looks like these being left justified for only the multiplatform template is the atypical part. Am I missing something? --TorsodogTalk 16:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Torsodog: You missed what I was saying. We shouldn't be manually centering like that, the template should be doing it automatically. It's atypical to add center tags to every field of this template. -- ferret (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've fixed it in the module, will automatically center now. -- ferret (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ferret: Oh, gotcha. I thought you were disagreeing with the fact that they should be centered at all. Apologies. I would have gone into the template to mess with it, but I'm always apprehensive when it comes to tinkering in templates as that's definitely not my area of expertise. I figured I'd spare bothering everyone and just do it manually. Thanks for the help! --TorsodogTalk 17:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've fixed it in the module, will automatically center now. -- ferret (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Request
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)
- 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)
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)
Requests
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)
- 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)
Done As VB and SN -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Could these be added?
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
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I wasn't aware it was just soundtracks. ImpressWatch should still be added though. JOEBRO64 19:14, 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)
- I feel like VGMO is a weird fit for this template since its about soundtracks only. -- ferret (talk) 00:57, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Since no one has objected, I have gone ahead and added Game Watch. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 00:42, 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)
A request for Pocket Gamer
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)
- 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)
- Refreshing the discussion and see if anyone can assist on this.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- I would like to include Touch Arcade into my request too. If no one objects, it could use
Done As PG -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Also added TouchArcade as
TA. Lordtobi (✉) 21:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)