Template talk:Video game reviews/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Pulling from Wikidata

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Template:Video game review score czar 01:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

This effort has progressed quite a bit since April. Template:Video game series reviews is now Wikidata-capable, and several pages are using Template:Video game review score to pull Metacritic for the MC= parameter of this template. I would like to begin looking at updating this template to directly support Wikidata for Metacritic, either through a LUA update or through transcluding Template:Video game review score when MC= is unspecified. Please let me know any thoughts. -- ferret (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see Template:Video game reviews/testcases#Wikidata tests. This is the quick demo version. I have not taken the effort to position the Wikidata update link, as you can see in the multi-system form it creates multiple update links. What would be prefered? Placing it beside the aggregator (Metacritic)? Or creating a footer row at the bottom of the table with text like "Click here to update Wikidata" or similar. Note this version only pulls Metacritic and serves as a demonstration. Expanding to other reviews/aggregators should be simple though. This is also written as an "opt-in" model currently. -- ferret (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I would be very wary of adding anything besides aggregators to any auto-pull functionality. And even then, I think it should wait until after we have at least two to dilute the perception of Wikipedia sponsoring any particular website. Perhaps it's time to discuss OpenCritic at WP:VG? Axem Titanium (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that aggregators are easiest to work with, and also easier to store reference for in Wikidata (No need to deal with authors and such). With the low level of interest though, maybe for now best to keep using Template:Video game review score on its own on select articles and see how adoption fairs. So far, each article I have used it on still has it in place, and various editors have successfully updated the scores in Wikidata. -- ferret (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think a useful solution to the issue of pulling indiscriminately would be to only pull the fields that are marked for pulling (e.g., |polygon=wikidata). Because, it's true, otherwise we would have a difficult time of satisfying our standard of only including the ratings that are discussed in the Reception section. This said, I think it's generally accepted that a page with references is better than no page at all, so a full Reviews box w/ refs usually stick around even without prose. In those cases, it would be nice to have a firehose option to turn on all available reviews from Wikidata (at least from the sources we've approved, if blogs start making their way into Wikidata...) czar 23:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Starting with an opt-in model also solves the "When to have GR or not" issue, since project consensus forces that one to an opt-in. I recommend we start with MC and GR as Wikidata-capable. This is easy to move forward with, then we can expand. -- ferret (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• As for the interface for editors to reach the Wikidata behind the template, I'd be surprised if Wikimedia didn't have interaction designers working on a paradigm, but I would think that suitable first stabs would be a small "E" like we have on the navboxes (V·T·E, for view/talk/edit), or alternatively, a small Wikidata icon in one of the corners. But I think the template would be much better with a single icon in a memorable location than with the multiple ±s czar 00:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • A small E would break convention I think and suggest to more experienced editors that they will be taken to edit the template. Several infoboxes that use Wikidata include a footer row with a simple "Edit on Wikidata". While a bit verbose, I think it's a suitable starting point, and as usage spreads, we could cut down to a more terse link. "Edit scores on Wikidata" would be my choice. -- ferret (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

    You're right about the "E". Can you link those other templates that have the text? Sounds too verbose to me—I would prefer just "Edit", just like the tab to edit the article page czar 00:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

    • • Just three quickly from Category:Templates using data from Wikidata - Template:Infobox telescope, Template:Infobox nerve, and Template:Infobox muscle. -- ferret (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Opt-in for all supported aggregators and "Edit on wikidata" footer implemented, see Template:Video game reviews/testcases#Wikidata tests. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks good but does the ± have to be in subscript? czar 20:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Module:Video game wikidata outputs that way as it was originally designed to be used in individual cells, like in Template:Video game series reviews, where you need multiple update links. I've made a quick tweak for a 'noSub' parameter and used it. Check again. -- ferret (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Haven't checked the script but it looks good in the testcases. I'd still advocate for a change to "[Edit]" somewhere (e.g., the upper-right corner, next to "Reception") over the footer bar, but that point is minor compared to getting the functionality rolled out so we can start the Wikidata adoption. Thanks for putting this together czar 00:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: If you don't see any major issues outstanding, can you please move the sandbox module live? -- ferret (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this the diff you want me to apply? You should remove cellpadding and cellspacing as they are obsolete in Html5. --Izno (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

That's the one. Cellpadding and cellspacing are already in use for all the tables/rows in the table, so I just kept it for consistency. I'd rather we address that in a separate edit since there's areas unrelated to Wikidata integration that need adjusted too. -- ferret (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Izno (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go through and implement on pages currently using Template:Video game review score a little later tonight. -- ferret (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Post-implementation

• I added a line to the documentation. @Ferret, just realized that the sandbox case should be set up to use "PS2:" format instead of "(PS2)" when pulling multiplatform agg reviews czar 22:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: The module has always used (PS2) format since creation, as I believe its the more common of the two formats. The documentation does not really declare one or the other as preferred, though its examples are as "PS2:". I recommend updating the examples, (PS2) format is (again in my opinion) far more common in usage. -- ferret (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

If individuals want to use parentheses on individual pages, I don't think anyone cares too much, but as far as a standardized template goes, the template is already standardized to use the colon. I'll add that I consider the colon to be a cleaner solution than the parentheses, considering the narrow template. czar 22:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

As long as its consistent it should be ok for now. I will however go back and add a "SystemFormat" parameter for "colon" or "para", with a default of paracolon. I personally believe "para" is far more common and typical though. -- ferret (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The default should follow the documentation until there is consensus otherwise... czar 22:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I know, I get it :) It just takes me a few minutes to go implement and test. -- ferret (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I think you meant the opposite when you said "with a default of para". All good czar 23:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yep, I did. Struck and fixed. Wikidata output for this template is now in "colon" system format. Module:Video game wikidata now has a setSystemFormat which can switch between the two. It cannot be changed currently for this template until I add a parameter to Module:Video game reviews/sandbox and have Izno put it in place later. -- ferret (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I have updated pages that were already using Wikidata with the standalone template to use this new update now. -- ferret (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Post-implementation change #1

@Izno: If you would review please and implement this change? It will allow articles to chose the (System) format such as "(PS2)" over the default "PS2:" format, if they want. If you have a better idea for the argument name, feel free to change, I went with verbose but "sF" would be fine too. -- ferret (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Will do shortly. If you want changes to be made in the next few weeks, you should probably use an edit request template since I'll be afk on vacation (and even now, "upgrading" to Windows 10... hope that works out well). I might be able to fit in some changes Monday, and Tuesday morning. --Izno (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I don't think there's much to hammer out, just this one thing czar picked up on. -- ferret (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Czar can make the edits himself if you want, though it is usually good to get 3rd eyes on it. Anyway, change  Done. --Izno (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Guide to adding scores

If I took screenshots to use as part of a guide to adding scores to Wikidata, would there be any legal/NFCC barrier to uploading them to enwiki? Posting here, but I would likely add it under WP:VG somewhere, and link to it from this template's documentation (As well as from the series template). -- ferret (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Not at all—just need to acknowledge the license for the materials separate from your license for the screenshot (if a different license). Commons has an equivalent for {{Wikipedia screenshot}} czar 23:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Might be easier to make a video. Otherwise I'd put screenshot instructions on a separate page—don't need them loading every time someone looks at the basic documentation. Also what I said above applies to Wikimedia sites only—I wouldn't include stuff from external sites czar 23:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I would make this as something like... WP:VG/Wikidata Instructions, and link to it in the template docs. The screenshots would be of Wikidata, to help illustrate how to fill in adding a fresh "review score" property. -- ferret (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata for individual reviews

So the real question of the hour is how to get this going for individual reviewers—how much more configuration would the templates need? czar 23:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The code is essentially already there. Currently, the module is only looking at the list of provided aggregators. It just has to be updated to look at the list of provided reviewers as well. The real work is in Module:Video game wikidata. All of the reviewers will need to be defined in the module's mapping with their Wikidata QIDs. We also have to consider how to handle references. Aggregators are easy because there is no author to worry about. That's not the case with the individual reviews, and while Wikidata has an author field, it must map to another Wikidata item. This means in many cases you might have to define the author themself to Wikidata before you can finish the reference. That's where it gets really sticky. -- ferret (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I see that the author field doesn't divide into first/last names too—is it able to parse out the first/last for the citation metadata? Also two issues with the current citation, e.g., for Metacritic: (1) If there is only one Metacritic platform (not multiplatform), it should hide the platform prefix. Otherwise it means we have to remove the platform from the Wikidata which I would imagine is not the way to do it. (2) I can add an "archive URL" in the Wikidata citation but not an "archive date" and either way, it doesn't show in the citation either. Started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata#CS1 parameter support in Wikidata references. References look like a complete pain in the ass at Wikidata... do they have any guide to their fields? czar 01:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I stumbled my way to getting enough citation fields to make me happy starting out. It may be possible to use the author field to get the author's QID, and from there, access their first and last names individually, but I haven't actually looked. As for "Single metacritic", I believe I can handle that, but it will be later today. -- ferret (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding sources in the general, see d:Help:sources.

Correct, that would not be particularly well-linked data. Ferret has it right: get the author item, on which there can be set the "family name" and "given name" properties. Divvy up as appropriate.

Archive date: I don't think there's a property for archive date right now. d:WD:Property proposal for that. --Izno (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS: I think you've followed this section a little bit already, but do you think this might be something better suited to Module:Wikidata? Some sort of "formatReference" that other modules can pass in a Wikidata reference table and get back a CS1 citation. Module:Video game wikidata has a rudimentary "buildCite" but a general function for everyone may be preferable. -- ferret (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

To me it would clearly be most useful to create a general call to create a CS1 citation from a Wikidata reference. It doesn't matter too much where it is kept as any module can 'require' another module (i.e. include it) in order to use its functions. Most of the work I've done has been to create individual calls that can be used to modify infoboxes one field at a time, to get the process kick-started, but in the long term, I expect entire infoboxes to be coded in Lua - as you're doing here - so common functionality like creating a reference is best done in a separate module, IMHO.

On a slight tangent, the problem mentioned above of archivedate is easily solved if you use archive.org (the Wayback Machine). As an example, I recently added this to a dead link: | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20060110193440/http://www.gue.com/decoplanner/ | archivedate = 10 January 2006/. It's quickly apparent that the archive date is encoded in the first 8 digits of the numeric part of the archive url. Could we decode an archive date in general from archive urls used by other sites? --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Other archivers, such as http://www.webcitation.org/6aRb1Ty6e, do not store the date in the URL. We'll need it as separate metadata. czar 21:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Czar, Izno, and RexxS: Please see d:Wikidata:Property proposal/archive date created by Anarchyte (talk · contribs). -- ferret (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The archive date property was created and Module:Video game wikidata is now pulling it. -- ferret (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's continue this discussion at Module talk:Video game wikidata as changes like this affect multiple templates that use the module now, it's the more centralized general place to discuss. -- ferret (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Pen link test

Please see Template:Video game reviews/testcases#Wikidata tests to view a different format for Wikidata edit links, based on a suggestion from RexxS. Either works for me, just wanted to see how it would look. I plan to make this "link style" a part of Module:Video game wikidata regardless, but it doesn't have to be used for Module:Video game reviews. -- ferret (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it can be useful down the road if editors can figure out that it's a pencil/edit icon. I'd be personally in favor of keeping the single instance for now, whether it means using the footer bar or showing a single icon in the corner of the whole reviews template. What do you think? And what about replacing the ± in "Edit on wikidata [±]" with the pencil? czar 17:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: Switched it back to the footer version, but with "pen" style still set. Let me know what you think. -- ferret (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

A pencil icon is used in mobile view to indicate edit links - see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Video_game_reviews for example. It's probably more likely to be recognised as an edit link than anything else I can think of, and there's a tooltip available on hover to help out. --RexxS (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I like it czar 19:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: If you can put this diff live, it will turn on the pen style. That is the only change contained here. If you want, I can do an edit request for a template editor to review, if Izno is away. -- ferret (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It's live—nice work czar 22:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No system for single-platform games

@Czar: See Template:Video game reviews/testcases#Without systems, single platform game. When a game has only a single platform and a single review for the requested aggregator/reviewer, system will be suppressed. Note, this requires the game have it's platforms set in Wikidata, with exactly one platform. If there's no platforms, or more than one, the system for the review will be output. It's a little picky, but in all other use cases, the system is ambiguous and needs to be displayed. For example, if the game was on two platforms, but only one Metacritic was entered thus far. -- ferret (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be better to not restrict it like that. It's not like we tag each review with the platform in similar situations. The platform isn't important to note in most cases I can consider that would have multiple platforms but only one Metacritic review. For instance, Lara Croft Go wouldn't need "iOS" to be tagged as its Metacritic platform, even though it has releases for Android and PC. I think the display would be best if be based just on the number of Metacritic entries in Wikidata and not based on the platform count. czar 17:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done. This is now live. If no system was specified, and there is only 1 review in Wikidata, showSystem will turn off. If there are multiple reviews or a system was specified, showSystem will be honored. The number of platforms is not considered. -- ferret (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata guide/instructions

I've just completed a rough first pass guide to editing Wikidata. I would like to add some illustrations later but its a work in progress. See WP:VG/WD. Please, feel free to edit and improve. -- ferret (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 August 2016

The inclusion of Abandonia to the template with a 0.0 to 5.0 rating scale so I may include it on abandonware articles. Thank you.

☭🎆🌎🎼🎺🐦 08:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Abandonia is not a reliable source and should not be used as a reference on Wikipedia. See the checklist at WP:VG/RS. czar 09:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 July 2016

Could we add the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer, Atari Jaguar, TurboGrafx-CD, Philips CD-i, Neo Geo AES, and Neo Geo CD to the systems array? For the abbreviations, I suggest 3DO, JAG, TGCD, CDI, NGAES, and NGCD, respectively.

Martin IIIa (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

My apologies; this is my first time seeking an edit to a protected template, and I had thought this would be considered a non-controversial edit. Should I attempt to establish consensus in a new section on this page, or is it preferred that I take it up elsewhere?--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This section is fine. You should probably invite WT:VG to discuss here. --Izno (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

What would be the benefits of adding those, @Martin IIIa:? Wouldn't that make the reception box in the article of a couple of multiplatform games extremely large? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

That could be said of any article using the platform format. I've never been a fan of it, but its supported and allowed. I don't see a reason not to add these if we're going to continue supporting that format. Unlike adding other reviewers, there's no reliability concerns. -- ferret (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Soetermans. There are already more than enough systems in the array to make the reception box inordinately large for certain games (e.g. Doom and Dragon's Lair are each on over ten platforms listed in the array). Doesn't it make more sense in such cases to either omit the reception box from the article or limit it to the lead platform than to have the template restrict which platforms are covered, which doesn't stop editors from building the box vertically (as seen in articles like Mortal Kombat II)? Which brings me to what the benefits are: This way I'm not forced to choose between omitting the reception box, building it vertically, or having it arbitrarily cover some platforms and not others for any game which has a release on one of the platforms I listed above.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• The multiplat view is a blight on this template. I've seen it used usefully perhaps twice. Otherwise it's purely a junk collector. Is there a reason not to add these specific platforms? Not offhand, but sheesh if the single column template isn't almost always the better solution. czar 16:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Are Common Sense Media reviews ever acceptable for use on Wikipedia?

Common Sense Media do seem to do a good job at using common sense, but, sometimes, they just have no common sense at all. For example, this review gives Doom 3 a rating of one out of five stars for the following reason:

“ IS IT ANY GOOD? It should be obvious based on the amount of blood alone that Doom 3 is not a kid-friendly game. However, on top of being bloody, Doom 3 is outright terrifying. The darkness and the artificial intelligence keep the player on the edge of his seat, as attacks are almost always a surprise. The game only really shines in what it was designed to do -- kill or be killed. Doom 3 is not a good choice for kids of any age. ”

I imagine that an average person would give the game four or four and a half out of five stars (which appears to be the most common rating for the game). In a case such as this, I would prefer to stay away from the unusual reviews and stick to those that appear to make much sense. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This is less of a review of the game and more of a parent advisory/advocacy write up. I wouldn't show this as a "review". It practically reads "This game is great, just not for kids", which is kinda a duh considering its ESRB rating. That said, you would be better off asking this at WP:VG/RS. -- ferret (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

French video game review sites

I'd like to add "fr:Jeuxvideo.com" and "fr:Gamekult", two French video game sites, which gave reviews at fr:Undertale#Accueil - They are in fr:Template:Notes de jeu vidéo WhisperToMe (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to establish better guidelines for what should be supported by default in this template. There have been multiple requests which could not be answered because there was not an obvious consensus for inclusion. --Izno (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeuxvideo.com has long been amongst the top reliable source in a language other than English, and it's used in many, many articles, so of course I'd support its inclusion in the default group. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It may be a good review source for any games published by Ubisoft as it is a French company WhisperToMe (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Numbers of reviews in aggregator sections

Sometimes, I will see in tables that, after aggregator scores ("81/100" and "70%") have been provided, there will then be numbers of reviews that these scores are based on (such as "19 reviews"). Is that an acceptable practice? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, especially when listing aggregate reviews across platforms (some scores are based on five reviews and others on 39, if the count is true to the reviewer reports in the first place) czar 03:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

EP Daily

EP Daily is a lot like G4, but is it a good idea to include that entry to the template? Consensus would be needed for this to happen, and I do not think that it will work. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 October 2016

Hello, I would like to submit an edit request for the video game reviews template. This is about a new reviewer that has been in the video game industry long enough.

Kill Screen is a popular video game magazine and publishes reviews since 2009. The magazine itself has been covered by The Verge, PSFK and Time, and it's L.A. Noire review was praised by Time itself. I would like for Kill Screen to be added because it does publish reviews with a standardized score by the author, and is notable because of it's main coverage on video games and it's annual two5six conference in New York City that presents speakers such as Zach Klein, Robin Hunicke, Yancey Strickler and others. The code to put this in is:

{'[[Kill Screen]]', 'KS'}

If you can do this, I humbly thank you and is greatly appreciated. If you can't, I can see why the magazine isn't notable enough to be on the list. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are weird enough, but they are helpful, concise and understandable. I'm not trying to convince you (whoever you are), this is just a suggestion.

Thanks.

sheldon.andre (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Please establish a consensus first before using the edit request template. Let's let people discuss for a bit first. -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Kill Screen (again)

Should Kill Screen be added? Even though they were pigeonholed for their Rise of the Tomb Raider review, they are notable - in some cases. sa (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:VG/RS currently lists Kill Screen as a reliable source, with a cautionary note not to use their scores however. We should get that revisited first. -- ferret (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

CSS coloring

That aside, the coloring of the NA parameter is also not accessible. Who wants to jigger that? :D --Izno (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, some obsolete HTML

I think since we're using a module now to generate the contents we can use CSS for cellpadding and cellspacing, but I would prefer not to hack at that prior to the question of font size. --Izno (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

CSS small font size

@Koavf and Czar: WP:Accessibility says: don't make things small (basically). I'm willing to discuss alternatives, but the small font size in the module is completely inappropriate. --Izno (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It's absolutely gigantic now. That 80% is interacting with other CSS styles at play here, to keep it roughly the same size as Infobox and article text. It's clearly much larger than infobox or article text now. Please restore it until proper sandboxing and review can be done. -- ferret (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted it. Seeing 80% in the code doesn't mean the total output is at 80%. Infoboxes themselves are reduced size. Almost every element of that table has an increased font size after that initial 80% on the table body. This needs to be properly thought out and sandboxed. -- ferret (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take that revert. The problem with comparison to infoboxes is two-fold: 1) infoboxes get theirs from site CSS which means they can be resized at-will by anyone poking at their CSS file and 2) infoboxes have different purposes. I've removed all the font-size adjustments in the sandbox module; the test case page looks fine (after walking through the purge chain). --Izno (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It grew a little bit in size without, but it's not nearly as drastic or out of place. That said, are we actually fixing an accessibility issue? Was anything below 85% page font size? -- ferret (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

85% is basically a minimum threshold (and 90% is where it was a while ago). I think the question should instead be asked: "does there exist a need for smaller text?". --Izno (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. The jump in size now isn't so drastic I have a complaint. Do note though that where before table headers were a larger size than cell contents, everything is uniform now. -- ferret (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• This is a conversation that should happen in conjunction with {{album ratings}} and any other similar template that would be affected czar 17:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Czar: This module does not affect those templates, and while the styles are similar (and so perhaps are points raised for/against), a change here does not preempt a non-change there. --Izno (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

They don't have to use the same module—their sizes are set to be comparable not by chance and whatever happens here will happen there as well, so best to have the conversation at once. A notification would suffice but I don't know all the related templates czar 21:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Accessibility There is no need for these names to be smaller--they almost always fit within the table cell and if they don't, then they can wrap a line (especially since many of the reviews have different values for different platforms and are consequently wider than one line anyway. Please just remove small text. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Is the current size any different than that which is used in infoboxes or image captions? If so (I can't tell), I'd support that size. czar 21:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Check out the sandbox on Template:Album ratings/testcases and the template's talk page czar 03:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 February 2017

Could you please add GameFAQs as a reviewer since reviews are posted on the site and could be useful within some articles? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: GameFaqs is not generally considered a reliable source and is full of user submitted content. -- ferret (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

LOL. Metacritic (CBS Interactive) submits its own stuff (Gamespot), too. SharkD  Talk  06:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Both are reliable sources, while GameFAQs is WP:USERGenerated and not. -- ferret (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding OPN as a reviewer

Hello! I'm the Editor-in-Chief for The OverPoweredNoobs (OPnoobs, OPN). We review video games and focus on providing much-needed coverage to the indie scene. Our president says "we bank with bankers, not with banks," emphasizing his commitment to speaking to the gaming community with the voice of a gamer - not a publicist, etc. I edit our video game reviews for technical accuracy and clarity, and to ensure that the arguments given support the critical rating. We operate with integrity and do not allow relationships with studios (a distinct department from the writing dept.) to affect in any way whatsoever our reviews. We are a MetaCritic Critic and our opinions are generally in line with those of other critics. Thank you for your consideration. Please let me know if you have any concerns or questions. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.21.70.254 (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Opposed Non-notable publication. Site lacks most of the tick boxes we look for at WP:VG/RS, so unreliable at this time as well. -- ferret (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Nintendo Switch

What's the code for adding the Nintendo Switch to the reviews template? GamerPro64 13:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been seeing "NS", and I don't think it conflicts with any others. It was not added to the module yet though, I just did. -- ferret (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Should probably update the Template page too. GamerPro64 20:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

And  Done -- ferret (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Add PlayStation Universe (PSU.com) as a Reviewer

PlayStation Universe is long time running website that has been keeping up to date on news, previews, and reviews of games for well over 10 years now. With over 200 games reviewed in a year it would be nice to cite them including their scores. Granted their Wiki page isn't up to date (I'm going to be working on that soon), however their website is always ticking over with dozens of articles daily and is run by a large team. Because of this I would feel that PSU would make a worthy addition to the Reviewers list.

If you're unsure about the website then you can have a look here: PSU.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron.varshney (talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Aaron.varshney, see the FAQ at the top of the page and its linked pages czar 17:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding Easy Allies as a reviewer

I know that only verified and vetted reviewers can be added to the list and that is why I wanted to know if there was a way to suggest a reviewer to be added. I wanted to know if Easy Allies could be added to the list of reviewers. Easy Allies is the spiritual successor to GameTrailers as almost all of the people who used to worked there decided to start another site and continue to do the same thing they did while at GT which includes reviewing games in the same fashion as they did previously. I read the FAQ and but it seems a shame to not include them to the list since it seems they are quickly become bigger like before. AquilaXIII (talk) 1:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Their about page does not communicate a pedigree for fact-checking and editorial reliability. czar 07:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This website should be assessed at WT:VGRS first. --Izno (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Unimplemented changes in sandbox

There are two changes in the sandbox which are not presently implemented in the main module: one of which is discussed at /Archive 4#CSS coloring and one of which is discussed at /Archive 4#CSS small font size. One of which went unanswered but which I think is uncontroversial and one of which was somewhat controversial but which I believe has consensus after the brief discussion. Does anyone disagree? --Izno (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Re-reading those, I'm not really opposed to it. However, please note Czar's statements. -- ferret (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• The first one is technical and uncontroversial, but my unanswered question on the second one asked which font size would match that of infoboxes and captions. In Template:Video_game_reviews/testcases, the current case text looks super tiny and the sandbox case looks closer to the font size of infoboxes/captions—is that correct? If so, I'd be fine with the change. (I remember the original proposal being severely larger but perhaps I was mistaken.) The "Review score"/"Aggregate score" headers get lost with the other text, though. Perhaps they should be larger, like the current headers? czar 16:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  @Czar: It's exactly the size of the infobox text, because at-present the template carries the infobox class. It probably shouldn't since it's not supplementary content in the way an infobox is in many cases, but I'm not going to nit on that. Getting lost looks subjective--they look fine to me. --Izno (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  Not sure if you're referring to the current or proposed version's text being infobox-sized, but if the latter, okay. Yes, design is subjective and I think the headers should be slightly larger than the text—the point was to make the template's smaller text larger, not to make its headers smaller. czar 15:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  @Czar: The latter. --Izno (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

PC Gamer UK

Is there any real reason we have UK showing when using PC Gamer in the review table? Simply "PC Gamer" is the WP:COMMONNAME for it, the US branch of it can remain the same, as it is clearly distinguished from the main publication. And since the majority of reviews we cite PC Gamer for in modern times comes from its website anyway, you almost never see PC Gamer US anymore, making this even less of a need to distinguish. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Disambiguation. US folks see "PC Gamer" and they probably think the US publication, not the UK publication. In 2017, the distinction between PCGUK and PCGUS doesn't matter much because Future consolidated their US and UK teams and pretty much all content and reviews are published on the website before the magazines, so the website is what is usually being cited. Although, the US mag just recycles content from the previous issue of the UK mag like all of Future's publications, the issue numbers are still different so for verifiability purposes the disambiguation is important. For older games, it is somewhat more important because the editorial teams seemed to operate independently in the past and they published different reviews and content in their magazines. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • For retro games sure, but like you said, this doesn't matter anymore in 2017 and hasn't for years. And I'm not saying to merge or delete PC Gamer US either, just to remove the UK from PC Gamer UK as disambiguation isn't needed unless a game has reviews from both publications, or the US one only. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)