Template talk:Video game reviews

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject iconVideo games Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Related pages

OpenCritic

I was just wondering what other people thought about possibly adding OpenCritic as a review aggregator next to Metacritic. For the last few years OpenCritic has been gaining a lot more attention on social media, forums, websites and basically any other place used to discuss video games. I think it would be worth considering, also because OpenCritic does not use weighted average, unlike Metacritic. Poklane 12:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Not really relevant to the discussion, but your signature should at least have a link to your talk page per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OpenCritic has had multiple discussions are WP:VG, WP:VG/S, and I believe MOS:VG. Those discussions thus far have not resulted in it being treated as a reliable, nor as necessary or desired alongside Metacritic. It certainly will not be added to the template until a consensus to use it is established. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rather disingenous to accuse Opencritic of not being 'reliable' when there have been several concerns raised over the years about the opacity Metacritic's scoring system and their differential weighting to certain review sources. What exactly would the criteria to determine whether or not it is reliable?
The fact remains that it is a currently major aggregator and the second biggest after Metacritic. The same way multiple review sources are listed in the template without passing any judgement on their perceived reliability, and allowing the reader to come to their own conclusions, seems to me the most sensible way to proceed - list it alongside Metacritic and give people the opportunity and respect to appraise it themselves. Not having it in the template is a disservice to the reader IMO. Armuk (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliable" in this context refers to WP:RS, our guideline. I am not making any personal statement that I believe OpenCritic lies or anything like that. I am also simply relaying to you the current project consensus. This template will not add OpenCritic while that consensus stands. -- ferret (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point remains unchanged - what exactly is the specific criteria used to make a determination on its so-called reliability? Who is it that the consensus must be derived from? The linked guideline lists some broad principles but answers neither question.
The faceless monolith that Wikipedia has becomes seems to be far removed from its initial purpose of the democratic provision of information. Armuk (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's so many discussions on OpenCritic that it is difficult for me to find the right most recent one. That, is indeed, an issue. However, to suggest we've somehow lost the "democratic provision" and aren't properly discussing and building consensus is just needlessly antagonistic. The last decision was a site-wide RFC. I'm looking for it now. -- ferret (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template_talk:Video_game_reviews/Archive_5#Adding OpenCritic as a review aggregator I believe is the last major RFC. There have been many other discussion even since then, including Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_23#OpenCritic. -- ferret (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So OpenCritic's last appraisal for suitability was in 2017, and the main point of opposition was essentially its perceived niche status, that it was not used to the same extent as Metacritic among the industry & consumer base.
Six years on, that status quo has certainly changed; OpenCritic is now a major player in the space. Given that the primary argument against is largely no longer valid, a re-assessment as to its inclusion in 2023 is now most definitely warranted. Armuk (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to make that argument and broach the subject at MOS:VG. Determining the both the reliability and suitability of OpenCritic's use would best be a topic for that page. -- ferret (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest it's worth another discussion. Reading through the previous topics on this, most were quite long ago. OpenCritic has since been implemented in more places such as GOG.com and has had updates.
Beyond that, some of the arguments against fell into the category of 'we have MetaCritic already', which isn't an argument against OpenCritic's reliability itself. As well as this, with OpenCritic's wider pool of vetted critics, there are niche titles that are not scored on MetaCritic, but are on OpenCritic, so it could be useful at least for those times. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been implemented following conclusion of the RFC at MOS:VG. Please read the instructions before you begin to use it. -- ferret (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Siliconera

It is a commonly used site for reviews, especially of Japanese games, and is listed as a reliable source on WP:VG/S. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I too concur with this request. CaptainGalaxy 03:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the term XSXS

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

@Starship.paint: What are you asking to have changed? The template's only use of XSXS is as a parameter name. That parameter outputs Xbox Series X/S when used, as it always has. This template never outputs 'XSXS'. -- ferret (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret: - please explain, when I look at Call of Duty#Main series, I see three XSXS? starship.paint (exalt) 01:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint That is {{Video game series reviews}}. Please post to that talk page, taking a look now. -- ferret (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Strana Igr (Russia) and Level (Czech)

Since this is indeed the English Wiki, it makes sense that there's only a few non-English sources in the template. But a few more prominent ones wouldn't hurt, so I am requesting these two. Both are print magazines, they're already listed as reliable on WP:VG/S, and they have an extensive history (February 1996 for Strana Igr and January 1995 for Level). Thank! Xanarki (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized it's been about six months since this request. Can anyone help me out? Also, an entry for Personal Computer World would be nice too (a very long-running magazine that I recently discovered, lots of years of content there). Xanarki (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I find it difficult to believe that either of those are going to be regularly used on the English Wikipedia. 6 months of silence probably backs that. Can't you just add them on the custom field instead? Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, when using the custom field, it automatically places the custom ref at the very bottom, regardless of where the line is physically inserted..thus the refs aren't in alphabetical order. Unless there's a way around that? Xanarki (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consoles +

Consoles + is unlinked, but there is a French and an Italian article. Since it is a French magazine, I suggest that we add an interlanguage link to the French article like this: Consoles + [fr]. Sjö (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Template_talk:Video_game_reviews"