Template talk:Video game reviews

Adding a publication

Hi all. I can't recall, where do I post to recommend a publication be added to this template? Any help would be much appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

This is the right place. Masem (t) 18:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Could we add Slant Magazine and Trusted Reviews to the template please? Helper201 (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Masem? Helper201 (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I've added Trusted Reviews as TR, but for Slant I don't see much specialized video game coverage as to make it a hard coded addition (such can always be added with the additional fields in the template). Masem (t) 13:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Masem, your edit broke things. "TR" was already being used for TechRadar, and you forgot to add closing brackets to the Trusted Reviews wikilink. Please fix ASAP. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, and made Trusted Revies to TRev Masem (t) 14:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 October 2025

That Slant Magazine please be added to this template. Helper201 (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC) Helper201 (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Already objected to above. This is not an uncontroversial request. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

As I outlined here, they have a whole main section dedicated to video games, so they do have plenty of specialized video game coverage. Helper201 (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Did they just recently start up video game coverage or something? I watch over a lot of articles and I have to say, it feels like I rarely see them added to reception sections... Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Just because its rarely used by regular contributors, does not really add up to much. To answer you question, from a quick glance at their site they have been covering video games since at least 2009, so for over 16 years.Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand that sentiment - why add something that's rarely used? Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I had been off Wikipedia for a few days but I was going to say the same, the publication has been covering video games since 2009, so I don't see a problem here. Helper201 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It is used as a source regularly on several well developed articles: The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Phantasy Star, Dr. Mario, Ikaruga, Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. Do you require us to provide more as I feel like we've established our case. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas Not a single one of these articles is using a review from Slant, except Dr. Mario. And there it's using the review of a different game to cite a gameplay difference. Are there any examples of a Slant *review with score* being used in an article and included in the template? -- ferret (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Regardless the cite is used for the community for video game content and has over ten years of it. I'm not sure what the resistance is to this. Is overloading this box a problem? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas To a degree, yes. The template does require that any reviews listed within it are used in prose. But no one has presented an example of any Slant reviews being used for reception and in the template. What is the point of implementing a dedicated code for a source that no one is integrating or using? -- ferret (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't "require" anything, I asked a simple follow up question. (??) Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to add Slant reviews to articles but it would certainly be helpful to have the code added first so they could be added to reception tables. Helper201 (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Remember that the review template has field to add any other source that is not already in the code for cases like this. We don't require a source to be codifed in the template to be used as a review, but as others have pointed out, we shouldn't be added every possible review source as a code, particularly, if that source is not heavily used across the project space.. Masem (t) 12:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Has there ever been a metric for sites that are considered "heavily used"? Previously, The Guardian was added in 2019 with little discussion with only one comment. While Slant has covered video games since at least 2009 (over 16 years), and per Metacritic tabulations, has total of nearly 1000 video game reviews. (here) And that's just video games metacritic has picked up for review in their tabulations. I'm not sure what we have to do suggest its "heavily" used when The Guardian isn't even picked up by Metacritic's (as seen here). Has this kind of rulings changed? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Commodore User and The One

Commodore User (later CU Amiga) was a major magazine covering Commodore 64 and Amiga games, yet the only way to add this publication's scores is to use rev_n and rev_nScore. There is no parameter for CU or similar, but this magazine seems to meet all the criteria for inclusion in the code. More than likely, this magazine has simply been overlooked. The same could be said of The One; it may have been a smaller magazine, surely, but I similarly see no reason to not include something like TheOne in the code. FreeMediaKid$ 17:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Considering the conventions used to name this template's parameters, the latter magazine's data might be better served with TO or TOne. Personally, I prefer the latter. (EDIT: "FreeMediaKid!" is my old username. I am going by "Big Blue Gnu" these days.) FreeMediaKid$ 17:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Feel free to make changes in the sandbox and test them on the testcases page so that a template editor unfamiliar with this template can easily implement your suggested change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I've added them. See here. I've gone with T1 for The One. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Strange. I thought I had made it clear what my request was: to add Commodore User and The One to the module. Anyhow, it has been dealt with. Big Blue Gnu 18:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Famitsu scores

The infobox parameters on the visual editor say that the Famitsu Scores are based on the combined 40-pt scale, so I usually put the scores as the combined score, and put a note in the infobox on the reviewer scores (eg. 32/40). I've seen many articles, including many GAs and FAs, having the same procedure, but some people instead list out the reviewer scores in the infobox instead of a combined score (eg. 8/10, 8/10, 8/10, 8/10). Since Famitsu review sources put the combined score alongside the critic scores (specifically Gematsu as an example), which one would be the right format so we can come to a good consensus on what to use going forward?

EvanTech10 (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll update this. We've had a few discussions in the past about combining scores and the general consensus each time has been to not combine the scores unless the publication has done so originally. (i.e: early EGM and almost all of Famitsu will have four critics giving four individual scores). While they sometimes are later published as a combination for comparisons sakes, its best to display them to show the discrepancy between critics. (Take Super Mario World, where one Famitsu critic gives it a 6, probably the rare outlier of middling review of the game from the contemporary video game press. Combining the scores would miss/obscure this detail). I've adjusted the template in the infobox to reflect the Famitsu scoring. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

FiringSquad

FiringSquad (1998–2013) was a website that reviewed both hardware and video games. It has been identified as a reliable source by WikiProject Video games, as "The site's various articles have been cited in many publications and scholarly works." FiringSquad seems to have been a prolific reviewer back in the day, and I do not see why it should not be included in Module:Video game reviews/data. As a note, the website initially used a five-star rating system before switching to the percent-based scoring system by 2000. In addition, there may be multiple reviewers giving a single product their own score, so the scores may need to be added up, depending on the reviewer count (e.g. 9/15 if there are three reviewers before 2000 and 375/400 if there are four reviewers after 2000), and I would propose using the FS parameter for the source if accepted. Big Blue Gnu 18:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template.

I suppose the aforementioned WikiProject Video games would be a good place to gather feedback. If consensus is formed, please make your requested changes to the module's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I guess it had not occurred to me that this would be a controversial edit. Here is the RfC. Big Blue Gnu 18:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Opposed. This appears to be a source added to the project page on the basis that it was not challenged during a FAC 13+ years ago. The FAC in question is not linked. The discussion linked is a two participant discussion in 2012 noting that a LARGE list of sources had been added to the page without a direct or in-depth discussion, and effectively saying "for the record these are here, so if no one opposes, it is a silent consensus". Any source we implement into the template needs to pass two hurdles: 1) That is it unambivalently seen as a reliable source. That isn't met here. It was added without a direct discussion and never really analyzed by the project. 2) That it is regularly and often used in the template, to the point that the revn and revnScore parameters are burdensome. No evidence that this source is widely in use for video game reception is presented. -- ferret (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Their game reviews seemed to be legit. I don't know enough about their popularity to say whether they should be added, but I don't object to it. —LeastConcern 16:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Request to add MacFormat

Request to add MacFormat (or should it be "Mac Format"?). Article says it's a sister publication of MacLife; PC Format and ST Format are already included here. Cited on Laya's Horizon in prose. IgelRM (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@IgelRM I don't see that publication listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. You should start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources first, and get consensus that it is reliable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

ST Format also is not listed on VG/RS, but on this template. The Wikiproject list is not connected to this template. Perhaps it should but that is a different discussion.

Do you think that Future's Format series have different standards? IgelRM (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

It's unusual for something to be on a template but not at VG/RS - this needs to be double checked. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Adding Gameliner.nl to the reviewers

Hi, Rudy from Gameliner here. We would like to add our reviews to the review scores as we are also included on both Metacritic and Opencritic. Gameliner is founded in 2005 and has covered nearly every game every since. Looking forward hearing from you. RudyWijnberg (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Only reliable sources are included in this template, so this would require prior vetting at WT:VG/S. IceWelder [✉] 18:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@RudyWijnberg Friendly ping - have you requested a review at VG/S? If not, this is the next step. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Piotrus, thanks for the reminder! Yes, I've submitted the review on the 13th, talk can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Adding Gameliner.nl to reliable gaming resources RudyWijnberg (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Help with custom review

I tried adding one like this but it doesn't work. Can someone fix it? TIA. The documentation here is rather arcane. Also, can we add Świat Gier Komputerowych to the template as a regular parameter? It was a major Polish mag with 10+ years of history (and yes, it is listed in RS of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Piotrus Fixed, see diff. You pair revN with revNScore. so rev1/rev1Score, rev2/rev2Score, etc. -- ferret (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ferret Thank you! Any thoughts on adding a parameter for ŚGK? And while we are at it, CD-Action is even more relevant (still active, and pretty much the premier Polish magazine on this these days), as is the online Gry-Online. They are widely used on pl wiki, and all are classified as reliable by our WikiProject here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Request to add Polish sources

Świat Gier Komputerowych, CD-Action and Gry-Online. All are widely used on pl wiki, where they are part of the equivalent template, and are listed in RS of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)