Jump to content

Template talk:Video game reviews

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unsupported parameter detection needed

[edit]

This template would benefit from detection of unsupported parameters like |rev 1= and |rev1score=, both of which are in use at this writing or were recently in use. They currently fail silently with no message to the editor, which is not ideal. Because there are so many possible combinations of supported parameter names, this detection should probably happen in Lua code rather than on the Template page, as would usually be done. The standard category name would be Category:Pages using Video game reviews with unsupported parameters, and should be applied only to pages in article space. I hope that someone has the time and ability to implement this improvement. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Thanks. And that problem is because of case sensitivity, so maybe it would be worth changing the manual to more explicitly state that. Another item is that I guess the manual is mistaken, saying that the template only supports 10 custom reviews, but all 11 of them are rendering on Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (video game)#Reception! lol. Should that sentence be deleted from the docs or what? — Smuckola(talk) 00:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the docs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Averaging out detail scores

[edit]

The current instructions state that "If a review scores components of a game separately (but does not give an overall score) e.g Graphics 3/5, Sound 4/5, Gameplay 5/5 etc, add all the components together to reach a single score like 12/15, and add a footnote listing the individual scores."

Similar to how this was discussed with averaging out Famitsu scores, we should not be doing this per WP:STICKTOSOURCE which states " Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.". By averaging out a score, we are implying that the magazine gave a game an overall rating, which would be false. I would suggest simply removing this statement from the instructions page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely, yeah. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem becomes how to show the scores in the review table, because for the older games where this type of scoring was common, we'll run into layout problems with long tables. At least with Famitsu, we have other RS that tell us the summation approach is the most common means of aggregation, but I don't know if that can said for reviews of this scoring style. Masem (t) 20:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the table is not a requirement, it's an aid to collect the scores from prose to summarize for readability. So if the details of a score cannot easily by summarized in the table, then just keep those scores in prose. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem:. I've taken a stab at this for some older games already. Depending on the scale of the table, I've adjusted them for games like Otogiriso, Donkey Kong Country and Super Mario World. I'd keep in mind that people will be reading this in various formats (i.e: text siE and scale on Wikipedia, on their phones over on a wider computer screen) so it's probably difficult to find one that works for all possibilities. I would just try to apply it as it best fits depending on the scale and scope of the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That has some weirdness to it. First, Famitsu in reliable sources is normally suammrized as the sum of the scores, so breaking that apart is weird. But when you compare that format like "10/8/8/8" for one review source and have that next to a "90/100" that looks to me like the "90/100" is two scores, a 90 and a 100. I don't think you can use that same format that way. Masem (t) 04:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Often I hear the argument when we do something new or transitional on wikipedia that it looks "weird". The original source has published it score from four unique reviewers for decades. I did leave a hat note on some sources that explains their rating scheme. Otherwise, it is a transitional period and we can find a best fit.
Combining the material makes us lose the out on key information. For example, Super Mario World reads as 9/10, 9/10, 8/10, 6/10 instead of 32/40. As we're supposed to only use reviews in the infobox with prose (something I rarely see with Famitsu reviews), we lose out on the key detail that one Famitsu reviewer gave the game a relatively lukewarm rating, which has been the only non-overtly enthusiastic review to the game I've found at its release. Currently the set-up for Famitsu in the infobox standards is to not average them out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying to average them but to sum the Famitsu scores because that's how I've seen it most commonly done in reliable sources (with the prose to discuss the breakdown if that was the case).
but for others, its the use of the "/" in one case to distinguish between scores and to represent a x out of y score, that makes it confusing, trying to view this from someone that would not be familiar with how review scores are normally presented. If you have multiple scores without a published overall score, it may be better to do something like "8/10, 9/10, 9/10, 7/10", which at least tells me that there are four different scores, each some portion out of 10, and would make a solitary "90/100" also consistent. Masem (t) 12:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Masem is right that there's an implementation concern IMO. It's not simply that the core idea is unworkable – it's that this way of presenting the information looks confusing when the slash is also used to detonate fractional scores (e.g., 8 out of 10 vs an 8 and a 10). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty happy with having it listed as "8/10, 9/10, 9/10, 7/10" for now. To clarify, it's already been established previously that we should be spreading out the Famitsu reviews from a previous request so its a bit off topic to what we are getting at. As the unique four reviews of Famitsu are not always available or we only have a source publishing the overall score, then I suppose its okay to limit it to that, but keep in mind we're only supposed to be putting reviews in the info box if there is prose to go along with it. The main request here was to change the ruling to not tally up other information (i.e:" Graphics 4.5/5, Difficulty: 3/5, Fun: 4.5/5" that displays a review of 80%) which is bridge too far in stating what a publication/reviewer has claimed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I retain my usual stance of indifference in these situations. I don't really see the shuffling around of number values in these instances to be that big of a deal, but I also have no problem with stopping it either. Bigger fish to fry, forest before the trees, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no argument for combining the scores per the discussion above. As I feel the discussion has mostly turned to be about the best way to show when publications have multiple reviewers and scores with no average, we can organize that in a separate discussion, which I'm sure we could tie up sooner than later. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to chime in and say that only use the 40/40 format if Famitsu tallied the score in their old cominy website before taking it all down. Like in Cyber Citizen Shockman 2: A New Menace, for example. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 8 July 2025

[edit]

Description of suggested change:

The "notheme" class (currently at line 232) was a temporary measure, and is no longer necessary. Can we please remove it, which will improve/fix the presentation of the table on mobile apps. Dmitry Brant (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change PC to Windows

[edit]

Because Linux is also a PC. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critics do not separate PC reviews by operating system. TarkusABtalk/contrib 08:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 31 July 2025

[edit]

Description of suggested change: Per the recent talk page discussion here. I believe we have consensus to remove this statement: "Individual component ratings: If a review scores components of a game separately (but does not give an overall score) e.g Graphics 3/5, Sound 4/5, Gameplay 5/5 etc, add all the components together to reach a single score like 12/15, and add a footnote listing the individual scores." I would suggest either removing it, or replacing it with "If a review scores components of a game separately (but does not give an overall score) e.g Graphics 3/5, Sound 4/5, Gameplay 5/5 etc., do not average out its scores (see WP:STICKTOSOURCE). " I'm open to other phrasing if this is too similar to the previous (and opposite) statement. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]