Template talk:Video game series reviews

Sortable suggestion
Hey! It would be nice to have a sortable option for the template. It would come in handy to sort by name, see the best/worst selling titles and best/worst rated titles in a series. What do you think? ~ Arkhandar (message me) 03:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't add much value in my view. Chronological order is fine. Due to the scores often being stacked with multiple platforms, sorting is unreliable besides. Often the system is first, then the score, as well. (Note saw this on watchlist. Ping doesn't work unless signature is updated) -- ferret (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It does if I want to see a list of best-selling or best-rated titles in the series, rather than a chronological list. I understand your worries regarding the multiple platforms per title. Regardless if this ends up being implemented or not, should we consider implementing parameters for platforms, so that the template can automatically make a cell per platform and colspan the title? This way, it would be more accessible, standardized, and it could solve the sorting problem. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 11:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Video game reviews has a per-platform mode, but most of us wish it would be depreciated. It tends to lead to lots of empty cells. I'm in the "not a fan of it" camp. If someone else wants to implement it and let us see if its worth while, I guess I'd take a look, but I'm not interested in writing it. -- ferret (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Module talk:Video game wikidata#Rank is not supported & errors if lower rank is missing platform while higher rank has platform
84.250.14.116 (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Citation errors on Ratchet & Clank
This template is causing a couple of citation errors on the Ratchet & Clank article. The cause it's that there are two metacritic review scores in wikidata for the PS3 version of Ratchet & Clank Collection and another two for Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart. I've had a look at wikidata and I'm guessing the older scores need to be removed or depreciated, but I have no idea how to do that. Either that or the template needs to generate more distinct refnames so that the issue can't reoccur. Does anyone know how to fix this? ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like this was discussed at Module_talk:Video_game_wikidata. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It also went nowhere, while we still have errors in article space. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the older scores from Wikidata. I think it's pointless to keep random snapshots of Metacritic. Both of these were caused by the same IP editor in the above discussion who apparently indicated those scores were invalid imports to begin with, but didn't clean them up or remove them. -- ferret (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ferret. I thought that would be the solution but I found wikidata rather confusing. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Reception link
Hey, is it possible to add #Reception to the end of the game link so that it goes to that section as more relevant and avoids duplicate link on series page? Indagate (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Indagate It's certainly possible though I'd say atypical. You'd just pipe the link. -- ferret (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

XSXS RFC
This template always outputs abbreviations for systems pulled from Wikidata. Wikidata shows an abbreviation/alias for Xbox Series X/S as XBSX. Googling this turns up over a million hits. Is this an acceptable replacement value? -- ferret (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no position of that. - do weigh in given this  here  starship  .paint  (exalt) 01:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Starship.paint just closed that RfC stating this — Wikipedia is based on reliable sources — so if XBSX is reliably sourced, then use it, if it's not, then don't use it. That's what the arguments will boil down to, and you know it.— Isaidnoway (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to help suggest an alternative. I'm more than willing to implement it, and I'm working through looking for alternatives already. I've simply pinged the individual requesting a change for their recommendation. Community effort, and all. -- ferret (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Barring opposition, I will be implementing 'XSX' based on over 39,700,000 results in WP:VG/S's custom Google search of reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We just now had an RfC concluding using abbreviations like this: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * - the RfC was only on XSXS, not on all possible acronyms.  starship .paint  (exalt) 08:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is that this sort of thing is clearly contentious, so this is not a subject in which to be bold. Put another way, consider this opposition, so "barring opposition" does not apply.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish Uh. I'm not being bold. I was explicitly asked to make a change (Template_talk:Video_game_reviews), I asked for recommendations, I was told to put forth my own based on reliable sources, I did, and now I'm waiting for feedback. Exactly what is your opposition? -- ferret (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Barring opposition, I will be implementing 'XSX is a clear declaration of intent to make a bold change; I just want to ensure that the discussion happens. It's the principle of the thing, not a concern about the exact string "XSX" (though some might argue for "XBSX" or "XBX").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's a declaration to make a change if no one opposes. If I intended a bold change, I simply would have, without starting this discussion. My goal is to avoid making a change only for RFC participants to show up after and challenge it again. This module has 14,000+ transclusions and the changes should be limited. -- ferret (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

XSX has more usage than XSXS by a long shot, one problem it has is that it only refers to Xbox Series X. A lot of the sources seem to use XSX|S or XSX/S to mean both. I am having trouble getting a good google search for XSX|S unless this is right which comes up with 650,000,000 results. I think the | character is messing with the search though. Also unfortunately in the font used by Wikipedia at least, this character is rendered very much like a capital I. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The pipe character has issues as well due to technical problems in Wikilinks. That is why the article is at Xbox Series X/S (or rather, used to be) instead of using the pipe per official marketing. I'm fine with XSX/S if you are. -- ferret (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We can see what others say but my impression right now is that it would work. It evokes a more common term and will be less confusing to readers I think, especially considering that XSX and XSS are used. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Staged in module sandbox, awaiting further commentary for a couple days. -- ferret (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm also seeing a lot of "XSX|S" or "XSX/S". However, there was a lot of opposition to using "XSXS", and it's unclear whether that would extend to the versions with "|" or "/" in them (I am hoping that "XSX/S" and more narrowly "XSX" and "XSS" would work for people. Or versions with "B" in them, if there's good evidence of source usage. This template seems compact enough to actually need to use abbreviations, so we should probably settle on some.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I found XBSX in use by OpenCritic for URL/category filtering, but on digging further, it barely had a million hits, which is actually less results than the original XSXS. -- ferret (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's also used on Metacritic's mobile site, FWIW. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 23:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikidata's choice carries zero weight, it's not safe to assume they use the same criteria we would or that they would reach the same conclusions we would. In the previous RFC I was really hoping we could avoid abbreviations to avoid potentially mystifying readers. However this reviews box does present a reasonably persuasive case for local brevity. Assuming the review template is on a page with a game infobox template, and assuming the infobox lists includes platforms in non-abbreviated form, I am at least somewhat hopeful a competent reader can use the infobox as a key to figure out mysterious abbreviations. I'm not particularly familiar with Xbox coverage but my searches indicate that Microsoft made a confusing mess of their product lines, and that there is no particularly dominant abbreviation. As such, clarity is the key issue. I would suggest the longer form and using the slash. (While the | version is credible, it raises wiki-technical issues and I see no good reason to adopt it over the slash.) Alsee (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There was no intent to lean on Wikidata's choice beyond being an immediate "here's another option" to start off with. The RFC was ultimately about the use of the XSXS abbreviation in this template. No one was using XSXS in prose, only for tables of this nature. Yes, this template should always be on pages with an infobox, and in infoboxes, we always spell out the platforms in the "platform" field (though other fields may switch to abbreviations for brevity again). Could you clarify which you mean by "the longer form"? -- ferret (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Moving forward
It's been about 5 days without further discussion. I plan to implement the sandbox change in two days, switching XSXS output label to XSX/S, in order to implement the RFC that requires XSXS be replaced. -- ferret (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok with me. Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I flat forgot about this, but I guess that's fine as no further comments came about. Implemented. -- ferret (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

OpenCritic
OpenCritic has been implemented in this template, following the 2023 RFC at MOS:VG. Please read the instructions before you begin to use it. -- ferret (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)