Template talk:Video game reviews

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)

Perhaps there should be a note about requiring a prior discussion on VG/RS if this comes up repeatedly. But you haven't answered my question, I guess you don't want to comment on the magazine. IgelRM (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Do we even have to include magazines as part of a discussion? Its a magazine published by Future plc which already publishes countless video game magazines, including Next Generation, the latter years of Nintendo Power, Retro Gamer and Edge would file under WP:SOURCE as its a magazine called Mac Format would cover games for the computer that it would be more up to @Piotrus: to suggest it isn't valid as this (correct me if I'm wrong), seems like stuff. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:03, 16 September 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)

Template-protected edit request on 7 July 2026

Add the following items to the list of reviewers (I don't know if "Change X to Y" really works here).

{ "''Checkpoint Gaming''", 'Checkpoint' },, { "''Minimap''", 'MM' },, { "''Game8''", 'G8' },, { "''GameGrin''", 'GG' },, { "''[[Game Rant]]''", 'GR' },, { "''Gamersky''", 'Gamersky' },, { "''[[TechRaptor]]''", 'TRaptor' },, { "''WayTooManyGames''", 'WTMG' },

Thanks, Axolitl (talk | contribs) 03:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this page. Most of the sources here are not considered reliable per WP:VG/RS so are a no-go. TechRaptor has a complicated history so I don't think we should add it. The only one here that appears to be generally reliable is Checkpoint Gaming, but I don't see them appearing often in articles so it doesn't quite pass #2 in the FAQ in my opinion. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 06:40, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I see. Thanks anyway. I'll mark the request as answered. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 16:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 August 2026

Add { "Common Sense Media", 'CSM' } and { "''AppSpy''", 'AppSpy' }. Also add { "''148Apps''", '148' } as it is still situational. NewAccount7295 (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

148apps shouldn't be added. A situational disputed source that doesn't explain it's situational use at this time doesn't belong as a front and center accepted source in the template. AppSpy is listed as reliable, so no opposition. I'm wary personally of adding CSM, which is accepted as generally reliable at WP:RS/P but cautioned for its bias and opinionation. -- ferret (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ferret Is this request going to be followed upon? Contacting a few other users who can also edit this page @IceWelder @Masem NewAccount7295 (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@NewAccount7295 I suspect that others who might have edited the template have been waiting for you to reply to my comment. Do you agree with what I said? Do you oppose? No one knows. At best, assuming my views are agreed with by others, the request would be to only add AppSpy. -- ferret (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ferret: Go ahead and add AppSpy. Common Sense Media reviews are used on many articles, and, while it is an opinionated source where the reviews partly talk about how appropriate a work of media is, the star ratings are only for the quality of the work, so there is no reason to exclude it. It should be added as well. NewAccount7295 (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Masem @Ferret Are you going to respond to this? NewAccount7295 (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Disagree with CSM. We should be encouraging other sources for critical reviews of creative works ahead of a non-profit who is biased by mission of family-oriented safety and content awareness. OK with AppSpy. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:42, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing for me to reply to. I said I was okay with AppSpy, and not okay with the other two. The source being "used on many articles" doesn't change my views on it. A source we have explicitly recorded at RS/P as biased and opinionated and requiring caution should not be hoisted in a template. -- ferret (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ferret I asked that because AppSpy has yet to added by anyone. NewAccount7295 (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to save time going forward, to be clear I'm personally not going to add it. No need to ping me about it :) I also have the template watchlisted. -- ferret (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

What are "the usual suspects"?

Hi, I'm reviewing an edit request where someone is requesting to add some entries to one of these. I see in the template documentation that as a general rule:

Stay with the "usual suspects"

I apologize if this is a silly question, but what are "the usual suspects"? I found WP:VG/RS, which contains discussion and a set of sources accepted as generally reliable, but nothing with that particular label. Packrat3860 (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

It means, when possible, to stick to the pre-approved sources which are already hard-coded into the template. You'll see if you scroll down the page, there are a whole slew of sources which can be invoked through special codes. These sources are used so often, that we made it extra easy to use them. However, there is still support for custom sources, and people can use any reliable source from WP:VG/RS as you linked. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:02, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

To me that is basically: IGN, GameSpot, Eurogamer, and Game Informer as core review sources, If a game has been reviewed by one of these sources, that absolutely should be included. Masem (t) 17:11, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I think I've said this before, but I feel this is kind of a weasel word to make sure "some" (but which?) magazines are included. While obviously sources like IGN, GameSpot, EuroGamer and such are easy to add as they have a robust database online (as of now, who knows what tomorrow may bring?) to source from. It implies other publications or non-video game focused material have a less expert value. Depending on your age and where you grew up (i.e: our own biases) the "usual suspects" seems like something we should probably drop from these suggestions/instructions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we should ammend it to say something like: "Use perennial sources when available". I think the idea is to use more well-recognized sources in the infobox over lesser-known ones. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 20:00, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

its more like that if there is a review from these sources it should absolutely be used (which means not only in the template but also addressed on prose). Then other reviews from other allowed sources can be included, though ideally trying g to provide different takes on the review so we get a wide perspective. So if a new review from a lesser source is covering pretty much the same poin5s and gives a similar score as one from the usuals, it's less helpful. Masem (t) 20:19, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I think a review should "absolutely be used" ever honestly. For example, Nintendo Power was done of the most popular magazines of it's era, but it's review section are minimal, often one or two lines which would not comply with WP:WEIGHT standards of more in-depth reviews. As for using more known sources, this is alo going to depend on how old you are and where you grew up. If you grew up in the UK in the 80s, you might know what Zzap!64 is, and I surely didn't know what it was until I read Wikipedia articles on games. Similarly, I think @TarkusAB is closer to saying perennial, but I don't want anyone to think they shouldn't include The Guardian or something because the rest was overloaded with game publications. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2026 (UTC)