Module talk:Video game wikidata

Module talk:Video game wikidata

Rank is not supported & errors if lower rank is missing platform while higher rank has platform

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Have a Wikidata dataset such as wikidata:Special:Permalink/1450364351#P444:

  • Normal rank has no platform (P400) data.
  • Preferred rank has platform (P400) data.

Try to use {{Video game series reviews}} (I tested in Ratchet & Clank) with only the seriesQid parameter (seriesQid = Q5170139). The module will fail around line 111 in sortByPlatform(a,b) function: if(a['qualifiers']['P400'] ~= nil and b['qualifiers']['P400'][1] ~= nil) then.

Adding the platform (P400) data to normal rank somewhat works, however now there will be two different scores shown in {{Video game series reviews}} table. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC); edited 11:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Special:Permalink/1030860870 to see the template with currently available data. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
I've fixed the missing platform issue here: Special:Diff/1030874725. One variable was mistyped, and we can't compare nils so replaced with blank strings. That resolves the module error for missing platforms, though in reality MetaCritic entries should always have platform. As for ranking... Is there any true value in keeping arbitrary snapshots of MetaCritic scores? The score in question doesn't even have an archive so cannot be verified besides. -- ferret (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Just now in wikidata:Special:Permalink/1450442497#P444, I had to mark a 83/100 value as deprecated because of an error in the source or sources. I added another 82/100 value to say what was in that point of time (P585) correctly, but also added a preferred rank 83/100 value with a reason for preferred rank (P7452) as the "most recent value" to fix the incoherent data. I see uses for ranking. (This led to one platform score being listed three times, with the same ref name, but different ref "content".) I could remove the false data altogether, but then there's no record the value was incorrect - for almost ten years? - on enwiki. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Not incorrect, just out of date. Metacritic scores change as new reviews are submitted, sometimes years later. Just update the entries. There's no need to add multiple. As for record, it's still there in the diffs. -- ferret (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
The error in the first 83/100 imported from enwiki (and still present in the Ratchet & Clank series article) is twofold: "retrieved" date precedes publication date, and on the provided archive date the score was different. I disagree with "[j]ust update the entries" per wikidata:Help:Ranking, especially in one case of game score (which I have not bothered to update in Wikidata or add to) had a score of 70% early on instead of current 65%. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Faulty bot imports lacking proper validation should just be fixed. Hand edited data from years ago is prone to all kinds of input errors. -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Render nothing :(

Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, here I tried {{Video game review score | reviewer = MC }} and it render nothing, see related Wikidata item Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Vitaly Zdanevich None of those scores are marked as "review score by" Metacritic. They are from different individual publications. Look at d:Q20112508 and you'll see several scores that explicit denote "Metacritic". -- ferret (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Added, but still nothing :( Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Vitaly Zdanevich You didn't put a reference. The module only outputs sourced statements. Read WP:VG/WD. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.