A: No, we only add reviewers who are (1) vetted as reliable (having a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and editorial confidence), and (2) already commonly used in the article prose. Note that adding links to your website on Wikipedia is a conflict of interest—it creates cleanup for us and no added favor for your site.
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
IMHO, the rename of the article should be reverted. It is principally about the website. The podcast network is a subtopic. IceWelder [✉] 18:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine Mean Machines differs from Mean Machines Sega which came about after Mean Machines split into two, along with Nintendo Magazine System (see the article for more info). The lack of a separate reviewer for Mean Machines has lead to inaccuracies in Video game reviews template data such as in the ActRaiser article which lists it as having being reviewed by Mean Machines Sega instead of the original Mean Machines; this is somewhat preposterous given that ActRaiser was a game for a Nintendo system, Mean Machines Sega is a magazine exclusively for Sega games, and the rivalry that existed between the two companies at the time. Please consider adding Mean Machines to the list of reviewers so that inaccuracies such as that of the ActRaiser article can be easily fixed. I also noticed that the Mean Machines Sega link provided by the template is a redirect rather than an article, so you may want to fix that too. Also consider adding Nintendo Magazine System to the list of reviewers for completeness and to help fix other inaccuracies where Nintendo Official Magazine is listed instead. 186.30.182.176 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I have included a complete and specific description. If there is something that's unclear or if you feel I could give more information on something, please say so and I will be happy to help. 186.30.182.176 (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When Famitsu originally reviews games, at least older ones, they did not average out the ratings to be out of 40, which is currently what the article states ("Famitsu (Fam) 0 to 40, based on four individual reviews").
While occasionally shown on their website as an average, it would be wrong to suggest Famitsu initially gave a score out of 40 on given dates or on the initial reception. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication." which means we shouldn't tally them up if we are citing the article. That said, how should Famitsu be displayed in the ratings box? I've made an attempt to clarify it on the Otogirisō i've worked on, but the instructions on Template:Video game reviews seem to be a bit confusing if not a bit contradictory. What's the approach for this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrzejbanas The documentation currently states Collective scoring: Publications such as Electronic Gaming Monthly and Famitsu review games among a group, with each reviewer offering their individual score. Using the average or cumulative score from these publications will result in the loss of that breakdown, so include the individual scores, either in the table itself or in a footnote.. Otogirisō appears to follow this to me. -- ferret (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrzejbanas Yeah, that second part should be updated. Someone was trying to say it in the fewest words possible I think and it make come from a bad effort to condense for the VisualEditor template parameters. -- ferret (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly just edit it. It's part of the documentation subpage, not the template itself. I'd take out the "0 to 40" and say "Four individual scores of 0 to 10", or something similar. -- ferret (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.
Edit requests to template-protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. Consider making changes first to the module's sandbox before submitting an edit request. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.
