Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

When posting a new topic, please add a link to the topic on the Video Game Sources Checklist after the entry for the site. If an entry for the site does not exist, create one for it and include the link to the topic afterward. Also, begin each topic by adding {{subst:find video game sources|...site name...|linksearch=...site URL...}} in order to provide other users with some easily accessible links to check up on the source.

Click here to start a new discussion thread

WikiProject Video games
Main page talk   Talk page archive talk
Manual of style Article guidelines talk Templates talk Sources talk
Departments Assessment talk   Requests talk Collaboration talk Reference library talk   Print archive talk Newsletter talk   Current issue Draft
Articles Article alerts talk Pages for deletion talk New pages talk Article requests talk Essential articles talk Most popular articles talk Featured content talk Good content talk
Task forces Arcade talk Atari talk Atlus talk BioWare talk Castlevania talk Command & Conquer talk Destroy All Humans! talk Devil May Cry talk Dungeons & Dragons talk The Elder Scrolls talk Gears of War talk Grand Theft Auto talk id Software talk Indie New! talk Insomniac talk Mega Man talk Mortal Kombat talk MUD talk Nintendo talk PlayStation talk Pro gaming talk Retro games New! talk Sega talk Silent Hill talk The Sims talk Soul talk StarCraft talk Suikoden talk Valve talk Visual novels Joint TF! talk Warcraft talk WikiProject Portal talk Project category talk Project cleanup talk Traffic statistics talk Article statistics talk Project members talk
Project watchlist view • talk • edit • changes

Giant Bomb for Reviews Template?

I'd like to reopen discussion about adding Giant Bomb as a default reviewer on the reviews template. I know it's been shot down before, but the site has definitely evolved and grown since it has been discussed previously, and while there is a significant amount of user content on the site (a concern that has been raised previously), the staff reviews are clearly split out from the user reviews. There are plenty of other sites that feature user reviews just as prominently that are already included. --fuzzy510 (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:VG/S says "Reliable for reviews and news content submitted in the site's blog by the site's own editorial staff." Some of the default reviews are of an even less-defined reliability, I support the addition of GiantBomb to the {VG Reviews} template. Salvidrim! 06:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the number of past journalistic talent now at GB, it makes sense to include them as a reliable review. It should be noted that because the site hosts both the editorial staff review and user reviews, editors need to make sure only the editorial ones are included here. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - I could say everything other said, but honestly they've covered thins sufficiently. --Teancum (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - as long as there is an easy way for someone to tell staff reviews from user reviews. Unlike SEMO, this is a huge site that might not list all staff members at a given time.∞陣内Jinnai 20:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Any staff review is under a tab labeled "Giant Bomb Review" on the game's reviews page. Any user review is under a tab labeled "User Reviews" on that page. There's no confusion whatsoever. --fuzzy510 (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We know there's a difference. What I suspect may happen is that a novice editor, seeing that we have a "Giant Bomb" field, will mistakenly use any URL with a "giantbomb.com" address for a review, but the URL alone (I believe) doesn't distinguish between a staff and user review. This is just a caution to be made for the template instructions. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Vox Games

If you've been watching the news, you know that Joystiq and Kotaku have had significant shifts in staff over the last few weeks. This morning they just announced that nearly all these people (Chris Grant, both McElroys, Brian Crerente, a handful of others) are going to start a new gaming site for Vox Media, tentatively titled "Vox Games" (that could change). [1]

It is not 100% active yet, but I'm going to argue that based on the caliber of the staff for it, this should likely be considered a reliable source once they are up and running. We certainly can take a wait-and-see approach, but I don't think this will be much of an issue here. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

PALGN

Same as the post above. It looks like the whole PALGN editorial team have left/are set to leave, following a dispute with the owners over the future direction of the site. [2] . Seeing as how its an OK source,and more importantly, a source with an Australian/New Zealand angle, it may be worthwhile keeping an eye on it for developments and to check if they keep the standards high enough. - X201 (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Kotaku East

[3] Just got announced. Coverage of VGs from Japan, etc. I have a feeling a lot of editors will be appreciative of this. Probably should see how it works out to determine if it is RS, but if we are taking Kotaku in general as such... --MASEM (t) 15:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

RS Opinion sought

Repost from WP:VG talk :)

Saw a site I didn't recognize used as a source today on the World of Warcraft article, geek.pikimal.com. Anyone have thoughts on whether this is a reliable source? I only see it used in about 5-6 other articles. -- ferret (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In light of the About and Staff pages, I would recommend going with WP:SPS, which is to say, establish the individual writer's reliability, rather than a site-wide judgement. Salvidrim! 05:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)