Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

This talk page is for discussing the reliability of sources for use in video game articles. If you are wondering if a video game source is reliable enough to use on Wikipedia, this is the place to ask.

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

Archives

Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

Approval of the Hungarian 576 Konzol magazine

Find video game sources: "576 Konzol" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Established as a magazine in 1997, is was the largest magazine of its kind in the country and a few surrounding ones, and the byword for video game magazines in the country, and it is the first console only magazine in Hungary. It was published by 576 "Comgame" Kft which previously publish 576 KByte from 1990 to 2003. This corporation runs the 576 KByte shops too. It's defunct after the October 2008 issue, and transform into 576 KByte, which last only 20 issue and then it's became an online magazine. It has some interviews (with Bungie, SCEE, FASA Interactive, Epic Games, Mithis Entertainment, and so on), but some of them are translated from unreliable (?) sites (from Mayhem UK C64 fansite). They not only cover videogames (from SNES to the PS3/X360/Wii era) and hardwares (videogame consoloes and accesories), but animes, mangas, retro games, films, books, music, webpages, and even videogame magazines. After it's defunct some of it's editors are (Martin the editor-in-chief, Dzson, Miklós Veres, antaru, Petúnia) are estabilish the PlayStation.Community - The Hungarian PlayStation Insiders webpage. Some of it's editors are (Grath and Sasa) from PC Guru and one of them (Oldern) write for Mondo magazine too. The magazine was the partner of Mangafan, a manga publisher, and Mondo magazine. Martin the editor-in-chief for 576 Konzol, and for the PSC is currently writes in Konzol magazine too. So what do I need to do to get it formally approved? Sillent DX (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If 576 "Comgame" Kft was an actual publishing company with the expected editors, lawyers, etc on staff, then we can presume reliability. Do you have access to actual copies? That would be preferable to fansite translations. Marasmusine (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Comgame only published these two magazines (as far as I know), and currently running 576 KByte shops. I have 576 Konzol from February 2000 (#25) to July-August 2008 (#118). "Fansite translations" [...] then I have to find someone who actually know English or someone who can translate "my English" to proper English. PS: Forgot to mention that Martin ran a program (Szegasztok) on m1 sometimes in 1993. Sillent DX (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC) edit: Comgame also distribute games under the Ezt vedd meg! (EVM) label. Sillent DX (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help if you can provide a rough english translation. As long as it's selected sections, and not whole magazines! I recently helped with a German magazine translation for Space Tanks... Yahoo! Babel Fish is a useful tool for this. The fansite may facilitate if you can vouch for it. Marasmusine (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a rough translation of an interview with the now closed Mithis Interactive's (thanks Squenix) creative director (Zsolt Nyulászi) about Battlestation: Midway (just to learn that are you guys can understand my english). And back to the first question, are they reliable? Sillent DX (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's really the top Hungarian gaming site then I'd say it's OK. SharkD  Talk  02:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

They were the top of the top offline console gaming magazine in Hungary, altough they does not really have any rivals as they defunct, thanks to the 576 Kozol's success ("PS Guru" is defunct arund in 2005, "Play Zone" is lived from 2004 to 2005, "Game Masters" from 2007 to 2010 and "Play!" stands less than a year, so 576 Konzol is Hungary's longest ran console only gaming magazine) Sillent DX (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this, but is it a problem if Comgame publishes the magazine and is also a video game distributor? SharkD  Talk  10:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why would it be a problem. They only release budget price PC games (and rerelease full priced games in budget price) so they not reviewed them in the magazine. Just noticed this, but two of it's contributors are work in Digital Reality, one of them (Theodore Reiker) will be the designer of Sine Mora (the game with Suda51 and Akira Yamaoka) and the other one (Ferenc Nagy-Szakáll aka Vega) will be the level designer of the same game.[1] Sillent DX (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My reason being that maybe they give their own products preferential treatment? SharkD  Talk  10:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

To summarize all: 576 Konzol was Hungary's first and longest ran console only magazine. It's published by Comgame "576" Kft, which published Hungary's "most prestigious gaming magazine" (according to one of Hungary's largest IT website, HWSW) the 576 KByte, which ran from 1990 to 2002. Most of 576 Konzol's editor had written in another gaming or non-gaming magazine (576 KByte: Martin, Dae, Reiker, hzx, liquid, Stilleto, Grath, wilson; PC Guru: Grath; PS Guru: Vega, Dzson; Play Zone: Vega; Konzol: Martin, Krisz, krugman, Petúnia; Mondo: Oldern). Martin Vajdics the magazine's editor-in-chief start his journal carrer in the first issue of 576 KByte as a regular editor and later became the deputy editor. He host a TV show (SzEGAsztok) in 1993 at m1. He start Hungary's first anime/manga column (in 576 KByte). He's currently the editor-in-chief of PlayStation.Community (previously PlayStation.LIVE) which is Hungary's "biggest PlayStation webpage" (according to GameStar), and writes articles in Konzol magazine. The magazine had some interviews, but some of them are translated. They went to the E3, TGS, AOU, Games Convention, PlayStation Experience and ECTS (and some others). Where they articles usable? Like Japanese games' articles have Famitsu score Hungarian games' (Battlestation series, Ecco the Dolphin series...) articles should have Hungarian review(s). Sillent DX (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support per discussion above. --Teancum (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

ZTGameDomain?

Find video game sources: "ZTGameDomain" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

It seems affiliated with N4G, but am not exactly sure how. One feature article I was reading uses a pseudonym for its author. SharkD  Talk  03:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - after reading additional articles and considering the network family this comes from, I'm supporting this. --Teancum (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I can't find out anything about staff, and all their reviews that I randomly sampled have no byline and "Review copy provided by publisher" at the bottom. If they're just republishing flack copy, that's hardly a reliable source. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We have several reputable sources which don't contain the "Review copy provided by publisher". I don't see how that's relevant. --Teancum (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, staff can be found here. Info on Ken McKnown (editor-in-chief) can be found on LinkedIn. --Teancum (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

XBLAfans

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Find video game sources: "XBLAfans" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I'm entirely unsure on this one. There's a lot of great nuggets on this site regarding XBLA titles that receive little coverage elsewhere, but I can't find much on the staff (on the right panel of the site). I feel like I've seen the editor-in-chief (John Laster)'s writings published elsewhere, but I haven't been able to come up with much. He seems linked in with the several high-end journalists such as Brian Crecente. Given the rest of the staff this would probably a situational source at best, but I wanted to get someone who's better at hunting down published articles to check the site. Thanks much. --Teancum (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Blake Colello also writes for The Game Reviews but I don't think that counts [4]. Kaitlyn Chantry has a large port folio[5] including articles on Game Postitive which looks okay. Not found anything for the others yet. Marasmusine (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

John Laster's Twitter is followed by the likes of GamersHell, Imagine Publishing, DualShockers, Cathlin Sentz of N4G, TechSpy, and ZTGameDomain, Drew Leachman of ZTGameDomain, Dave Cook of NowGamer, Geoff Hathaway of GamingBits, Rane Pollock of PlatformNation, David Lynch of UK Magazine 360, Chris Pereira of 1UP.com, Andrew Groen, who has contributed to GamesRadar, GamePro, and PlayStation: The Official Magazine, Jennifer Allen of Resolution Magazine, GameCritics, Scott Nichols of GayGamer, as well as other freelance writers - indicating he may be an expert in his field. His Facebook also has the likes of Brian Crecente of Kotaku, Alex Ryan of Destructiod, Chris Paladino, Christa Phillips Charter, John Porcaro, Josh Kerwin, Justin Korthof and Larry Hryb of Microsoft, Dan Amrich of Activision, Dan Ryckert of Game Informer, Dawn Burnell of 2K Games, Erin Losi and Pete Hines of Bethesda Softworks, Gabe Newell of Valve, Heather Rabatich of Bioware, Hilary Goldstein of IGN, Jeff Brown, Jonathan Long and Rob Semsey of Electronic Arts, Larra Paolilli of Blizzard Entertainment, Nick O'Leary of Namco Bandai, Remi Sklar of Warner Bros., and Russ Frushtick of MTV Networks --- this at least indicates that he is well connected in the industry, if nothing more. --Teancum (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the above I'd like to make this a situational source based on the author of the article cited. On a slightly different topic I'm finding more and more that finding specialized coverage for XBLA/PSN/WiiWare games is getting tougher, so we may need to look at sites like these more with the "are they an expert" rather than the "publishing history", as often these kinds of sites are where I find XBLA developer interviews and the like, and that's likely to continue that way. --Teancum (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent towards the weight that contacts on social networking sites might have in determining expertise. Just can't decide :> Although, if we trust Laster as an editor-in-chief (and maybe Chantry as a assc. editor), doesn't that lend reliability to the whole site? What about the strongly related thegamereviews.com? Marasmusine (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this along with the quality of writing can speak for the site. Some articles by contributors aren't all that great, however I promote it as a situational for specific editors such as Laster and Chantry, as sites like XBLAfans and GamerBytes (below) are often one of the few sources to find interviews for indie game authors, DLC reviews for those games, etc. There just aren't many trusted sites dedicated to digital console content, and I chose this one for review because to the writing and background of Laster - after you found the info on Kaitlyn Chantry I felt like it was enough to push this one over. In regards to thegamereviews.com, again I'd say it's situational based on author. There isn't even a staff page there. --Teancum (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I contacted John Laster, editor-in-chief to find out about his staff. Here's the relevant part of his response:

As for our staff, all three listed editors have a pretty extensive background. I've been doing this for about 3-4 years now for various sites and finally decided to start something up on my own. Tyler Cameron has been writing for about a year and half mostly for www.gamernode.com. Kaitlyn Chantry is a Harvard grad her past work is listed on her personal site. John Carson has worked on and off with me for two years. Primarily with www.thegamereviews.com (which is now dead sadly). Vlad Micu is the head of GameSauce.org and has been in the industry for about 4 years. His list of sites he has written for is a tad too long for me to recap off the top of my head.

Each of the listed editors above is part of a new partnership that will be happening with GameSauce.org within the next month (Industry Magazine that is bigger in Europe than the US). They are bringing me on as an expert on XBLA games to conduct and edit interviews and that will involve each of the rest of my staff to an extent.

Ross Adam has written for Cast Medium and http://www.bitmob.com/

Andrew Crews has been pretty solid for us, but his lineage is a bit more limited. His personal blog: http://www.chainmonster.com/

Blake collello and Rob Owens both did some freelance work for us back when I was the editor of www.thegamereviews.com

Cameron Titus and Xeserox do not have formal experience and may need to be avoided.

Gamesauce is both an online and print-based magazine based in Seattle, WA; it has an industry-based 25,000 circulation, with about 1/3 of that being outside of the US. I feel like lends some weight to each of the editors in his first paragraph. The other four editors in the second paragraph are much less experienced, and I can only see Ross Adam having any sort of ability to be a reliable source. I'd really like more feedback on this. I have a special interest in sites like these since finding great coverage for XBLA/PSN/WiiWare/Indie games in general is getting harder to do. (See my rationale in the #Strategy Informer section below) --Teancum (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is any opposition I would like to go ahead with listing this as a Situational Source based on author. Those editors involved above in a collaboration with Gamesauce (John Laster, Tyler Cameron, Kaitlyn Chantry, John Carson, and Vlad Micu) listed as reliable, all other authors as unreliable. Any opposition? --Teancum (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coming Soon Magazine

Find video game sources: "Coming Soon Magazine" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo

I thought I would ping the project on the suitability of "Coming Soon Magazine" as a reliable source. I was thinking of using one of their reviews in a Wikipedia article but noticed they have not yet been rated.

On the CSM website it says CSM started in 1993-1994 distributing over BBSes and incorporated in Vermont in 1996. Based on the content of the site it looks like they stopped writing reviews sometime in 1997, although there are a few "2000" dates on their site too.

CSM is used as a reference in several Wikipedia articles, including Master_of_Magic, Warcraft:_Orcs_&_Humans, and Age_of_Empires_(video_game). They have been used as links or references in a few places on the net, such as MobyGames and StarWarsLinks.com, but I'm not sure those are terribly reputable. According to google they have also been used as a reference in a few books (see google books link above) It doesn't look like CSM was ever distributed in print.

The quality of reviews seems to vary with the author - some reviews are concise and well-written; others have poor grammar and drone on without saying much.

Anyway, I am not looking to undermine existing articles, but to see what everyone thinks. Cheers. --Culix (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I couldn't find any editorial info, nor anything on the staff. As you said, reviews are hit and miss as far as quality goes. --Teancum (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Electric Playground and Reviews on the Run

Find video game sources: "The Electric Playground" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Find video game sources: "Reviews on the Run" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

The Electric Playground and Reviews on the Run are related broadcast television programs airing in Canada, with the former also becoming available in United States and Australia. Aired episodes are accessible on their website. No viewer or reader generated content is apparently available on the web sites. It may be similar to X-Play. A user has suggested that Reviews on the Run is a not a reliable source. Where should these shows go on the list of sources? I can't find many third party references to them. Shawnc (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - especially ElecPlay, as it's been around a looooooong time. --Teancum (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Both sites are run by respected video game journalists that have been around a while. It's basically in the same respect as GameTrailers or X-Play, just not as recognizable. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Question - Would the fact that clips from the later ,AKA Judgement Day, being featured on the G4 website add to their credibility? Sarujo (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support for Electric Playground. I can't believe it isn't already considered a reliable source—it's been on the air for over a decade. I don't know enough about the other one to give an opinion on it, however. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

PlayStation Blog as a reliable source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The PlayStation Blog is increasingly becoming, a popular source especially for PlayStation-related games or articles. This is due to the increasing number of 3rd-party studio interviews being conducted on the site. The blog is published by Sony Computer Entertainment which makes it reliable, though some may argue that it is not neutral but neutrality is not required under WP:SOURCE. Secondly, articles should be judged from the author of the article rather than the publisher. Since majority of the articles are written by actual staff of third-party studios, they should be considered as qualified authors. E.g. [6][7] Also the PS Blog is more like a news blog rather than a personal blog, publishing only gaming related articles and no geek stuff etc. So its acceptable under WP:NEWSBLOG. In addition, in recent times there have been alot of interviews or announcements that have been released first on the PS Blog, thus it is starting to become a strong source of information regarding gaming. So I propose that it be shifted from a situational source to a reliable source under platform-specific.KiasuKiasiMan 14:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Support as conditional source for PS3/PSP-related titles. Has been this way for a time, but more significant in recent years. Like Kotaku, WP:DUCK test for blog-like posts. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Masem summed it up well here. So long as we watch for anything that quacks we're okay. --Teancum (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Same as what Masem said, i've seen many reliable posts by them but a few blog-like posts. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

VG247 as a reliable source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to propose the inclusion of VG247 as a general reliable source. The blog was listed as the 3rd best gaming blog by CNET, who praised them saying "the writing is excellent, and it covers all the important news with a twist of humour."[8] The site won the Game Media Awards 2009's Best Blog Award [9] and was nominated once again in the category in 2010.[10] The site was co-founded by Patrick Garett and Eurogamer (which is a reliable source). Patrick Garett won at the Games Media Awards 2009, Best Specialist Writer, Online and Games Media Legend.[11] In addition he had previously worked with Eurogamer, GamesIndustry.biz, CVG, Xbox World and others as a journalist, editor and publisher. [12] Other site staff include Stephany Nunneley who was a former Gaming Today (on FileFront) writer and 1UP.com contributor.[13] As well as Nathan Grayson who has written articles for Maximum PC, The Escapist. [14]

In addition the site is strictly a newsblog, so there are no blog-like posts. Thus it should be seriously considered for becoming a reliable source.KiasuKiasiMan 12:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good (support!). They seem to have had a few exclusive leaks/rumours in the past few months, which lends weight to their notability. Thanks! Fin©™ 13:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I support it too. The upper staff seem to be strong, and though there seem to be some unknowns, their articles look to be scrutinized by editorial staff - or at least I didn't see any issue with it. Similar to other gaming blogs, it would need to have the WP:DUCK test for rumors and the like. --Teancum (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Weeeeeellllll, they do have *some* blog-like posts. [15] but yea, those are easy to spot. Support easily. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because they are easy for you to spot, doesn't mean they are easy for everyone. I'd say be cautious and have it as a situational source.陣内_Jinnai 17:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Still, the fact is that every site posts rumors. Though sites like IGN don't do it as often, it still happens. --Teancum (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessarily that they are posting rumors. It is the style of that post that I wouldn't use as support a fact. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you give an example? I'm having a hard time following what you mean.陣内_Jinnai 23:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think he means infrequent rumor posts such as this [16] Where they used a dialogue to report the story, the real content is in the last few paragraphs. Though these posts are seldom and infrequent as I said before and they're written by Patrick Garett.KiasuKiasiMan 05:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, we should mention specifically those are not reliable because if we don't people will take them as being just as reliable on the assumption that news articles from RS are reliable until they are proven otherwise.陣内_Jinnai 15:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd propose similar wording to how we treat Kotaku as a reliable source "most of the site can be considered reliable, but editors are cautioned of WP:DUCK for blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance." --Teancum (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree as above. The article isn't unreliable it just isn't written in a normal style of a article like what Masem said.KiasuKiasiMan 15:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As a comment, I think all of our major sources, except for print mags, Gamasutra, Develop/Edge, and a few others, all should have DUCK prefacing. They are geeks and nerds running these, and for fun they'll slip into something less formal. Such posts are usually easy to detect or obvious, so it's a general warning applies to all, more so on situational sources. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Would be a good idea.陣内_Jinnai 22:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Reliable and non-sensationalist + Garett is well respected journalist in his field. - X201 (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Support, CNET mention is pretty significant and editors seem to be pretty reliable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RunDLC

Find video game sources: "RunDLC" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

A site focusing on XBLA/PSN/WiiWare/iOS games primarily. Run by Chris Buffa and Robert Workman of GameDaily (a reliable source). Buffa also writes for Joystiq and has an education in corporate communication, which helps his journalistic background. Workman's LinkedIn profile notes he went to college for journalism and writes for multiple sites. A third writer, John Artest, also contributes to the site. I couldn't find any information on him, but given the other two's background and the fact that they write for reliable sources I'm willing to weight in his favor. Although it's simply a blog they do get some exclusive interviews with indie developers, which helps immensely when doing articles for XBLA/PSN/WiiWare/iOS games. Requesting this be a reliable source; if not that then a situational one. The same ruleset would apply to any other reliable/situational blog in that it needs to pass WP:DUCK. --Teancum (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can give a pass on John Artest except perhaps if he's doing an interview. If its a blog, then there is no editorial oversight and if we're seen as being too lax on what we allow as RS, people will begin to heavily scrutinize all of our GA/FA/FLC articles.陣内_Jinnai 19:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So what is your opinion? Are you supporting it as a situational source based on author? --Teancum (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much that陣内_Jinnai 23:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with situational. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

unlinking unreliable sources

[17] Since the search engine uses this page in addition, I am wondering if we should do so here.陣内_Jinnai 23:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand from your link what this does. It automatically breaks links in Wikipedia to unreliable sources? --Teancum (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

instead of Wikipedia it is "Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org)"陣内_Jinnai 04:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Bitmob

[18] - As situational, due to community writers posting in the same spot as staff writers. The staff writers seem pretty reliable - Dan Hsu, Greg Ford, and Demian Linn all contributed to EGM, Jason Wilson was a sportswriter for nearly 10 years and a former copy chief for Ziff Davis Media Game Group, Aaron Thomas has contributed to IGN, GamePro, GameSpot, and GamesRadar, etc. There's a pretty vast collection of reliable people in the site, but like I said, the community submits articles to bitmob, which are posted in the same style and format as the staff articles. Perhaps if there was a note to not use anything written by a "Community Writer"? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

According to this news post, the founder Dan Hsu was "editorial director for the 1UP Network and editor-in-chief of Electronic Gaming Monthly", so that looks as good as it gets. As you said, a situational source notice should be put up to check if something was written by the site's staff. Otherwise, it looks fine. Prime Blue (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Situational - on the condition that it must be "BITMOB STAFF" and not "COMMUNITY WRITER" in the referenced article. --Teancum (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Even after eight days this hasn't been promoted, all of what NARH, Prime Blue and Teancum have said definitely support its situational status. I support it as well, on the same condition as Teancum. Support. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Square Enix Music Online as situational source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think Square Enix Music Online has reached the point where it can be accepted as a situational source, as it has become a really good resource for game music-related topics. It provides interviews with game composers and is one of the few sites to offer periodical album reviews. Their news reports have been picked up by various reliable sources (Kotaku 1, Kotaku 2, Joystiq, Edge). Since the great Music4Games has closed down, this site has been a good substitute with its exclusive content. The only thing I noticed is that some of the biographies on game composers seem to contain some slight mistakes (years mixed up etc.), which is why I propose only their non-biography content to be used as a source. Prime Blue (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Situational source - note that their bigoraphies should not be used without checking elsewhere.陣内_Jinnai 16:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Situational source - per comments by Jinnai and Prime Blue. Don't have any commentary to add, just support per above. --Teancum (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Situational source - I use them all the time in VG music articles; I'd agree that their bios aren't reliable though- that said, they get all of that information from other interviews on the net (it's like an uncited WP article) so not being able to use the bios shouldn't stop an enterprising editor. --PresN 02:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion has lasted for some time and the opinions were unanimous, so I promoted it to situational source. Prime Blue (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gamesauce

Find video game sources: "Gamesauce" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

• Proposed Reliable Source

Gamesauce (website) is both an online and print-based magazine based in Seattle, WA; it has an industry-based 25,000 circulation, with about 1/3 of that being outside of the US. See their about us page for more information. Some of the staff have backgrounds as game developers, others are more journalism-based. The magazine typically has interviews with indie studios and contributors from those studios who write articles on game design, as well as other content. I'm looking mostly to approve this on the basis of the interviews/highlights of game studios such as their article on RedLynx, which would be a huge asset to the RedLynx article. I'd say articles by contributors should generally be avoided but can be considered on a case-by-case basis - such a case could be the possibility of a major video game designer such as Ron Gilbert or Tim Schafer contributing a retrospective article on their past games. Some realistic examples would be their interviews with Thatgamecompany's Kellee Santiago and Robin Hunicke along with bigger companies such as Gearbox Software's Steve Gibson and Bethesda Softworks's Pete Hines. --Teancum (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The contributions are published under a unified "Contributions" author account - perhaps I'm wrong here but to me that suggests a stronger editorial oversight, comparatively. These are also all industry insiders. I'd actually be happy calling this a reliable source. Marasmusine (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't they have a TV show on GSN a few years ago? Sarujo (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you're thinking of Game Sauce, which is a different entity. I had to look it up to be sure. --Teancum (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd actually say a website that doesn't disclose the main contributors to a story looks less reliable, actually. Also interviews aren't really a good example of suggesting reliability; at FAC there have been plenty of decent interviews that have been removed as the site itself doesn't meet RS criteria, and interviews don't grant exceptions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Contributions are disclosed in the article itself (I.E. this contributor article indicates Noah Falstein wrote the article). Contributions are merely separated as they are not written by staff, but by industry experts in their respective fields, or developers who do reflections on specific topics. I see no reason why this is any different than Gamasutra's take on things. Some articles are written by staff, others by contributors. The only difference is that the contributor's name is listed in a blockquote in the article. I just don't see how looking into the source itself doesn't verify it's reliability. The staff is made up of journalists and developers with experience, clearly in looking at the writing style there's an strong editorial process. The contributors are listed in the prose of the article, but in a clear manner, and are experts in their fields. Unless there's a specific other qualm about the site I really don't see a reason not to make this a reliable source. --Teancum (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wayback Machine

New beta is up for those interested, http://waybackmachine.org/ « ₣M₣ » 22:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just curious - has anyone noticed whether the new beta does any better which archiving sites with dynamic queries? What I mean by that is that things like drop-down lists and such are sometimes dynamically generated, and archive.org sometimes had problems with it. --Teancum (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Co-Optimus

Propose Co-Optimus as reliable source. Editorial staff overview displayed at [19], articles have bylines, article quality looks pretty decent and I see no evidence of copypasta reposting of flack materials. Looks adequate to me. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - been meaning to propose this for a while, but never got around to it. --Teancum (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing anything that makes them reliable... they have a staff, but none of those people are notable, the editor is also the owner (SPS...), and no one else seems to value their opinions much (I saw a Lifehacker blog post on the site and that's about it.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • True - I see a couple of hits at Kotaku and a six at Joystiq, haven't checked other sites, but I'll have to take a deeper look. --Teancum (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, a heavily filtered reliable sources search (removed all forums/comments) yields quite a few decent results. This may be worth looking deeper into. I followed a handful of links and saw some decent coverage. Doesn't help the SPS issue per say, but there seems to be plenty of mention. --Teancum (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just dropping a bunch of links in succession that would be of interest as far as other sites valuing their opinion: IGN, Joystiq (direct coverage of the site itself), 1UP (covers actions by Co-Optumus), Joystiq (cites Co-Optimus), ARS Technica (more coverage of the site in a Co-op article), GameDaily (cites Co-Optimus as a source), Game, Set, Watch (in an article about useful gaming links), Game Informer (cites it as a source), Gamasutra (mentioned in an interview), Game, Set, Watch (another mention) -- there's more, but those prove the point,

While I can't speak for the SPS issue, several sites have given mention, cited, or covered Co-Optimus directly. I don't think it's a matter of enough folks valuing their opinion. --Teancum (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

But whether or not they are worth salt in the related field is not the question; it's whether they meet RS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see some reasons why this wouldn't work, but if you could lay out the specifics of where this fails that could help with the site itself. I often pass on information to these sorts of sites as they'd like to pass WP:RS and so are willing to make changes accordingly. The only thing I see are the lack of experienced staff. I just want to see if there are other specific things that cause this to fail. --Teancum (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Game Chronicles

Game Chronicles - Previously the site was deemed unreliable, however since then improvements have been made, including publishing of their review process. The staff page is here. No bias one way or another, just pinging the community one this. --Teancum (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement about reliability of Eurogamer articles for OnLive article

Factual Background:

There is a disagreement on the OnLive Discussion page about whether 2 related articles from Eurogamer's DigitalFoundry by the same author are acceptable or preferable as sources for the OnLive article. Currently, they dominate the OnLive article as a source, providing the support for over 500 words out of about 2,500 words in the body of the article. In earlier revisions, they have represented an even larger proportion.

The first article was published shortly after OnLive was announced in March of 2009:

"GDC: Why OnLive Can't Possibly Work"[20] The second article was published shortly after OnLive was released to the public in July of 2010:

“OnLive Latency: The Reckoning”[21]

Since the first article was cited in the OnLive article, several editors have strongly objected to use of the first, and later, the second, article, as sources, while other editors have just as strongly supported using the articles as sources, resulting in many deletions and restorations of content sourced from the articles. Currently, Eurogamer is listed as a reliable source in the Videogames Wikiproject, and in the most recent discussion, one of the editors has stated that as the reason why the articles are appropriate sources for the OnLive article.

My view of why these articles are not appropriate sources:

While Eurogamer may be a reliable source generally, these particular two articles are in violation of several Wikipedia source guidelines, including WP:SOURCES, WP:PRIMARY, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NPOV, WP:IRS.

The articles are WP:PRIMARY articles based on original “research”. The articles cite no identifiable sources to back up their claims. To the extent the first article cites an “expert” source, it identifies an anonymous foul-mouthed video compression expert who supposedly developed YouTube’s HD video technology. The supposed expert’s information is not only acknowledged as false by the second article, but, as referenced in the Wikipedia article on YouTube (with reliable sources), YouTube’s HD video technology is based on Adobe Flash (which in turn, was based on H.264 compression), and was not developed by YouTube. Thus, not only were the statements by the “expert” highly defamatory to OnLive, were laced with foul language, and were acknowledged in the second article to be false, but no such “YouTube HD video” expert exists and was clearly fabricated to create the appearance of a famous expert to back up the article’s exceptional claims.

The WP:REDFLAG “exceptional claims” made by the articles start with the title of the first article “Why OnLive Can’t Possibly Work”, using pseudo-scientific arguments backed by supposed experts (at least one who was fabricated), which were debunked by the fact that OnLive does, in fact, work. The second article grudgingly acknowledges that the first article’s assertions were false, or at best grossly exaggerated. Nonetheless, it continues to make further “exceptional claims”, again citing anonymous supposed experts who supposedly conducted more pseudo-scientific testing, which of course, conclude that despite the fact OnLive does work, it does not work well. Since the second article was published, no other source has reproduced the pseudo-scientific tests, and further, credible mass-market sources have endorsed OnLive, as major game publishers have released games on OnLive and the largest North American TV manufacture, Vizio, announced it would build OnLive into TVs, blu-ray players and Android devices. With so many of the “exceptional claims” not only contradicted by the prevailing view, but grudgingly by one of the articles itself, these are articles violate WP:REDFLAG policy.

The articles take a strongly negative view in violation of WP:NPOV, they are extremely critical and at best damn with faint praise, they make personal attacks on OnLive principals, stating their claims are false, even after the second article admitted the first article’s personal attacks were unfounded, by characterizing OnLive as a hoax and its principals as making false claims, they seek to undermine the reputation of individuals and the organization.

Because these articles attack living persons, and are self-admittedly false, they violate WP:IRS and should be taken down. “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” Further, the articles clearly are in violation of many of the WP:IRS scholarship guidelines: “Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research” (these “studies” are not only isolated, but self-contradictory). These articles cite pseudo-science research as if it is real academic research, but there is no reputable peer review, no identifiable sources, and have not been accepted by the academic community. Further, these articles qualify as “Questionable sources” under WP:IRS: these articles did not check facts, lack editorial oversight and express views that are extremist in nature, making them particularly unsuitable for citing contentious claims against institutions or living persons.

Lastly, setting aside all of the deficiencies of these articles, there is no justification for having content sourced from these articles dominate the OnLive article. A Google search of “onlive” produces over 2 million web results, 193,000 blog results, and 285 News results for 2011, 2,200 News results for 2010, and 1,220 News results for 2009. Amongst all of these articles, surely we can find reliable sources that are balanced and do not resort to foul language and personal attacks.

So, even if Eurogamer is to be deemed a reliable source in general by this Wikiproject, Eurogamer’s articles about OnLive should not be deemed either reliable or appropriate sources for Wikipedia.

Createk (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place for this discussion - I'd say bring it up at WT:VG. I myself think Digital Foundry is reliable, regardless of individual articles. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Additionally as with all reliable sources some things are editorials by the authors. Such sources should be taken in context, and if such sources are used, it's generally a good idea to see if counterpoint sources can be provided as well. As far as Eurogamer's opinion other sites have been equally as critical as this is new technology ([22], [23]) so having sources that question it is perfectly viable. If it's a neutrality issue re-balance it with positive sources. --Teancum (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Simple answer: Eurogamer is reliable, the person sourced is an expert giving their opinion, and thus as it is not fact, has to be in balance per Undue weight. It is fair to note the author's concerns, but dedicating 20% of the article to his comments is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

ElectronicTheatere

Find video game sources: "ElectronicTheatere" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo

I just found this, I thinking it might no be reliable but I'm not sure. What do you think? Sarujo (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)