Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Hard Drive

Find video game sources: "Hard Drive" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Just stumbled upon this... and, uh, yeah, I think we have a crystal clear unreliable here. JOEBRO64 02:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Old Gamespot article

Hi. I'd like to write in the reception section of the article Fallout (game) that the character creation system was praised. One of the reviews where it is praised is the gamespot review. However the gamespot's Fallout review is signed with a nickname ( https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/fallout-review/1900-2535953/ ). Does it have enough credibility to be quoted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichalZim (talk • contribs) 09:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the official review to me, so that's a yes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Michalzim, it’s not required that writers use their real name, it just matters that it was written by a professional staff member, and not a random person who just signed up to make an account to submit user reviews. (User reviews are generally labeled somewhere in it. If you see a user review, then don’t use that.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

WCCFtech

Find video game sources: "WCCFtech" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo I am currently mass-sourcing the list of Electronic Arts games. With that, I am using a colorful variety of sources for verification. One of the sources that I cited yesterday was WCCFtech. I was not familiar with the website, so I checked their about and career pages. They have a contact page and appear to have some sense of working ethic (after all, searching it on Wikipedia, I did see it used in a handful of articles, but this is just an invalid WP:OSE argument), though they did not have much in the way of company information, just their staff and their biographies.

I presumed that it was an acceptable source and went along, but having just searched the archives here, I found that according to here, the website "got popular in recent years on forums and social media because it frequently posts graphics cards leaks, clickbait, unverified rumours and generally false rubbish". I then did more research on WCCFtech by searching for the name Alessio Palumbo, the author of the only two articles for that aforementioned list, and what I found out on his LinkedIn profile is that he used to write for the Italian branch of GameStar, a reliable source. While writing this, I did more research on what—if any—awards or accolades WCCFtech won, of which I was able to find none. In retrospect, I am on the fence of calling this source reliable, yet at least one person has had experience in professional journalism, so maybe at best this could constitute a situational source of news, rather than a source of speculation?

Whatever the case, it is another lesson for me to be more cautious and not jump to conclusions. Gamingforfun365 20:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I stand by my comments the last time. While there are some problems with rumors and clickbait, their reviews appear journalistic enough and multiple RS regularly cite it. It should at least be considered situational imho. I also recently used it for SpellForce 3 and Dungeons 3 and got no flak from GA reviewers, so perception might have changed. Regards SoWhy 21:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Abacus

Find video game sources: "Abacus" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo Chinese-focused gaming website owned by South China Morning Post's parent company. I'm assuming reliability since it's a subsidiary of an established publisher and has a named Staff. Thoughts? Regards SoWhy 12:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Five inconclusive sources put to rest

I was looking in the section of inconclusive sources, and I thought that I could give my analysis on five of them in hopes of generating consensus and putting those arguments to rest. Here, I found three to be unreliable, one situational, and one reliable.

The Gamers' Temple

Find video game sources: "The Gamers' Temple" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I think we can safely put this to rest. The Gamers' Temple is an online source that is written from the populist perspective of the player. It is also essentially your typical online tabloid that touts itself as being "by gamers, for gamers". There is no staff listed anywhere, and the news section appears to be an aggregator for press releases (making it a primary source of news). The sources are given but not the links, meaning that they could be fake. Meanwhile, the website encourages readers to write reviews on games, and with that already making this a database of reviews, the names of the authors are given, but they have no biographical information or profiles. I think we can close this as unreliable.

Neoseeker

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

Another tabloid aggregator for reviews and news. Neoseeker is better and more decent in reporting than The Gamers' Temple, as it does give the author of a news article and often cites other sources. The problems are that the citations tend to link to better secondary sources such as PC Gamer, rather than to the primary sources (an industry standard), and just like the previous website, it also lacks a staff page and biographical information on the authors, as well as an ethics page. It may be better than some others, but that does not stop me from concluding that this site is unreliable. I would prefer using the sources the website is citing, rather than citing the website itself.

ESRB

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

I can think of only a few instances where I could cite ESRB for information such as the developers, the years, and the platforms on which the games are available. However, my instinct is that we should turn to other sources with expertise for that purpose since ESRB was established to analyze and grade video games for their content, not to pass off information on the games. I imagine that there is use in using this to cite a game's ESRB rating when reporting on any commentary surrounding the rating, for which I would classify this as situational.

situational - bang on. The only times you might cite the ESRB is if the article is about the ESRB, or a controversy regarding the rating. However, as it's a respective organisation, it's clearly reliable information... But situational because it shouldn't count towards WP:GNG, nor really used in many articles, despite being reliable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
They are not unreliable, but they should not be used for only WP:V reasons and not WP:N. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Digital Trends" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Based on my observations, I find Digital Trends to be professional and integral. They are transparent in letting us know who its staff and authors are and what they have done in their careers, as well as giving us links to their LinkedIn accounts. They have a relatively decent About page documenting their company information and the contact, and they also appear to have a strong working ethic with adequate requirements such as holding a college degree in the field of journalism, writing skills, and meeting deadlines. Some of the writers have worked for other publications such as FOX News, CBS News, Wired, etc.

Content-wise, the articles are always well-sourced when appropriate, and when the links are not to primary third-party sources, they lead to other articles on Digital Trends with their own citations (where the links to other articles will eventually lead to all of the articles being sourced by third-party sources). I have not heard much in the way of a poor reputation of the site, so unless I am missing something important, I would place my ten cents on this being reliable.

GamePolitics.com

The information on GamePolitics.com is fuzzy, and it has been dead for a while. In terms of usefulness out of that former blog, I was not able to find an about page or any information on the authors on the site or any of the archives on archive.org, except the person who founded the site. I would say that this was more of an advocacy self-published blog that opposed video game legislation.

As it turns out, the website's founder, Dennis McCauley, used to work for The Philadelphia Inquirer as a video game columnist prior to launching the website. That shows some sense of credibility, but not having a strong working ethic or even an about page, staff, or names of the articles' writers makes GamePolitics.com dubious at best. At the very least, I would say that interviews and the editor's opinions are fine, though only if mentioned by more reputable sources, and I would rather use those sources instead. Otherwise, the former website is solid unreliable. Gamingforfun365 05:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I may have failed to realize that such a one-man blog does not necessarily need staff or a working ethic, but I still think that it fails WP:BLOG and WP:RSSELF, not to mention that it is unclear who is writing the articles and whether Dennis McCauley is involved most of the time. Gamingforfun365 05:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

On the Denuvo wiki page are lists with information on games that use the said protection and whether they're cracked or not.

Considering the nature of game protection cracking, it's usually not covered by regular game media and therefore not easy to find reliable third-party sources. Can the following sources (which are used for the majority of the entries) be used for the mentioned purposes:

1. steam, steam's game EULAs or steamdb as sources for the presence of denuvo in a certain title?
2. websites like xrel.to and predb.pw as sources for the status of cracks?

If you are unfamiliar with xrel and predb, these websites host .NFO text files that are published by the crackers which contain information regarding the cracks for each title.

Are these sources acceptable? If not, what action would you suggest to take? Eddmanx (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why we need a full list of games that use a certain DRM. It seems over what is needed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
No. If it’s not something reliable sources typically cover, then it’s not something Wikipedia should cover. It’s as simple as that. Sergecross73 msg me 23:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Start a Denuvo wiki or try to see if the PCGamingWiki would accept this, because this is not a fit for Wikipedia. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

One Angry Gamer

Find video game sources: "One Angry Gamer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

One Angry Gamer is already used on a bunch of gaming related articles. I have my own concerns, but interested in seeing how others feel since I'm not that familiar with the sourcing norms for video gaming related articles. From what I can tell, all previous discussions of this source have been for sources in other circumstances primarily Gamergate or BLP related. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Dexerto (dexerto.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion of the reliability of Dexerto (dexerto.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Dexerto. — Newslinger talk 03:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Heads up on a new source from former CVG staff

VideoGamesChronicle.com [1] is going to be a new expert video game news site from former members of the CVG team following its closure a few years back [2] It will be operating under the Gamer Network, and will appear to have a good editorial structure. Obviously we should wait to see the exact content they produce, but we should have this on our radar. --Masem (t) 13:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

4 sources discussion: Cubed3, Gaming Age, Digitally Downloaded and Select Button

Opened this because of the Talk:Arc System Works#Proposed merge with Othello (2009 video game) and I think it is finally time to decide where Digitally Downloaded falls in, and to expand on the words of Czar (pinging as well to join) "Cubed3 and Gaming Age do not have any of the hallmarks of editorial reliability and shouldn't be cited in the article or considered a contribution towards the game's noteworthiness". Pinging the users who I have seen commenting on the page: Dissident93, Masem, SoWhy, Hellknowz, Sergecross73, TarkusAB, TheJoebro64, Lee Vilenski, Izno. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Are all of these the same magazine? Or should we be thinking about these separately? Digitally downloaded has a page about it's editorial role here which is enough for me. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski All are separate. Included them together since they are bound in the same discussion at Talk:Arc System Works#Proposed merge with Othello (2009 video game). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Discussing 4 difference websites - most of which we were undecided on when we discussed in the past, is probably going to get messy... Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Cubed3

Previous discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4
  • Unreliable. There are far worse sites and far better. Its work isn't noted by its peers, and its staff largely come from hobbyist backgrounds. It has no listed fact-checking/editorial policy. I see no reason to rely on this blog for statements of fact, nevertheless as a source in an encyclopedia. czar 22:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm still going with situational here. Some of its writers/editors have connections to other industry sources like IGN, GameSpot, and Gamasutra, so I think this would be a case-by-case site where it can be used if the writer can be proven as reliable. JOEBRO64 00:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not sure why the main page still uses the designation "situational", since there is no effective difference between that and an expert writing for an unreliable publication, except that calling the whole publication "situational" (on that expert's behalf) gives the publication credibility where none is warranted by their overall editorial policy. WP:RSN is famous for replying, "well, what's the context?" to any question brought before the noticeboard and the same goes here. Depending on the point being made, the rules of allowable citation are broad. But for the purposes of WP:VG/RS, where we're looking to distinguish and blanketly recommend some few trustworthy sources over the gaggle of game blogs in existence, there is no functional difference between calling a source "situational" and not passing judgment on it at all. Writers/editors do not become de facto reliable for having once written for a great publication, as source reliability rests in the editorial chain, not the individual writer, nevertheless their expertise or pedigree. Now, an experienced writer can be cited as an expert for our purposes, but we treat experts who publish in unreliable venues the same as we treat self-published claims. If that's what we mean by "situational", then there is no need to designate a source as such because any expert writer can write for any publication (or her own blog) and be used under that WP:SPS criteria without need for us to flag an entire source/pub/blog on their behalf. In short, if the case is that specific writers should be used as expert sources, maybe, but that doesn't change the source's overall reliability. czar 01:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    Yet we list non-independent sources in the RS list.
    Anyway, maybe this points to "hey, let's name some people who we think have the pedigree publishing outside a particular source to validly meet WP:SPS" instead of having the situational list. --Izno (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    +1 czar 13:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Gaming Age

Previous discussions: 1, 2, 3
What was its relation to IGN? Being under IGN's wing doesn't necessarily mean that their editorial standards extended to the publication. czar 13:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Digitally Downloaded

Previous discussions: 1
Digitally Downloaded is probably reliable. They've got good editorial control and experienced writers, and are able to get interviews with key developers. Based on previous discussions and their staff, I'd still say Cubed3 is situational. A portion of their writers/editors have experience at other publications (IGN, GameSpot, Gamasutra) but not all, so it'd be a case-by-case thing. No opinion yet on the others. JOEBRO64 14:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I supported Digitally Downloaded when we discussed it last, and we were close to a consensus on it, but it seems like there were one or two people who objected. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I can't see an issue with this one. Clearly has an editorial process. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable. Editorial policy and a good track record of reliable information. See also the previous discussion linked above. Lordtobi (✉) 16:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable - per my arguments at the last discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In brief, I have the same unresolved concerns as last time. The blog authors were discussed as reliable mainly for their college (not industry) pedigrees, as if having a bachelor's degree confers any semblance of reliability on its own. Background in publishing (as in the EIC's experience) is an indicator of how the individual is regarded within a field (as in being published for a long time usually indicates that others regard your work positively). The second person on the masthead, the US editor, has this background. Nothing wrong with it, but it's a sign that the site is a hobby, not a professional publication.
So... unreliable. Editorial process has more to do with the site's internal structure than whether the individuals went to college, though. E.g., having a "scoring policy" only shows us the difference between a 2-star and a 5-star review—it doesn't indicate that the publication has any reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, review, or issuing corrections. Look, I'm amenable, but I genuinely don't see the case being made above. czar 22:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

SelectButton

Previous discussions: none?

RfC on Dexerto (dexerto.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is an RfC on the reliability of Dexerto (dexerto.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Dexerto. — Newslinger talk 20:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Forums and Official Statements

This seems like common sense, but just confirming because of this remark, “Forum posts, for example, are usually non-reliable.” If a company announcement needs to be used to cited to validate the information provided, would that be considered a reliable source if that announcement was made on that companies’ forum by staff or no? Hellotrio (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Assuming that the forum clearly identifies the official/authorized company people to post that information, then its reliable, but I would always seek out a third-party that points to the statement to , at minimally, validate it is considered a statement from the company. --Masem (t) 15:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Hellotrio, glad to see you here! If we can verify that the statement is official, as Masem mentioned, then we'd have to look at the claims being made. Is the source supporting a statement about a release date? That's a pretty basic claim and most editors wouldn't have a problem with it. (Although there could be exceptions as outlined at WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:ABOUTSELF.) Is the source promoting some revolutionary new features? That's where we should let independent sources tell us what to highlight, what's important and what's not. Is the source a list of patch notes or instructions on how to play the game? That's something we generally don't cover at all, per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:VGSCOPE. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
To add, always look to replace these type of citations with independent sources if/when they are written. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Valve News Network

Find video game sources: "Valve News Network" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Aka Tyler McVicker's channel. Not proposing as a direct source but as a "rumor mill" type source that is justified to talk about when other parties discuss their findings. Eg: VG247 story discussing the channel's release of possible L4D3 screenshots. McVicker clearly does research to confirm as best he can as a non-Valve employee, (eg he spent a year to confirm these shots were likely legit). Using this source would require ID'ing McVicker (eg "According to Tyler McVicker, these shots were from....") so we're not treating his conclusions as facts.

I want to be clear this is basically making sure we're talking about this channel because of it recognized as doing its research, rather than some random blogged that string-scummed terms out of an executable and made a far fetched conclusion without any checking or supporting evidence. --Masem (t) 17:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Situational at best. Yes, McVicker does the best he can to verify the information he has but it all boils down to just a fan channel. He has also been prone to misinformation, like when he publicised a fake email response from Gabe Newell that allegedly set HL3's release to within the next five years. ComicBook.com still has the article, citing McVicker, online and un-updated to include that it was fake. Lordtobi (✉) 20:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Agreed, it's situational at best as it's still basically a fansite/rumor mill (in video form) and should still follow the same general guidelines for them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Video Games Chronicle

Find video game sources: "Video Games Chronicle" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo See above- this is a website started by former editors and writers from CVG (see [3]) The site is under the Gamer Network and now is live. There's names of several authors I recognize from other RS gaming sites. Andy Robinson (CVG writer) serves as lead editor. --Masem (t) 15:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ScreenRant

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

Is there any affirmative reason to trust this website for statements of fact? Prior discussion is available here. My read of that discussion was that its usage is not recommended—having no hallmarks of editorial trustworthiness/review/pedigree—and that its reliability would be contested if ever brought to discussion (such as now). So do we really need a separate discussion with bold text to mark it as unreliable? Seems clear enough to me. (btw, the site spells its title as both ScreenRant and Screen Rant.) czar 13:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I think this site is reliable (though that's not the reason I reverted you; I did because that discussion was barely "consensus", just one person saying it didn't look good). It's a sister site of Comic Book Resources (considered one of the most trustworthy comic news sites in the industry) and they share staff. The staff is paid and experienced, and it's got editorial oversight—the editorial director (and he's not the only one, they've got like 10 other editors) has a masters degree in economics and degrees in marketing and computer science, and is also oversees CBR. The film project already considers it reliable, so I don't see why we shouldn't. JOEBRO64 13:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
re: degrees, which comes up fairly often on this page, I'm not sure why it's useful as a factor in publication reliability. Even having an advanced degree in video games makes no guarantee of factual reliability apart from their personal ethics. Writers/scholars make mistakes and that's why reliability comes from another party's review (editorial oversight/policy, fact-checking, reputation for internal standards or within larger industry). A WP editor's degrees don't make their paraphrase reliable either. If anything, the editorial director's degrees qualify him to a run an entertainment business property, maybe, or oversee CBR as a business, but that implies nothing about editorial standards. Now if all writers have backgrounds in journalism and are paid, sure, I'd assume the publication has higher standards, but without any affirmation of oversight, it can just as easily be on par with a gossip rag whose editors have similar pedigrees.
"The film project already considers it reliable" is in reference to what discussion? If this one, I'd say that our last discussion was much more robust. czar 14:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
If we were to consider degrees to determine reliability, we should only consider degrees in journalism or related fields; business and technology degrees do not make you a good journalist. What bothers me, though, is that Robert Keyes (as linked above) was the EiC of CBR, which is stated above as one of the most trustworthy sites, but also the founder and EiC of GameRant, which our project considers unreliable. All three (CBR, ScreenRant, GameRant) do not have any publicly available editorial policy, so I would generally classify them as unreliable, or situational at best because they do not have track records of bad information that I know of. Lordtobi (✉) 14:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
GameRant isn't part of the Valnet network (which includes CBR and Screen Rant). And the GameRant page only lists Anthony Taormina as EiC; Keyes is nowhere to be found. I really don't see how Screen Rant isn't reliable. There's a wide precedent for its usage on film and comic book-related articles (including GAs/FAs) and, according to this page, it's been cited by over 20 high-quality sources. As for editorial policy, I'll email them later to see what I can find; considering they've got over 10 editors I doubt it's not something to hide. JOEBRO64 15:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Keyes lists GameRant on his LinkedIn CV; he founded it and was EiC there for 6 years. Other ScreenRant staff are also former staff of GameRant or other unreliable sources.[4][5][6][7] As for usage frequency, I think we recently had a similar discussion that ruled out usage as means to keep. But indeed, ScreenRant and CBR both belong to Valnet (speaking of Valnet, we can thro TheGamer into the mix), while GameRant is owned by Warp 10. However, the founder of ScreenRant currently is the CEO of Warp 10 and the president for GameRant. My best guess is that ScreenRant was bought off Warp 10 once. Speaking reliability, displaying an editorial policy is usually a good indication. ScreenRant, or any other Valnet property, does not have (or at least does not display) any such policy. What's more, the site endorses paid contributors without apparent application guidelines. Lordtobi (✉) 17:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
So does Forbes, which is a RS. TBH I think it'll be a shame if we classify Screen Rant as unreliable, as I think its articles are extremely useful and high-quality, and it's been cited by The New York Times, HuffPost, Cnet, CBS, Fox, ABC, NPR, The Hollywood Reporter, etc. I'm also going to throw in here that CBR has won Eisner and Harvey Awards. I don't see how either CBR or Screen Rant are different from ComicBook.com, which is considered reliable. JOEBRO64 17:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's just my opinion, also based on what was mentioned in previous discussions. I'm no fan of ComicBook.com either, and haven't heard it is a locked-in reliable source. Either way, we should leave this open for more comments. I'm not here to rule it all. Lordtobi (✉) 17:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
ComicBook.com has never actually been reviewed by VG/RS yet AFAIK, or at least their video game division, as it pertains to us, hasn't. I'd also have to agree on ScreenRant being situational at most due to the paid contributors thing. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

System 16

Find video game sources: "System 16" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I've seen this site be used a few times as a source for multiple arcade game articles, notably Ridge Racer (video game), which even has Good Article status. It's a database focusing on arcade game hardware, mainly those by Sega, Namco and Konami, alongside other developers. Much of the info was submitted by the MAME development team if the about page is to be believed. I've already asked Sergecross73 about this being considered reliable, and although he deemed it unreliable, suggested that I take to this page to get a second opinion on this. Namcokid47 (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, aren't the MAME dev team simply fans of the games/hardware with no real connections to the original developers? If that's the only real argument for the site's reliability, then I'd have to agree on it being unreliable. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Mame do not submit anything to System16. The webmaster of this website relies partly on the data found in MAME. MAME devs are very familiar with the the hardware of emulated games included in MAME (points on they should know everything about). For the rest of the informations, there is no guarantee that the informations are verified. For example, all the releases year given in MAME are only the years shown on the title-screen of the games, and not the real years of release (some release dates are well known of course). In the same way, I talked with this webmaster years ago, he told me that the names of the arcade boards, when some have no name, he chooses himself the names (this represents the major part of the datbase). Even if this website in part of the emulation scene (and so, he can be an actor), I doubt of the accuracy with reality. Last point, there are regulary errors in the database, that the webmaster fixes every one/two/three years, based on email from anonymous, and people surrounding the mame universe (the history can be seen on the main page, i'm even cited in the 2008 archive page [8]). I do not want to shoot red canon ball on this website, but I only know it well (sorry for my english). --Archimëa (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Gamekult

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

Is there an actual consensus about Gamekult's reliability? There is a review policy here [9], but the staff listing does not give me much hope [10]. I saw it appearing a lot while searching for reviews on video games, so let's see. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Gamekult is, like CNET France and ZDNet France, run by CUP Interactive,[11] formerly CBS Interactive France.[12] CNET and ZDNet are both considered reliable sources as far as I am aware, and CBS Interactive (GameSpot, Metacritic, GameRankings, ...) is a reliable publisher. Gamekult should apply to the same editorial guidelines. Furthermore, the site is 19+ years old, and several of its editors had been professional or freelance journalists for other outfits before; random LinkedIn picks: [13][14][15][16][17][18]. Source appears unproblematic. Lordtobi (✉) 18:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Lordtobi, you would say it is reliable? Thanks for the info about who runs the site, very helpful! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say that it is reliable. I've been treating it as a reliable source for some time too to get some obscure early 2000s information, and it usually comes in handy. :) Lordtobi (✉) 20:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Good to know. I am trying to source Asterix at the Olympic Games (video game) so it will come in handy here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Go right ahead. :) Lordtobi (✉) 14:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd say it's definitely on par with some English-language sources we commonly use. fr:Gamekult (as part of a group of websites by CUP Interactive under the holding company fr:Neweb) is currently owned by TF1 Group, one of the largest French media conglomerates, they have offices and a staff of 25 people. I hate that article authors use pseudonyms but it seems to be a practice far more common in European journalism than it is here. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Haven't we discussed this one in the past? Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, but seemingly inconclusively. Lordtobi (✉) 20:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
    Lordtobi, yes but no consensus happened (it is not even listed on WP:VG/RS!!) hence this. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable per Lordtobi. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The website is reliable, with pro journalists. Far better to some websites already in the database i think. I did not had time to argue and go further in the last proposal for this site, sorry. I only want to get your attention that since one or two month, this website uses an agressive advertissement policy. The main part of "news pages" are hidden and also readable when the page is reloaded, after seeing a 10/15 seconds video, exemple [19]. Every new review is subject to micro payment. Exemple : you must pay for a review from 2019 may 3 [20], but a review from end of march 2019 is free [21]. Content is here, but reach it is annoying, i hope they will go back on that point soon. Regards --Archimëa (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

NinDB

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

This site has already had a discussion a few years ago, however nothing came of it since. Site labels itself to be "an ever-growing archive of information on every game developed and published by Nintendo, from their classic arcade games up to the Nintendo DS and Wii." The site owner, Mark Kelly, is also a correspondent for NintendoWorldReport, which is considered reliable. Like the previous discussion stated, it contains plenty of useful information that would likely be next to impossible to find covered in other sources, notably the Famicom Disk System, Satellaview, the Nintendo Power flash cartridge and other obscure video games and peripherals. Does not have user-submitted information either, as far as I can tell. Namcokid47 (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Frontline Gaming Japan

Find video game sources: "Frontline Gaming Japan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Hello. Frontline Gaming Japan is an English-language news website based in Tokyo which includes interviews, reviews, events and play reports for Japanese video games. According to the About page, the writers are fluent in Japanese and English. As such, is considered a reliable source? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Subsim

Find video game sources: "Subsim" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo Like it's Wikipedia page says, Subsim is a publication that is focused on naval and submarine games. There is a staff listed on [22]. Not sure if this one is reliable, seems like a case of fan specialized writers. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Armchair General

Find video game sources: "Armchair General" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

So this one has a Wikipedia page as well at Armchair General (magazine), and it is a military focused one that also reviewed video games [23]. The staff for the online version of the publication can be found here [24]. Seems potentially reliable to use. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Keengamer

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

Five year old gaming site focused on news, reviews and guides. The name of the author is listed on each article along with a short bio.--Megaman en m (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel like they were described as unreliable in the past. I’m not seeing any real credentials on their About Us page either. Sergecross73 msg me 01:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd say no. I plugged in a couple of the authors to see if any of them had significant credits and came up dry. They don't have significant cross-references in reliable sources either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 02:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Persona Central

Find video game sources: "Persona Central" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Just asking about this for future reference, but Persona Central is unquestionably unreliable, right? Their about page just states how the site was created (from a joke blog), and their contact page does not even give a name of the author(s) of the site, nor does the author profile pages give any bios of them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I read it, but much I do websites like GoNintendo - it’s interesting. It doesn’t meet the RS requirements. They’re just fans and enthusiasts blogging. Much like most websites with such a narrow scope. (Sonic fansites, etc) Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, just making sure. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem, it’s good to discuss and document. It’s a popular website for a popular franchise. It’ll certainly come up if it hasn’t already. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Nintendo Wire

Find video game sources: "Nintendo Wire" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Focuses on Nintendo games with reviews, guides and videos. Has an about page listing the editors and contributors, some of which have relevant degrees in journalism or technical writing.--Megaman en m (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment While holding a degree certainly gives them more weight than just some fan who writes for a blog, it does not automatically qualify them as reliable either. Outside of their education, their bios are mostly just saying how they've been gaming/Nintendo fans since childhood, which gives the same credentials as me and most of WP:VG. Have any of them written for an established RS before? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Some of them have written for other sites, but I don't think they would classify as reliable. Haven written for a reliable site certainly is a good indication, but is it the only one? I'm still not sure on what is needed to be considered reliable for a gaming site. Would contacting them about their editorial policies be an option to know more about their reliability?--Megaman en m (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

VidaExtra

This blog from Spain is one of the country's premiere online game journalism outlets, regularly used as a source by mainstream newspapers and even scholarly papers. It is published by Weblogs SL, now owned by Webedia. Some of its coverage and accolades:

This is just a small sampling, but I think it's enough to prove reliability and notability as a source. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Leaning reliable, while the staff page is not very promising (most use pseudonyms, for example), Weblogs does have an editorial director who I would believe enforces some policy. Furthermore, Webedia publications are usually reliable, and we already list some (GamePro, GameStar, IGN [Germany], Jeuxvideo.com, ...) as reliable. Lordtobi (✉) 14:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The Games Machine (Italy)

Find video game sources: "The Games Machine" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Print magazine and website first launched in 1988. It was the Italian version of the British magazine The Games Machine, but that died in 1990 and it's since lived on. Published since 2014 by a company called "Aktia srl". It is supposedly the 2nd longest running gaming magazine after Famitsu.

Some are claiming it's not a high quality reliable source, and it's not listed on WP:VG/S.

Past discussion:

Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  • The print version is considered reliable; as Czar points out in the old discussion, the website should be up to the same standards so it should be reliable as well. Lordtobi (✉) 22:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hobby Consolas

Find video game sources: "Hobby Consolas" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Spanish print gaming magazine launched in 1991 and later website. Some are claiming it's not a high quality reliable source, and it's not listed on WP:VG/S.

Past discussion:

Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Part of Axel Springer SE, which generally has good publications as far as I am aware. However, I cannot seem to find any about/staff page for the mag itself? Lordtobi (✉) 22:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable. HobbyConsolas is one of the most respected print game magazines in Spain, so widely-regarded that it would be harder to demonstrate its unreliability than its reliability. I'm kind of surprised it isn't listed yet. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

CNET Gamecenter

A long-lost outlet that nevertheless was one of the most respected in its day. The New York Times once called it "the Newsweek of gaming sites". Owned and operated from the beginning by CNET. You can find the other demonstrations of CNET Gamecenter's reputation at CNET#Gamecenter. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

GameBoomers

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

An older site that reports gaming news. The about us lists all people involved with the site. It received some mystery awards which I'm not sure what to make of. (I don't think this site is reliable, but I just want a second opinion and for it to be put on the list of sources, one way or another.)--Megaman en m (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Not sure what to make of this. It's been around for 20 years and has no reason to be unreliable (focusing on a semi-niche subject for avid fans of it), but I don't really see a reason that it would be included as a RS either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
So if a site focuses on a niche, it would be generally considered as more reliable than a gaming site with wider coverage?--Megaman en m (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, it’s usually the opposite. Many of these websites with very narrow scope (Sonic fansites, Nintendo fansites are often written by fans and enthusiasts, not professionals, and would not be considered reliable. But that’s more of a trend/observation than a hard rule. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I should have made the distinction that genre-focused websites don't really seem like they would be unreliable as much as the ones that focus on a specific franchise/brand, as we've seen time and time again with the Sonic and Nintendo ones. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Gamer Network sites

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

Find video game sources: "Road to VR" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Find video game sources: "Video Games Chronicle" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

We already cover most Gamer Network sites—such as Eurogamer, GamesIndustry.biz, Push Square, USgamer, VG247, Nintendo Life, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun—as reliable sources. I would thus like to discuss the remaining editorial sites: Metabomb reports on esports and was launched four years ago under Gamer Network; as it is wholly owned, it applies to the same editorial policy as Eurogamer & co. Road to VR is a VR-focused site and is currently in its eighth year, it is partnered with Gamer Network but might not apply to the same policy, needs to be checked independently. Video Games Chronicle (or VGC) was founded earlier this year in partnership with Gamer Network and focuses on ordinary news. It features established editors formerly of Computer and Video Games. Lordtobi (✉) 19:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Mammoth Gamers on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Mammoth Gamers (mammothgamers.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Are articles from Mammoth Gamers considered a reliable source?. — Newslinger talk 04:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

GamesWirtschaft

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

The German equivalent of GamesIndustry.biz; founded and authored by Petra Fröhlich (dewiki article), a long-time writer for Computec and the PC Games magazine. The outlet focuses mainly on industry news from DACH countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland). Lordtobi (✉) 01:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Fröhlich is one of the top writers about games in Germany, from what I know. Comparable to someone like Jörg Langer, although she might actually have a longer history in the industry. I can't tell whether the site is owned by a larger publishing company, but Fröhlich as editor-in-chief automatically gives this publication clout. Combine that with the clear professionalism of the site (down to its back pages) and I'll go with reliable unless someone can offer a strong counter-argument. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Impulse Gamer

Find video game sources: "Impulse Gamer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Seems they exist since 2001 [26], but this feels unreliable. Looks like a blog, there is no staff page from what I can see as well. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Gameplanet

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

What is the consensus on Gameplanet's reliability? It has an editorial policy page at [29] but no staff list from what I can see. Seems possibly reliable, but not completely sure. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It's reliable. Also it's already in the "general gaming" list. JOEBRO64 19:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! No idea how I missed it in the table. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Comic Vine

Is there anything worth preserving in the VGRS custom search engine (CSE) from https://comicvine.gamespot.com? We currently list gamespot.com as reliable but I can blacklist this whole subdomain if it's only user-contributed, as it appears to be. czar 19:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

There are also actual news article on there like [30]. Would it be possible to just whitelist comicvine.gamespot.com/articles/*? Lordtobi (✉) 20:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Comic Vine is like Giant Bomb. There's a staff-controlled news section, which is reliable, but then there's the user-generated wiki side, which is not. I don't really see why we should list Comic Vine in the CSE at all as it mostly just covers the comics industry. JOEBRO64 20:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The news section is under "Archives" in the menu and the last post was 2018. So then with the news prior to then... do we have consensus on whether it's reliable? Is the content really on par with Giant Bomb? My understanding was that it was generated primarily for its wiki and the news stuff came later. And not sure how CBS's acquisition squares with any changes in their editorial policy. But true, if no connection to games, probably worth excluding on that basis alone. Thoughts? czar 20:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Mobile Mode Gaming

Find video game sources: "Mobile Mode Gaming" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This site is highly questionable. Recently and since the end of last month, there have been a number of newly created accounts adding articles from the site as sources, and sometimes even replacing existing sources. Such users include but not limited to Sumantmeena7, Samriddhi7, SharamJi, MMG7273, Usergod72 and Cheeta101. You can check their user contributions, where are signs of WP:COI.

Upon checking the site, there's no info like "about us", staff page, editorial policy, etc. The site is also relatively new, with their first article dated March 25, 2019.[31] LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

MeriStation

Is MeriStation reliable? I'm currently using it pretty heavily on Go Vacation but I just noticed it's listed as "inconclusive" here and I wanted to get some opinions on it. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_21&oldid=913936408"