Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

NintendoLife

Is NintendoLife reliable or unreliable? Cause I would really like to know. Same with Polygon and Screenrant. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@NintendoTTTEfan2005: All three are on the list: Nintendo Life and Polygon as reliable and Screen Rant as situational. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Cause I was wondering if the "Ultra Shortcut(s)" of Mario Kart Wii are notable to be included somewhere on that page since there are very few glitches in video games more famous than those. I mentioned those sources because those were some of the sources I could find in a Google search on the "news" section. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@NintendoTTTEfan2005: That would be a discussion for the talk page, not here. If you'd like more eyes on your discussion, you can seek opinions and/or guidance at WT:VG. If you'd like to filter your Google searches to target reliable sources, you can use the custom search engines linked at WP:VG/LRS. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Rom Game

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

Found this website while looking for sources for a fan-game of Undertale, and I was wondering if this could have any semblance of notability? I'm not fluent in French, so if anyone who is can help with determining this source's reliability, I'd appreciate that! Source seems to have a handy list of authors available ([1]), which I guess could be a good starting point, but I'm not sure if they have an about page anywhere. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 20:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable. No indication of a editorial policy or editor in chief. Author page notes (machine translated) that interested authors need to simply contact and they will be "we will be happy to create a personalized space for you". This suggests each author works independent in a blog like manner. All listed staff are simply "contributors", most under pseudonames, no journalism credentials. This is, in effect, a group blog. -- ferret (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

When I saw this section I knew that it was about Undertale Yellow. Don't fret, it's a fan game, so it probably won't get reliable sources for a bit. Just give it some time. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Box Equals Art

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

Surely, there are links to Box Equals Art (stylized as BOX=ART) across 13 articles as of this post, but is it a reliable source for crediting people with cover arts?

I did a web search to find out more information from the website, created in 2013 and run by a single person named Adam Gidney. There is surprisingly little information about the site—not a good indicator of reliability–and it does not help that one cannot search for the equal sign in results. I did, however, find one Nintendo Life article about Mr. Gidney's interview with box artist Tom Dubois. As a note, the website was last online early this year and redirects to Original Video Game Art, another website about game cover arts, which has its own page on the now-defunct website. That website is unfortunately less useful than Box Equals Art, but at least some of this site's content migrated there. I remember seeing on Wikipedia articles links to a video game website about cover arts and visiting it, but not the site's name. The fact that it went offline was why I was having trouble finding the website, and after searching Wikipedia's articles for links to the website, I found one to Box Equals Art, and judging by the layout, which I remember somewhat, that is the name of the website.

On the bright side, the website noted on its homepage first in 2018 that "Box arts are only credited to their original artist if confirmed through the artist themselves, a visible artist signature is found or the artist is credited in the game manual." This suggests a commitment to using official or first-party sources, and I like that. I also like that in at least one article, an artist (Mr. Dubois) was involved in Mr. Gidney's writing of a biographical article about him. The layout is also not far off from professional, respected video game outlets, nor is the grammar and style of writing, which is encouraging.

Until more information surfaces about Box Equals Art or Adam Gidney, it is hard for me to recommend that Wikipedia use it, but I cannot outright reject it either. An "unreliable" result would only affect the 13 articles, but a "reliable" result would likely be helpful to only dozens or, at the very most, hundreds more out of the more than 40,000 articles. Some of the credit information is confirmable with artist signatures, credits in the games' manuals, and information from other sources anyway. Thoughts? FreeMediaKid$ 03:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable, and currently redirects to a WP:USERG site for sharing custom fan box art. Remove it everywhere. If the only uses are a couple interviews, they would be primary non-independent sources anyways. -- ferret (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought about, but could not decide whether to reject the source on procedural grounds, but come to think of it, there really was not much to the website in terms of original content. On top of that, as you stated, being at its best when it interviews artists limits its usability anyway. To be sure, it was a lot like MobyGames in that it hosted hundreds of box arts, files of which could be uploaded to Wikipedia. Unlike MobyGames, it was not like IMDb in that it was users editing pages and inserting information, and instead stated that it considered official or first-party sources. The latter is why I think it stood out from other sites providing similar credit information. Despite that, and also because of lack of information on the website or Gidney, I am leaning toward unreliable. FreeMediaKid$ 04:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I have begun to remove citations of Box Equals Art. Of the original 13 references, six have been removed, and so far, I have not faced opposition. In each of those cases, I was able to replace them with high-quality sources, though that might not last long, given my trouble finding others. FreeMediaKid$ 09:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Game Is Hard

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

Ran across this, and I haven't seen it discussed here. While the articles aren't badly written, something feels off. Their Contact Us page only lists staff, and checking the EIC on MuckRack shows she's written for a lot of publications but no real credentials. There's something else bugging me: when looking for sources for an article I found this...but a lot of the wording and setup feels very similar to Kenneth Shephard's articles on the subject. I don't want to outright claim AI, but something feels really off with how this is written especially with the FAQ bit at the end.

There's also the weird case of AI art that's stolen from other sites that has nothing to do with the article they're in? Unless Golf's suddenly become a lot more hardcore than I knew something is very weird with this website. Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

100% Unreliable AI-written junk. You can tell it's AI because there are 51,250 articles (5,125 pages of 10 articles each) with the earliest ones published on 27 October 2023. So they're releasing about 1,000 articles a day, on average. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems an open and shut case. -- ferret (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep, the images are a tell-tale sign too. They're 1) AI generated and 2) often generic and irrelevant to the article subject. Blatant AI/junk articles. Unreliable. Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, unless anyone has any objections I'll add it to the unreliable list after work tonight.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems to have already been decided, but just to add, I saw a writer from Gameranx if I remember correctly claim they'd ripped off an article of his with AI DarkeruTomoe (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Older Valnet editorial articles

Now I'm going to preface this by right out saying a large part of the "Valnet" sources are indeed, crap. Same situation with Kotaku really: both either pull off a lot of lists that say nothing, or report on whatever thing tickles reddit's fancy. I'm not arguing for those sources with this. I get that's why the company as a whole has a hard identity as a content farm.

But I feel editorial pieces, stuff that examine and discuss a topic in depth, should have some leeway to helping to define a subject as notable. There are some actually good pieces hidden in there, and they can offer some good commentary on a subject and possibly views that aren't discussed in other avenues. Hell even some of their more fleshed out lists can offer some bits of commentary in this vein, and more meat than stuff like GameDaily or UGO.com have in the past (the progenitors, as it were I feel, of anti-list views on here with how poor they were).

Keep in mind saying this, I'm not arguing "let's build an article with just valnet sources and make that the norm!" But if we have some discussion provided in other outlets, I don't think well written Valnet sources should automatically "not count" entirely, as presented by the list here, and instead encourage that they may be seen as lesser quality sources in that regard on a case-by-base basis.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. I understand the need to ensure that we don't let things get out of control, but I don't think that a tendency for a website to produce mediocre articles should begrudge articles that are sigcov and have something of value to say. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I've always had this same mindset ever since I started seeing people were leery of using Valnet sites to help establish notability, and even thought of opening a discussion before on this very same thing. Maybe have something like "pre-mid-2023 editorial pieces can be used to establish notability." MoonJet (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Something to add here, but I would definitely urge caution on going ham with it if a positive outcome is here. Checking if the writer has written for other sources too may also help; wouldn't say it's a hard requirement, but a stronger argument for a source if someone goes "Why was this used" than "Well, project said it was oK!"--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

MinnMax

I couldn't see them on the list, but are MinnMax considered a reliable source? Their interviews are becoming increasingly useful as a source of information and are often cited by other websites. 2A00:23C6:8281:A501:D561:FF37:A03C:5542 (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I know they were founded by ex-Game Informer staff, but they mostly produce unscripted podcasts that feel like friends chatting. It seems like mostly off the cuff commentary instead of prepared, edited remarks. I wouldn't feel comfortable using it for opinion commentary, but if they conduct interviews or are stating facts about a game, I think that's OK. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

CharlieIntel

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

CharlieIntel is an esports tabloid website that mostly creates content for Call of Duty, but dabbles in content for other franchises such as Pokemon and Overwatch as well. It's owned by Dexerto and effectively functions and writes the same content as it, but without nearly as much unfiltered output on Twitter and more game guide content. I also don't believe this site has any editorial policy to be seen and no credentials are provided on the about page, which makes me assume it follows the same as Dexerto, but I could be wrong.

Personally, I believe this site to be an open and shut unreliable for the exact same reasons why I argued Dexerto to be unreliable at the noticeboard, being a tabloid publication that rarely provides content of actual substance, even more so when it mostly writes game guide content, and my reasoning being strengthened due to this site in particular having no clear editorial policy or credentials. It should be fairly obvious that this source is not suitable to be used, but a site-wide consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard was that Dexerto could possibly be used for its esports coverage, which CharlieIntel falls under, meaning that it can be used as a source (and is already used by 100 Wikipedia pages) and this is exactly why I'm here bringing this source to be discussed and vetted. NegativeMP1 23:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Add it under the existing situational heading for Dexerto, since that is the site wide RSN consensus. -- ferret (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking initially, but then there's the question of how to describe it. Is it reliable? Is it the same case as Dexerto (situational)? Is it unreliable? That's something that still needs to be determined about CharlieIntel before any note about its status or reliability is put down, because in the end CharlieIntel is technically still its own site that produces its own content. NegativeMP1 03:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

TechRaptor

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

The last discussion on TechRaptor was in 2014(!) apparently here. Since then they've been cited in multiple books and scholarly looks from a quick google search, and their About Us page also mentions them taking a hard stance against AI-generated articles. They do feel like a significant cut above some of the websites out there at this point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment. It looks fairly reputable, but I would suggest a more detailed look at their writers and their credentials before considering deeming reliable. I'm aware they recently picked one up who has previously written for an unreliable and situational source, and checking a few others they either wrote for sources that don't seem to have had the question asked about how reliable they are or haven't written elsewhere as far as I can see listed. I'm aware of others sources being dismissed for this and it seems no-one has brought it up yet.

As a note, the CEO of TechRaptor is the COO of OpenCritic, which does show they'll have industry connections/influence at the top along with breaking stories. That is just one factor of course as you could say the same of TheGamer, but it does help. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Update - Leaning unreliable: To borrow a comment made about another website from @Ferret - 'Large staff list with little journalism credentials'. This was the case during the 2018 discussion and still seems to be the case now. TechRaptor seems to be high-quality for the most part, but this hasn't changed.

Only one of their 7 senior staff has a journalism related qualification and some don't mention any academic ones, only experience, though I suppose their Tabletop Editor did manage tabletop shop so will likely be knowledgeable. As mentioned before, their new join (who is senior staff) wrote for an unreliable source and a situational source with no other history listed. Others seem to mostly be hired based on their love of gaming and at least one seems to have not written for any other sites, even small ones.

Looking through their recently published work, the non-senior staff authors I noted seemed to lean on the side of no experience at other sites or credentials noted. They've also previously hired students.

By regular standards are they reliable? I'd say yes. By Wikipedia standards? Even disregarding the whole GamersGate history where they were said to be involved, they don't seem to have enough professional experience. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to add, I found a recent post by them that's somewhat iffy.

It's an interview where the interviewee seems to be giving information that is either incorrect or misleadingly not complete, but it's pretty well known and they've still published it.

This isn't a great source for the info admittedly, but it was known that there were plans thrown around to do crowdfunding for an English version. They've also not mentioned the removal of content that isn't adult, despite it being well known and mentioned on the crowdfunding page itself. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Correction, there was a second discussion in 2018.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I would support changing to reliable for content post-2019. They apparently culled most of their pro-GamerGate content in 2017, but I recall seeing similar—though more mild—content when I looked for that 2018 discussion. At that time, they had a satire section called "KekRaptor" with vaguely culture-war-ish "satire" content, but it looks like that was folded around 2019. Looking at their content now, it looks solid to me. Kudos to them for turning the site around. Woodroar (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Reliable - Looks good to me. Seen them break big news stories a couple of times. GamerPro64 23:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. I find the "cited by Google Books" claim somewhat questionable. Look at how some of these Google Books sources are used - for example, WALKING SIMULATORS, #GAMERGATE, AND THE GENDER OF WANDERING cites "Quinnspiracy" from Techraptor, but that's not as an endorsement of TechRaptor, but rather as acknowledging that they're a useful source for the GG-side of the story. "Misogyny Online: A Short (and Brutish) History", judging by the name, is also citing TechRaptor, but hardly in an approving sense of "these guys are telling the right side of the story." Now, these are all generally citing TechRaptor circa-2014, and there are some GBooks results for later TechRaptor citings... but... often for fairly trivial matters that suggest the author was just grabbing whatever came back first on Google. Also, I don't find "a hard stance against AI-generated articles" to be meaningful in favor or against their reliability. Plenty of publications were unreliable before AI chatbots were a thing! SnowFire (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  I just wanted to add my support that "Google Books" is slowly becoming a worthless thing to check, both in terms of reliability considerations and general sourcing. It's full of so much self-published crap, student essays, etc, etc. -- ferret (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Eh it's still worth checking, but like any source evaluation you can't just look at one number and uncritically decide good or not. In this context, though, I don't think there's exactly a strong pedigree of TechRaptor content being cited as an authority for general games journalism. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair, I did say it was a quick search on my part.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment I share some of SnowFire's reservations. Going against AI-generated articles is a low bar. The Google Books footnotes don't really add much credibility either. I'd like to see some other editors check in. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Not a lot of others have chimed in. I took a look at some random articles and they seemed fine enough (if ad-spattered), per Woodroar. I might suggest that in the name of caution, they only be approved for post-2020 (rather than 2018). But I suppose if there are any reports of unreliable content being used, we can deal with 'em when they come up. SnowFire (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• I second Woodroar's notion of deeming their content to be mostly reliable post-2019. Haleth (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

CSE edit request

Could we please remove New York Times from the CSE? I know it's reliable, I know we list it, but it almost never comes up in context and has a tendency to drown results for games with common words in their names. -- ferret (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, I was curious, why do we have a separate section for other reliable and semi-reliable sources? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Those are essentially when a discussion has concluded and archived but no one has the motivation to work them into a table with full detail and explanation. Or, they are lesser known or niche. -- ferret (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Game Developer/Gamasutra

It doesn't specify, but I noticed that some content is community made. This one [2] is listed as a community-written post, but is also a "Featured Blog". I don't see any community post exception, though I do assume that randos posting blogs on the site should be excluded, with an advisory on its entry on this page. However, does being a Featured Blog carry any merit? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Given their blogging guideline pages [3], I would argue that Features Blogs do get editorial oversight to be acceptable, but in general, given those guidelines, I would still not see an issue with any blog. Masem (t) 18:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Primary material on Indie DB

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

Mod DB has been on our unreliable list for quite some time, but its sister site Indie DB has seemingly never been discussed. I recently had a discussion with a COI editor who would like to fix an incorrect credit on I Hate Running Backwards. Since no secondary sources exist on this particular matter, I suggested that a novel primary source (such as a presskit) could be used for information as uncontroversial as this. The user, who is the CEO of the game's developer, has now updated the presskit hosted at Indie DB. At a glance, it appears that only the game's "owner" has the ability to edit this presskit, although I am not sure how one coems to be the owner. Do we accept primary sources from Indie DB in this manner? This would likely not be limited to presskits but also include articles written about a game by its owner, i.e. devlogs. IceWelder [✉] 16:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

IndieDB, like ModDB, is defacto a WP:USERG site. But that only really speaks to use as a reliable source. Whether its suitable as a primary source I guess depends on whether or not we consider IndieDB to sufficiently validate/verify/prove identity? It seems like they want to use IndieDB for credits in the way Mobygames often is... and we reject using Mobygames for credits, as it's also WP:USERG. -- ferret (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

If someone was of a mind to, they might want to register as a user on IndieDB and checking out the requirements on the add a game page, which is understandably locked behind a login.

As ICEWELDER is in contact with the CEO, as they seem to want the information correct on the record, it could also be an idea to suggest adding the credits to the game's (rather minimal) website? DarkeruTomoe (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean like. That's in their control and unquestionable, and immediately satisfies PRIMARY. -- ferret (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This could be primary information, but why we would use a primary source at all? I imagine we could find a reliable secondary source for anything important. This is a genuine question and let me know if there is an example where this database would give us something we otherwise couldn't find. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

MO5.com

Hello to y'all! I hope everybody is doing well. Per suggestion by fellow editor Cukie Gherkin, i dediced to suggest this source to see if it can be deemed as a reliable or unreliable source. I'll explain what it is and how i've used it in various articles: MO5.com is an association dedicated to video games formed in 1996 by Philippe Dubois (all the information related to MO5.com can be found here on the French counterpart of Wikipedia). Currently headed by editor-in-chief Guillaume Verdin, articles published on MO5.com focuses on retro video games, although more modern game releases are also featured. The MO5.com articles can be seen as equivalents to those seen in Gematsu (since it's currently one writer publishing the articles), Time Extension, or the defunct RetroCollect website. Said articles report on homebrew games and demos for older platforms, fan translations, etc. It has been used on several articles such as Knightmare (1986) and Penn & Teller's Smoke and Mirrors. For me, it was also a great wealth of information when reworking the list of Atari Jaguar homebrew games. Feel free to give your opinion regarding MO5.com. Have a nice day everybody! Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

PC Invasion: electric boogaloo

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

A previous discussion noted that this source is unreliable. Should it still be identified as such? — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Videogamer.com, removal from reliable list and to be rebadged as unreliable

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

Want to propose that this publication be removed from the list of reliable publications and rebadged as unreliable. Currently its justification for being reliable dates from 2010.[4] Since then however it has been through multiple buyouts, and at present looks to be little more than a low-quality content mill.

On basic examination it appears that staff/contributors seem to be based all over the world with little quality control, as many articles look to be written either in a non-English language and then run through a translation tool or AI-generated with strange structural makeup as a result.

Examples from a brief look-in at the site include a piece on Fortnite skin customisation speculation that has no actual content of note but instead reads almost like complete nonsense,[5], and an article on Tekken 8's story mode that not only also reads strangely but ends with an FAQ that asks "does Tekken 8 have a story mode?". [6]

The obvious lack of quality is even evident on author description pages, with an example being the bio of one writer that reads as follows: "During her Creative Writing degree at Bath Spa University, Meghan Coon studying various forms of non-fiction and journalistic writing, with an avid interest in news writing and goal of working as a journalism."[7]

I think it is evident that the site should be regarded as unreliable since at least its most recent buyout in 2022[8], but given that the reliability was based on the site pre-Resero Network buyout in 2017 I'd argue that the unreliability should stretch back to that as well.[9]

Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, AI issues are definitely probably the most recent buyout if I had to guess, unless there are Resero Network issues as well? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem with the Resero Network era is that it was never judged to be reliable in that era. Even now the reliability highlights "staffed by industry veterans" but they all left pre-Resero so it's been rated as reliable as an outlet because of a staff group that quit more than seven years ago, and from what I remember the Resero era was a token two to three people outlet that was all new people.

I think the choice is we judge post-2022 buyout as unreliable and the Resero "era" of 2017-2022 is situational at best, or we judge all of post-2017 as unreliable until it's demonstrated the Resero era was reliable in terms of quality. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, I just wanted to make sure we don't get too rash, just in case it turns out it is. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a decline in quality compared to when this Vice article was written. GamerPro64 03:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That was written in 2015 and the site it's covering basically disintegrated in the two years following, with Steve Burns and Jim Trinca leaving shortly after that[10] while Tom Orrey sold the site to Resero in the months following.[11]

I think a giant piece of evidence to how bad it is now is that I'm having to use reddit links above because all the information about their leaving was typically done via their video output on Youtube, which the new owners bungled up so badly they managed to seemingly delete the channel and thereby wiped out everything that Vice article details.[12] Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to put videogamer.com as to at least unreliable post sale to Resero. Masem (t) 13:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath

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

Aftermath is a worker-owned and independent news site that focuses mainly on video games and other related topics. Seems like their "About us" page mentions something about them having formerly worked for Kotaku, a reliable source, and also has a list of the staff. I'm not sure what else to look for in terms of determining reliability but if anyone else does and would like to investigate further then feel free! Jurta ^talk/_he/they 23:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, all of the authors appear to be pretty experienced. My concern is that there is no editorial policy or fact-checking policy to speak of. Not to say that they do not have one, but it'd be useful to advertise it. I've reached out to Nathan Grayson to inquire about it. (Also I like that I can always tell that you're looking for Undertale Yellow content just by checking the site and seeing an article about it). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Consulted Nathan Grayson; when asked about editing and fact checking, he replied "Yep! Every piece we run is edited. Riley mostly handles that, but we're a pretty small team, so for some pieces another one of us will do it" - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless they said more than the quote above, something being edited is a pretty low bar in my opinion, compared to having an editorial policy that they adhere to. It could be as little as Riley checking it through for spelling and grammar. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I trust that the reply was intended to clarify that they also check for accuracy, since the question posed was whether they fact check and edit. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I would assume that was meant to indicate that they do have editorial oversight. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Just as a note, Kotaku is listed as a situational source, not a reliable one as described above. It was fairly recently downgraded, but has been debated for years. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

While I have my own issues with some of Kotaku's staff, I feel the 'pedigree' of Aftermath's staff helps their case. Kotaku's problem has been more a steady decline in quality, namely basically reiterating Reddit findings and AI article usage.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The Aftermath staff from Kotaku are generally all before the decline and IIRC were pushed out when their parent was trimming all across the board (eg during COVID, after that time frame I would put Kotaku's reliability into question) Masem (t) 15:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they left 2020 to 2021 (as per examples linked below). It's near the end of the reliable period of 2010 and 2022 (with the warning: It should be noted that this is not a definitive cut-off—editorial deterioration is gradual, and editors have noted instances of low-quality reporting in preceding years).

I'm not currently for or against Aftermath being marked as reliable without looking into it further, but would just urge caution about automatically saying reliable because they wrote for a (situationally) reliable source, when that source has a warning on it and "editors questioning the site's reliable designation since at least 2016" with more questions about it "in the aftermath of it falling under G/O in 2019" (quotes from JOEBRO).

I do think that their writing for Kotaku does potentially confer some level of reliability, but it would depend if they were the writers of some of that low quality reporting during the recent years or the better parts.

https://kotaku.com/goodbye-riley-macleod-we-never-deserved-you-1847176986

https://kotaku.com/rip-to-me-the-person-writing-this-a-real-one-1847348622

https://kotaku.com/goodbye-gita-jackson-weird-internet-translator-and-dwa-1840935604 DarkeruTomoe (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Just a note, but Aftermath was previously brought up here. Not much said other than keep an eye on. Relevant comment here by Sergecross73 linking mention of other sources they've worked at:

> It'll be a good one to keep an eye on. Judging by their introductory article, on one hand, there's a lot of credentials to writing at other RSs. On the other hand, we'll have to see how they handle their "interest in freelancers" too, make sure it doesn't just turn into a user blog platform. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Wait & See but veering towards situational at best:

They're still a relatively new site and while they may be staffed by veterans of other blogs/websites there still seems to be a lack of any notable editorial or quality policy. From a look at their site it definitely seems to be more personality-driven than any discernible journalistic qualities at present (i.e. you're reading for the writer's style than news standards), and many are from sites that have tended to skew towards the former as well. Personally I'd be skeptical of any information where the only source provided was from this site. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

A few borderline sources -- anything salvagable?

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

Unknown:

• Vooks
• Cultured Vultures
• Sirus gaming
• New gamer network
• Phenixx Gaming
• Gatecrashers

Inconclusive/Situational:

• Tech Raptor
• CBR

Previously Unreliable:
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sportskeeda Keen Gamer Twinfinite The Sixth Axis

I'm driving some article improvements based on reliable sources. I've found these ambiguous ones. I have no attachment to them, and I'm mostly just looking to see if any of them would qualify as reliable. (I would follow the previous advice on the unreliable sources, unless someone wanted to advocate for them.) Shooterwalker (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Tech Raptor and CBR both are situational/unreliable per WP:RSN (CBR is Valnet), I believe. Same for Sportskeeda I think, I think. Twinfinite and Sixth Axis I think have only been discussed here. No comment on new sources, but I wouldn't want to see any of the situational/unreliables bumped up. -- ferret (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

My gut on a cursory check on the unknowns is "unreliable for our purposes". The rest remain situational or unreliable; there's not much cases of old publications getting better these days. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Sportskeeda is unreliable and based on what I've seen every time it's brought up at AFD type discussions, it should remain that way. (Strong Valnet/churnalism vibes). CBR and Techraptor were discussed relatively recently I believe. CBR was deemed unreliable unless it was prior to 2016/when they were bought out or something. I didn't participate in the Tech Raptor discussion but if I recall right I think it was at least garnering some support. (Sorry a bit short on time for digging this stuff up in my own.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and struck out the unreliable ones just so we're not wasting time going in circles. I'll leave the other ones up in hopes that someone else might investigate, and discover a new reliable source. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I say Cultured Vultures should be an immediate unreliable due to them having a section where they allow anyone to write articles for them with no past experience required. I'm also unsure about Vooks based on their description as a "Nintendo fan community", though they have been active for twenty years and have a defined editorial team. λ NegativeMP1 18:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

CBR's issue was an accusation about AI article writing that was ultimately unfounded. I believe their editorial articles still have some merit for opinion, and I do feel there was some support for that sentiment. I feel they should be kept as situational, and I disagree with the assessment of marking them as unreliable post-Valnet.

TechRaptor was one I supported in my last discussion and still do per my previous reasoning.

I will agree with Negative about CulturedVultures.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The most recent TechRaptor discussion was just archived as of yesterday, so I'm not sure it needs to be brought up again so soon. It did have some support, but I'd still suggest it be classed as unreliable or left as inconclusive for future discussion.

You can see the discussions here (1, 2, 3), but I felt that the reasons for supporting it were flimsy (anti-AI which is a low bar), have broken big stories (but so do big content mills and other unreliable sites), "cited by Google Books" (according to SnowFire this was either negatively or trivial mentions), and comments like "seemed fine enough". I don't believe it was brought up, but they do have an editorial policy at least.

While against it is a large staff list with seemingly only one writer with journalism credentials compounded by recently hiring a senior staff member from an unreliable / situational site history, hiring students and other seemingly unqualified writers, and having quickly found at least one misleading/incorrect article with little effort.

Not a bad site overall, but considering how many more reliable gaming sites there are, I don't see reason to support this one when it's not up to some of the standards that others are held up to. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

After some review, I also agree that TechRaptor is unreliable. If anyone wants to offer an opinion on the other sources, that can't hurt. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Armchair General

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

This was proposed back in 2019 by Jovanmilic97 as a reliable source but no-one responded. I'm working on the Strategic Command series of strategy games and I see this magazine reviewed a lot of the games in this series so it would be good to establish whether it is an RS before I write a whole series of articles relying on it for significant coverage.

As far as I can see it is a pass for WP:NEWSORG since it has a professional editor, the authors who write/wrote for them appear to have been academics, former military officers and so-forth. Whilst it is hard to establish what exactly constitutes expert commentary when it comes to war games, this would appear to be it. The Chicago Tribune listed it 25th out of their 50 best magazines in 2005.

Playing devil's advocate, it ceased to be in print in 2015 though continues online, and it's not clear whether the quality carried over to the online version, though having looked at post-2015 articles these still appear to be written by people who have some level of expertise. Also, it has carried press releases although these are marked "PR" in the title. I don't think either of these points are fatal though.

I supposed it could also be attacked as excessively niche? But the Chicago Tribune endorsement rebuts that point a bit, and it is essentially about military history in general so not all that niche in reality.

The Strategic Command video games series really bridges the internet era, so you can see for each game the decline in video games magazines as a medium. The first game in 2002 was reviewed in a number of prominent, non-niche RS's. The second game in 2006 also. Subsequent games saw less and less coverage in general computer games magazines until it was overwhelmingly just more niche publications, bloggers, and youtubers reviewing them, despite them being just as popular as they ever were as far as I can tell... (sigh).FOARP (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Pocket Tactics

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

Previous discussion 7 years ago appears to be marked "inconclusive".

They have an about and staff bios, some of their staff has experience at other RS publications, and they seem to be at least affiliated with PCGamesN.

On the flip side, I can't find a review / editorial policy, and while I think their reviews are well written, wow they publish a lot of low quality game guide stuff. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be a WP:NEWSORG pass. Not sure whether I can find a specific editorial policy per se even for all well-established RSs. FOARP (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Electric Frontier Foundation (EFF)

The Electric Frontier Foundation is a non-profit digital rights organization founded in 1990. They have covered gaming-related subjects before, and I wanted to know if they are reliable or not. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that this is just a quick look, they do seem to have people with experience. Several of their authors mention being published or quoted in notable papers which is promising.

That said, it seems like it might be worth a WP:BIASED tag and treating appropriately if approved. They make no secret of having a specific agenda 'defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation' with specifics laid out in various sections of the site. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

NAG

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

Getting this checked in reference to @Sonic100jam's edit at Special:Diff/1207563297. I'm confident gamingdead is unreliable, so this apparently webzine needs a look. Concerning to me is the declaration at the Editorial page that they don't have access to developers, publishers or media orgs, and so their news is combed from websites and social media primarily. It would suggest little of their content is original. At least they do have a public editorial page. The about us page makes it clear this is a very small organization with only 4 individuals though, and while they might tick some of the boxes for things we look for, I'm hard pressed to see this more than essentially a group blog. No credentials are presented for any of the staff. -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable per the rationale presented by ferret above. Seems like little of the content is original and a lack of staff credentials is concerning. The Night Watch (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Nintendo Wire

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

Nintendo Wire is an American-based Nintendo focused news website formed in 2015. Their "About" section previously did list the employees but currently I can't get it to work, although I did look further to at least find that one editor has previously edited for other GAMURS Group websites such as TheGamer and Destructoid (more situational than reliable but at least better than unreliable). I mainly bring up this website because this is a website I encounter quite frequently when looking for sources when making articles, but as of now there was only one discussion from 2019 and it was left inconclusive. I'm hoping this can lead to a proper consensus for Nintendo Wire. CaptainGalaxy 17:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

There's no editorial policy that I can see. While subjective their content doesn't seem great either. Reviews are pretty minimal and the writing on some seemed choppy, guides don't include strategies on how to beat the bosses but are just information about when they'll be available (not really guides?) and the majority of their posts are padded news announcements of things like games being announced, things going on sale, or marketing announcements like something selling x amount. Feels kind of like a content mill

They do have a couple of notable links to the site at Forbes and Wired, but they're referenced as a fan and example of someone who did something, not as an information source or expert so I'd not say it's too strong an indicator of reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkeruTomoe (talk • contribs) 00:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The sections for various staff on their About page is empty so I went clicking on some of the recent contributors to take a look as a sample.

https://nintendowire.com/user/jason-ganos/ - CEO. Calls himself a reporter but only mentions prior jobs in technology.

https://nintendowire.com/user/lauren-ganos/ - Editor in Chief. Unrelated prior jobs (support administrator and photographer), but has a BA in English at least.

https://nintendowire.com/user/jaxson-tapp/ - Journalist but degree in Healthcare Management. As far as I can tell has only written for Nintendo Wire as least for reviews

https://nintendowire.com/user/jennifer-burch/ - Editor who studied art - can't find writing elsewhere

https://nintendowire.com/user/peter-glagowski/ - Journalist who has written for situational, inconclusive and undiscussed outlets

https://nintendowire.com/user/abbie-maxwell/ - Journalist who only mentions working food service before Nintendo Wire

Unless there's a case to be made somewhere, from what I'm seeing they look like they'd fit in the unreliable column. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

YouTube Channels

YouTube is a website which is mostly filled with anonymous and self-published videos that are definitely not going to be considered reliable. However, this doesn't mean that all YouTube videos which aren't from a news website or book author are unreliable and shall never be used at all. For example, some interviews and podcasts can be used as long as they followed the Wikipedia polities and there are some channels that upload videos which are kinda like some Game Informer and Nintendo Life articles. There are some videos which could be listed as having copyright issues (I'm not sure what videos are considered as part). If you want to share your idea and opinions, I would like to see them and I could create a list of YouTube channels that pass WP:PRIMARY. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

We really already recognize this. YouTube isn't so much a "source" as much as it's a medium for viewing sources. It's completely fine to use YouTube videos from websites like Gamespot or IGN's official accounts. The problem is that there's infinitely more times people try to use "AngryFrank64's self-published reviews from his mother's basement", which are not usable per WP:USERG.

We really don't need a separate list, just look on the current list. If they're reliable on the current list, then their respective YouTube channel would be too. And vice versa. Sergecross73 msg me 02:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Rawson Stovall

So maybe a really unique case here. Are reviews from Rawson Stovall from the 1980s considered acceptable? He's a published author and had a syndicated column in newspapers. But he was also a teenager. I fear that I'll come off as ageist with this, but should that be clarified in any way? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I think with attribution like "Juvenile journalist Rawson Stovall wrote..." is OK. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that might be a good approach. Before I even knew he had a wiki article, I stumbled upon a few of his reviews when scourings newspapers.com . Despite his age, he does seem to have reviews that do not come off as some flippant childish commentary, I was almost wondering if it was a joke when I stumbled upon it, but here we are. Thanks @TarkusAB Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Move Giant Bomb from situational to reliable

I believe that placing Giant Bomb under situational makes sense for the reasons listed. Giant Bomb's main content is generally considered reliable (don't know if that's changed), and it seems like a user-generated content issue, which is also an issue that IGN has. I think that Giant Bomb could just as well be listed as reliable, with a warning to make sure that release dates and any content under the wikis are not reliable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't oppose it, but what editorial do they still run? I only listen to the podcast, which is enjoyable "4 dudes talk about games they played last week" but not particularly useful as a source. Most of their written stuff comprises personal top 10 lists, which are already acceptable as reception like they've always been. A change would mostly be ceremonial (again, not opposed). Axem Titanium (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess that is true, I didn't really consider what Giant Bomb's editorial staff and output was like. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Kotaku - Firm Up Unreliability post-2023 given last couple of days

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

Wish to propose we firmly move post-2023 content from Kotaku to unreliable following this week's discloure of a complete shift away from news reporting to being a "guide" content mill.[13] Currently the site's content from 2023 onwards is described with "while articles published from 2023 onward should generally be avoided due to content farming concerns and unmarked AI-written content" but given this has gone from theoretical concerns to known policy I believe the slightly vague language is no longer suitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambling Rambler (talk • contribs)

• Oppose - it's too soon, the comment of one staff on future plans shouldn't change things. It hasn't even happened yet. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even if these plans were enacted upon, moving it to completely unreliable would eliminate usage of the source as a whole, even when it was actually decent. We've already marked post-2023 Kotaku as unreliable, and I'm unsure how the words that get that message across are "vague". λ NegativeMP1 16:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  For clarity, what I mean is that it should be firmer that post-2023 is explicitly unreliable. At present the wording is "generally be avoided" which is more situational language than I think is appropriate. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  You also explicitly said "move Kotaku to unreliable". That seems to suggest more than just tweaking the wording, but actually moving it to a different section/classification. I remain opposed either way, but surely you can see the confusion here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's my bad. I'll edit the text. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Just because the management wants to push more on guides, that speaks nothing if the reliability of their news reporting is affected. We will have to judge. --Masem (t) 16:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• On the Fence / Additional Information I've seen this floating around today which is a Kotaku Staff Writer disclosing that they were being told to "aggregate" (seemingly plagiarise) content by management which gives me additional concern. Original link here but the account went private. Previous discussions on Kotaku have always been contentious as is with people doubting the reliability for almost a decade now. I do think it's too soon if we're just basing on this one issue, but I also think we should keep an eye on it and revisit. That said, I was of the opinion that it should've been stronger wording when downgraded before and I've already seen people using post-2023 Kotaku as long as the individual is happy with the article being accurate... which is difficult to know when it comes to some of the more subjective stuff --DarkeruTomoe (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Some of our most reliable sources print game guides, and that's why we have have WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. If Kotaku completely exited journalism, that would be a different discussion. But I understand this as running more clickable content to make money, which is just an unfortunate reality for most websites these days. We can just exclude this type of content without excluding the site entirely. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I feel like Kotaku has always been the new journalism of games journalism. Sometimes they run joke articles or flat-out shitposting, sure. But their news coverage, and particularly their coverage of insider leaks, has generally been excellent—and that's despite all of the ownership changes and corporate pressure. Maybe they'll keep the news desk alive. Or maybe they'll turn into a content mill. It's just too early to tell. Woodroar (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even in the face of hostile management, there are still good reporters working at the site and we should use our real human eyes/brains to determine which articles are usable and which are game guide/AI/whatever. This is the platonic ideal of 'situational'. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Kakuchopurei

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

Kakuchopurei is a Southeast Asian video game website that started in 2017. According to its "About Us" section, its coverage ranges from the latest video game news to the realm of pop culture, providing exclusive interviews and YouTube videos on its channel. In addition, it runs a merchandise shop and an eSports event called Liga Esports Antara Parlimen.

I bring this up because I found a Wikipedia article citing its news, whose contents contradict its self-proclaimed reputation. The article Gyaru mentions when Sega was condemned for featuring blackface in the anime based on Hatsune Miku: Colorful Stage! and cites this Kakuchopurei article. The article itself is unnecessarily opinionated and sarcastic, beginning and ending with the author's personal complaint on the Western fanbase. There aren't many Wikipedia articles that cite this, but it still raises concern enough to ask about its reliability here.--Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

While I'm on teh fence about its reliability, I do kinda feel the reaction to the source feels a lot more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT than an actual complaint? The bigger problem as is seems to be their lack of editorial oversight on their "About Us" page than anything.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Their about me page does suggest it's likely notable, with collaboration with a TV show, coverage indicating a high level of access to industry, and a significant amount of views. Reliability is another matter of course.

But I don't see anything wrong with the article itself. The writer obviously has a strong opinion on the topic, but so do authors from many reliable sources. An article being "unnecessarily opinionated and sarcastic" isn't a reason to rule a source as unreliable.

An editorial policy would be nice to see, but there are sources marked as reliable without one. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

While I'll admit having a connection to a television show sets it apart some, I don't think that alone is enough to get us hit to reliable. I can't find anything about editorial oversight or policy, writer credentials, anything to that nature. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, as said "Reliability is another matter". But connection to a TV show, interviews with industry, and so on are positive indicators.

In terms of credentials, I've only checked the one, but the founder used to be the Editor in Chief of IGN SEA, wrote for a magazine, and has other experience.

Probably worth keeping in mind that this is a Malaysian website too, so standards may differ to US ones. If nothing else, it'd be difficult to apply the 'dynastic view' that's often used here of 'X' worked at 'Y' reliable outlet. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Leaning reliable. I'd like a little more here, but I think we should be looking for reliable non-western sources wherever we can. Staff credentials are here. A solid about us is here. A specific editorial policy is missing, but some stances are covered in the about us. -- ferret (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that; what I was trying to say was the tone of article and the lack of mention in About Us about how editorials are done (as Kung Fu Man pointed out earlier) made me think this might be from community user-blogs, like some other sources like Destructoid are run. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at his profile, he's been writing a long time on there, so I doubt that's the situation at least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I wondered too, with the "members" section they have, but I think it's more in a Patreon sort of way than user blogs (though it certainly has that unprofessional userblog/Redditor/Twitter monologue energy, for sure.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Prima Games non-guide content

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

Is Prima Games reliable for non-guide content, in particular reviews? Previous discussion centered around their guides and gameplay content, but they also publish reviews. Are these reliable? ~ A412 ^talk! 19:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd be curious why we'd want to use them. Are there examples of where Prima has reviewed a game others haven't? By default I'd prefer other sources to a game guide doing reviews. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they have an odd interesting mix of very popular stuff and relatively obscure stuff. Going back through some of their recent reviews:

• [14] - Nothing else on Metacritic [15].
• [16] - 4 on Metacritic [17], but only 2 reliable
• [18] - A bunch on Metacritic [19], but only 2 reliable

The specific game that inspired this question was Potionomics, [20], which is on the thinner side for quantity of RS reviews. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable for reviews IMO - I'd be starting from a point of scepticism. It's part of the Gamurs Group which has recently had a lot of negative attention over management decisions/layoffs and looking at other sources within the group, there are a few marked reliable, but most are situational or worse, despite some reasonable policies in place.

More importantly, while I'd not say a guide site can't have a perfectly good review section, almost all of their recent reviews appear to be by writers who've written barely any reviews in their career - that's Priscilla Wells, Patrick Souza, Meg Bethany Koepp, and Brandon Morgan (Shaun Cichacki is an exception).

That said, Lucas White who wrote the Potionomics reviews at least is an experienced reviewer and also writes for GameCrate (situational) and ShackNews (reliable) as well as some less reputable outlets in the past. So I could see a case for using that specific review, even if the outlet itself isn't great. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Are any of the issues specific to prior to 2021? If not, I think there's an argument for "reliable prior to 2021, after 2021 use your best judgment". - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Gamurs Group didn't acquire Prima Games until Jan 2022, so the management side of the issues wouldn't apply until then.

Looking at some of their older reviews, some are still seemingly from reviewers without many reviews to their name such as Liana Ruppert and Nicholas Barth. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

eXputer.com

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

Is this site reliable for Interviews only? I'm asking because i want to start using it to a degree. example [21] The website itself is currently used in 17 articles according to search and wasn't discussed here yet. Timur9008 (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks a bit mixed as a source at a quick look at least. As a note, it doesn't matter how many articles it's used in as that doesn't mean it should have been used as a source. For example, Nichegamer which is explicitly unreliable has been used almost 200 times.

- Their Editor-In-Chief hasn't worked anywhere notable.

- Others may be able to find more, but the only reliable site I can see linking to them is The Verge, which credits them as 'video game leaker', not the most confidence-inspiring title and it's more referring to the footage existing/being posted than using eXputer.com's article as a source for facts about the game.

- They don't appear to have a review code disclaimer checking out several of their articles which either implies they're not trusted enough to get them or they're not disclosing that they received them (I suspect the latter), both potential problems.

- Their editorial policy claims their writers are experts, but this appears to be a case of large team, with most of them seemingly very inexperienced writers.

- That it has an editorial policy at least is a positive

- It's on OpenCritic.

- They have quite a few interviews, showing they do have some level of trust and access to industry DarkeruTomoe (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

MobyGames owned by Atari now

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

All discussions about MobyGames being reliable are over a decade old. On 8 March 2022, it was purchased by Atari SA. They have paid staff, it not just a fansite. Their list of games include the cover art and screenshots of the game, proving they exist, so should be considered a reliable site to for Wikipedia:Verifiability. Dream Focus 14:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Remains a WP:USERG database site using user submissions. -- ferret (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the issue isn't that they lack paid staff, the issue is that the staff isn't the one curating the content. At most, you could argue, if Moby Games had a good editorial policy and staff and did articles, that it should be usable for that, but like Giant Bomb, the database itself isn't influenced by other areas of the site being staff-directed. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Gamefaqs is similar. There is technically staff "reviewing" submissions, but not like a professional editor acting in accordance to editorial policy, it's just people making sure USERG submissions are actually content and not gibberish, trolling, hate speech, etc. More or less the bare minimum any website that hosts user blogs. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• My question isn't about notability, but verifiability. If there are screenshots and images of the cover of old videos games there, would that be enough to prove those games exist? Be good enough to use on the hundreds of Category:Video game lists by platform list articles in their reference columns, to simply confirm their existence. Dream Focus 17:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  I sometimes, albeit rarely, use MobyGames as a ref, but only if I'm specifically pointing at the box art. Since MobyGames now has an impressive collection of uploaded box art. It's rare when I need to do this (a specific endorsement quote, gameplay mechanic, hardware requirement, etc.).

  Similar to using Discogs as a ref but only when linking to an image of liner notes, since that's another user-ran site. But otherwise, I don't see any other usability for MobyGames...FYI I use 'AV media notes' when doing this, but again it's kinda a last resort/oddly specific thing. Xanarki (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  No one is talking about notability. It failing WP:USERG is not a notability argument, its a reliability argument. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Besides what Sergecross pointed out, as this page is concerned about vetting reliability.... MobyGames is a fantastic resource for finding other reliable sources, but using them to "prove" a game exists because they host the cover image (which is also user-generated) doesn't seem to serve a purpose. Any store could do that. Databases maintained by sites we do consider reliable can do that. If the goal is simply to prove a game exists, so that platform lists are more complete, than it feels like a NOTDATABASE issue, as well as simply mirroring MobyGames besides. -- ferret (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Stores don't cover games that stopped being sold since before the internet existed. What reliable database sites have this information? Dream Focus 17:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  There are some websites and books that provider comprehensive game lists for certain platforms, but they do not exist for every platform, and I would not trust MobyGames to verify such a list. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 18:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  I understand the value of verifying the existence of a game to make a list more complete, but at the same time, certain games lacking good sources to verify them shouldn't justify using subpar ones. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• I support removing MobyGames as a reliable source. I'm not sure it ever was in the first place. It's affiliated with a major publisher, and features mostly user generated content. Even the primary source (e.g.: the game credits or instruction manual) would be more reliable, in the absence of any other sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  MobyGames is listed as unreliable. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying. I guess I'll also say that we should stop linking to it at all. I don't see what value it really adds. Same thing with IDGB which is owned by Twitch / Amazon. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Ruliweb

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

Ruliweb is a South Korea-based website with a video gaming focus formed in 2000. The website has had official sponsorship with domestic video game companies for events, notably Rulicon livestreaming in 2022 with publishers like Sony, Bandai Namco and Blizzard.

Most of the posts on the frontpage are user-submitted contents, which are useless by WP:UGC. All following links are named "information board" or something similar, but are run like internet forums with no moderation process to filter its contents prior: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

There are some articles in Ruliweb written by official staff, but they have their own issues. The About Us page only discloses the fact that its current publisher is Park Byeong Uk (박병욱) and editor-in-chief is Lee Jang Won (이장원). Park is the founder of the website with no connection to journalism otherwise (if this interview with Donga is to be trusted). Lee's Linkedin page states he was in Entershot and Gameshot previously, but neither are particularly known for high standard journalism. About Us has no information on the website's editorial process.

Ruliweb's articles do not have info pages for individual journalists, making it difficult to tell who they are or how long they've worked there, and are generally poor at authorship practices. Take this review of Unicorn Overlord published in March 2024 for example. Confusingly, this post's author is credited as "(RULIWEB`Д')/" on its profile. The author's name comes up in the video game infobox, but only as their nickname "Graz'zy". It isn't until when you scroll all down (but before scrolling past user comments) that you can finally see the author is Kim Yeong Hun (김영훈). This is one of the better ones. The review of Dragon's Dogma 2 only credits the author as "Mustang" and does not disclose who the person actually is.

Despite the website's connections to gaming industry, its general reliance on user-generated contents and dubious transparency of articles suggest its interest lies in sponsored contents, which would also disqualify it by WP:SPONSORED. I suggest this website be flagged unreliable. There aren't a lot of Wikipedia articles citing Ruliweb but I thought it was necessary to bring it up because, due to being a non-English source, it might be hard to realize the website is not trustworthy.--Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen it be used, but generally agree with your assessments here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I do feel we lack, currently, any good Korean sources (correct me if I'm wrong here). So if we can ascertain it's an actual article published by the staff and not user-generated content, it should be situational...albeit sparingly. Case in point I've noticed they've done interviews on Genshin Impact material, and I cited them prior where they did an interview with Shift Up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

CG Magazine

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

So this was declared unreliable back in 2014 [27], but in a discussion that, in my eyes, didn't stand a WP:SNOW of a chance due to being heavily promoted by an editor affiliated with the site. I'd like to give this a second run, as I think it's a reasonable source.

• Cross-references: Gry Online [28], Gamespot [29], Washington Post [30], PCGamesN [31] Destructoid [32] [33], judge for the Game Critics Awards, whatever that's worth [34].
• Quickfail issues from last time: they appear to have tightened up their editorial policy, no longer accepting user content, and made a proper page of their staff.
• To my knowledge, it's not being spammed anymore, which appeared to be a problem last time. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Situational. This seems to be a perfectly fine source that meets the standards. However, I'm going with situational here based on the fact it was previously marked unreliable, even if that was determined by a flawed discussion. Flaws in their past editorial policy still possibly existed. I'm unsure if a cutoff date can be determined for what's good or what's bad, but their content output today seems fine and I'd have no issues citing it. λ NegativeMP1 17:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Leaning reliable especially for review content as a print magazine with editorial policies and board no different to small-time review outlets under WP:VG/S. An Internet Archive sleuth suggests that it is correct CGM only had a review policy in 2014, but an editorial policy followed by the end of the year and an ethics policy in 2021. I think it is somewhat premature to say that it should be situational given the 2014 discussion, which heavily leaned on the explicit absence of these policies and relative immaturity of the publication, and was sort of doomed by the involvement of the editor in the discussion which derailed the policy discussion. However, I will admit a glaring issue is that the editorial team don't have fairly self-contained experience: this has been lead editor Brendan Frye's project for a decade and the only other team member with known experience is Jordan Biordi who wrote for Comic Book Resources for a few months and did video editing for Valnet. Limited journalistic experience isn't totally unheard of for a smaller publication, but it still raises how much oversight there is. That said, particularly for reviews, it strikes me as agreeable to consider use of this content and is not in the same category as unreliable blogs.

  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That Park Place

Find video game sources: "That Park Place" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo Seeing this pop up in my google news sources as of late, and honestly nothing about this site looks reliable. Their editor in chief is Bounding Into Comics' former editor in chief to boot, which also raises some red flags for me given that site's history. Seems open and shut, but bringing it up for discussion to be safe. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable per above reasoning. Clearly more interested in culture war flamebait than accurate reporting. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems obvious to call this unreliable. Just adding my name here for the sake of consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)