This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Find video game sources: "Comicbook" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Comicbook.com is a news website that covers a wide range of media including, movies, music, tv and games. I see this one a lot when trying to look for reliable sources, and looking through WP:VG/RS I see that is inconclusive with only one discussion, and even then the website wasn't the main point of the discussion. I am hoping a consensus can be reached this time. Captain Galaxy 20:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Found a Greek outlet based around gaming called " GameOver.gr". Did some digging around, and the LinkedIn page of its owner, George Kallifas, claims that he had been running it for 16 years, that he has had experience in the gaming industry for over 20, and that GameOver.gr as "one of the biggest videogames related sites in Greece". Looking over the amount of citations the website has on Wikipedia, there are a few, mainly for game reviews and mostly on foreign versions of Wikipedia.
I looked further onto GameOver.gr's social media accounts; their Instagram account has around 1.6k followers, while their Facebook account has 11.5k followers, and their YouTube account has 10.7k subscribers. Their Facebook page also claims that they are the "#1 destination in Greece for news, reviews, previews, interviews and giveaways related to the videogames industry", but I haven't been able to find any other Greek outlets to compare them to.
I'm gonna leave what I have so far up. I'm trying to find an editorial policy of sorts, as well as other Greek video game outlets to compare them to in order to figure out if their claims about being one of the biggest game outlets in Greece have any weight to them.
-- Anonymouseditor2k19 ( talk) 09:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "TIGSource" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
I would like to start a discussion on adding TIGSource as a situational source, at least when the articles were written by Derek Yu. Right now it is simply listed as "inconclusive". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 08:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Small question here but if a source from the unreliable section is found in an article and if a replacement is not found, do we just leave it there or do we remove it seeing that it's not situational rather unreliable? 2402:D000:811C:98E8:CC84:D33B:D421:1493 ( talk) 20:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Is the video game website Two Beard Gaming a reliable source?
I mean, the site of Two Beard Gaming is already used as a source in at least 2 wikipedia articles.
They have a top 101 games list that could be put in to the "games considered the best" page should they get approval.
Eseseso ( talk) 22:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Eseseso
GameCola has never been evaluated here, despite a decent number of citations on WP. They've been around since 2002, publishinng many reviews of games both new and old, on top of a slew of other articles on all manner of gaming topics, and a podcast currently at its 157th episode. They have a pretty large staff, too, and the site clearly has editorial overview. So, is it a RS, or not? Phediuk ( talk) 09:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Find video game sources: "svg.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Creating a talk page discussion per
Ferret's undo. I had already found and read the
previous discussion when I made my undo, and I rather disagree that there's consensus to add there? The only other participant (
izno) was responding to the technical question of limiting the search to the site only, and I don't think the standard for addition on this page should be "One person posted and no one objected". In fact, that seems like exactly what our
Inconclusive discussions section is for. So while I'm willing to have a discussion on the merits, I also think it's pretty cut and dry that the addition of svg.com isn't backed by consensus at all, and the burden should still be on the person who wants to add it.
That said, on the merits, this site is terrible and I'm strongly opposed to it being considered reliable. Pinging Ferret, Shooterwalker, and Pbrks. Alyo ( chat· edits) 16:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
graduated high school and avoided college like the plagueentry. They have Fact Checking and Ethics policies, which is reassuring. The articles they write though... I mean, really? I will forgo any "reliable" or "unreliable" vote here, since I am not sure that I can make it unbiasedly at the moment. The biggest issue I have with this whole situation is the addition of SVG.com as a reliable source, even though there was clearly no consensus, which was then reaffirmed since
no one opposed or stated it was unreliable. No opposition does not imply reliability. Every source listed a reliable in VGRS needs to have a backing consensus. – Pbrks ( t • c) 16:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
There's a consensusPlease show it. -- Izno ( talk) 17:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, here goes. SVG is the video game arm of Static Media, which is itself a startup specializing in that sort of 'trending entertainment' content ("We give readers what they want, before they want it", "Static Media's content never stands still", etc). In order to do that, they repeat what other more reputable publications say almost verbatim, or else just put down in words something that has happened on a Twitch stream.
Lets look at
this piece, as it's a topic that SVG's writers are not likely to have any subject experience in. Sure enough, the piece basically just copies content from the
Bloomberg piece it cites and calls it a day. SVG says Microsoft may actually have something to worry about, as FTC Chair Lina Kahn has been an outspoken advocate of a more heavy-handed approach to the regulation of technology companies. Kahn finds that these organizations can often leverage power to devastating effect, exerting control not only within its own business circles but in others as well ... Under Kahn's leadership, the FTC successfully blocked two mergers of tech companies: Nvidia's deal for Arm Ltd. and Lockheed Martin's purchase of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc.
Bloomberg says FTC Chair Lina Khan has long advocated for a more forceful approach to reviewing deals, particularly by the biggest technology companies, which she says are able to leverage their dominance in one line of business to gain power in other markets. Under her leadership, the agency has sued to block two major takeovers - NVidia Corp's proposed purchase of Arm Ltd. and Lockheed Martin Corp's deal to buy of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc.
That borders on plagiarism. In their standard pieces, it's only better insofar as it's technically not plagiarism to write down what a streamer says and call it "news". There are
so
many
pieces
like
this that are just beat-by-beat reconstructions of something that happened in a youtube/twitch video (with timestamps as citations!). Or are just cited to
a reddit user's translation of what happened in a video. I truly cannot imagine how problematic it would be to use a piece like
this, which just prose-ifies some tweets and videos and then makes genuinely intimate conclusions about a person's life and mental health with the same level of sourcing as a youtube comment section, in a BLP. I'm going to assume I don't need to go through each of these and explain how they specifically violate WP policy about RS's.
What else. This one cites to a fan wiki. This one cites "fan responses" by linking to tweets by utter randos. Their "exclusives" vertical is full of this thing where they do one interview and then cut it up and republish smaller pieces as separate exclusives. They will also interview someone in what clearly seems like a promotional feature, and then publish another piece summarizing a group of those interviews as another exclusive. With all due respect to the editors in this discussion, it seems beyond obvious to me that this is not even remotely close to a RS. There is no expertise here beyond "I can read The Verge and cut it down to ~400 words". There's no evidence that their editorial policy is anything other than "as quick as possible". They don't do their own reporting. If another source gets something wrong, SVG doesn't appear to be in a position to fact checking before hitting publish. The more I look, the worse this gets. I don't think it's even remotely in the same universe as a Kotaku, who at least had a history of good work and whose news/opinion work is much easier to separate. Alyo ( chat· edits) 20:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment I'm not going to add my opinion on SVG here, but I think this discussion of Looper I started from a couple months ago would be helpful to talk about. PantheonRadiance ( talk) 23:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
we're still not being clear about what the issue isErr, just to be clear, are you saying that my comment "still" isn't clear enough for you? Are you asking me to specify exactly which Wikipedia policy prohibits us from using sources that actively plagiarize other sources? Or source to fan-edited wikis? Unless someone else says they feel the same way you do, I think you're in the minority there. In fact, I think the burden has shifted to you showing why we would ever want to use SVG, even situationally. Can you link to SVG pieces, like I did, that are reliable, independent, and add value to a topic beyond summarizing a different source? I haven't seen a single one that I would use in an article I was writing. As it stands, if you took away their own statement of ethics, I see no arguments in favor of SVG as a source in this discussion. Alyo ( chat· edits) 20:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I believe there's a consensus here for Unreliable, any opposition? If nothing substantial in a couple days I'm going to go ahead and close this, and put in a row with both Looper and SVG together as unreliable. Recent discussion at Talk:List_of_video_games_considered_the_best#New_Looper_List_and_a_few_questions has also covered Looper again, finding that they have continuously posted articles that were regurgitating years old information from other sources. Additionally, the list being discussed there initially claimed it was by SVG staff despite being under Looper.com, then later was changed to Looper staff. I think it's exceedingly unclear whether SVG is actually independent of Looper or just a place they filter to "Gaming". -- ferret ( talk) 15:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I keep reiterating that the site doesn't have any apparent issues with accuracy or fact-checking.I'm not trying to be annoying about this, but you also have yet to respond to an entire comment I left showing exactly those issues (reliance on fan-created content, verifying their own conclusions via anonymous social media posts, lack of analysis besides repeating other sources, etc). I know wikiprojects often have more lax standards than broader village pump pages, but if you took SVG to WP:RSN with this reasoning it would be a snow close. Alyo ( chat· edits) 02:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
something that's potentially of criminal magnitudeErr, {{ citation needed}}
you appeared to leave the discussionbecause you asked me to help build consensus after I'd left a lengthy comment that led multiple people to change to calling the site unreliable. We built consensus, you're unfortunately just on the wrong side of it. You're now just repeating the same point without seeming to understand that you're completely wrong about what a " situational source" is. The litmus test here is not finding a single instance where they have been factually wrong, as you keep asking for. A situational source is one where one part of the site (a specific author, a category of writers, one type of content that they have expertise in, etc) fully meets WP:RS even if the rest of the site doesn't. And the burden to find that is on the editor arguing in favor. You, not me, have the burden of proof of showing when and how their articles are useful or situationally reliable. Saying "well they have an editorial board so it's all generally fine but we'll slap a warning label on them" won't cut it, sorry. See David Fuchs' comment below: the editorial board is just one element of a multi-factor test. Alyo ( chat· edits) 14:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't see the real benefit of marking stuff "situationally reliable" when it's clear either another, better source covers the same topics or it's just outright bad journalism that we shouldn't be basing editorial content on. What good content are we losing by not being able to use SVG? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Generally unreliable: The problem here is that the site includes a mixture of statements that come from other reliable sites, statements sourced from fansites, YouTube videos, streams, and other generally unreliable sources, and statements that are inferences or generalisations from the site's staff. Clearly articles sourced to fansites shouldn't be used and we might be worried that summaries of streams and videos bring up DUE problems and are potentially unreliable themselves. Furthermore, I don't believe that there is currently sufficient evidence that we should trust the staff's own inferences and generalisations, especially for BLP articles. This is further backed up by the fact that there appears to be virtually no WP:USEBYOTHERS. This might be reason to consider the site as a situational source if not for the fact that these statements are generally not confined to separate parts of the site or its articles. Articles may contain a mixture of content coming from reliable sources alongside unreliable statements from the site itself, and it may be hard to distinguish the good from the bad. Therefore, if the site includes information that cannot be found in other reliable sources, it isn't guaranteed that it will be reliable information. But if it can be found in other reliable sources, those other reliable sources should absolutely be preferred. In no case would it be preferable to use the site as a source for information in an article. Alduin2000 ( talk) 03:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "HLTV" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
This CS:GO related site has been on
WP:VG/RS for a while and has been brought up for reevaluation multiple times as well, but no discussion has taken place. The
original evaluation mentions a lack of evidence that the writers are "experts in the field," and whilst this may have been somewhat true in 2016, the situation has definitely changed. The current head of operations, Zvonimir "Professeur" Burazin has been hired as an analyst by multiple notable tournament organizers including
ESL and PGL (where he was hired for an official Valve sanctioned tournament).
This does not mean their website is reliable per se, but their match database has also been integrated into the official CS:GO client itself. [2] [3]
I should also add as a disclaimer that I wrote the original Wikipedia article for HLTV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lxxl2 ( talk • contribs)
Are the details and statistics reliable? Probably. Should we take note of most of them? Probably notis essentially how I'd frame it, but with the "probably not" allowing for use for the most notable tournaments. I'd analogize to something like Chess_World_Cup_2021#Results. Is the event notable? Clearly. Is there a reliable, third-party/non-database source that wrote about (92) Cristobal H. Villagra 2-0 (165) Goh Wei Ming in the first round? Uhh...I doubt it? I can remove every individual match result, or every link to HLTV from those match pages, but it seems odd when we otherwise acknowledge the accuracy of their data.
Find video game sources: "Gry-online.pl" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
I was surprised not to see this listed here. A large Polish video game portal, has en and pl wiki articles: Gry-Online. It's more of a general gaming with a side of computer news (ex. recent article about Wikipedia, and they also run articles about board games, graphic novels and tv/films, etc., so they seem to be moving towards general geek stuff, although their main focus remains on video games. They have a game database called 'encyclopedia' but as usual it's more of a catalogue. They claim to have about a hundred employees, listed here: https://www.gry-online.pl/team.asp . However, I cannot find a description of their review process, but that's not incommon for many publicaitons. They don't accept user submissions for their articles. I suggest adding them to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Foreign_language. PS. For whatever reason, their English version uses a different name, should also be listed: Gamepressure.com (also it seems to have little visiblity and is not used on en wiki, I think). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Super GamePower" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Super GamePower ( pt:Super GamePower) was a Brazilian print magazine published 1994–2009. From 1994 to August 2001, it was published by pt:Editora Nova Cultural, which originated from Editora Abril, "one of the biggest media holdings in Latin America." The source is currently being used in EarthBound, Reception section. Since this is not a website I don't know what else to add honestly, but I believe it could be considered reliable. In 2012, news website Universo Online, one of the most popular in Brazil, interviewed the team behind the magazine, creating a 32 minute documentary [10]. Skyshifter talk 02:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I came across the site https://brutalgamer.com while researching sources for the article Gameknight999, which I started a year ago in draft space and let languish, and which was recently approved for main space. The source looked pretty good to me, with an editorial staff and everything, [11] so I cited a review I found in it. I didn't see BrutalGamer listed here, though. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 21:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
With digital journalism competing for ad dollars, and more eyeballs shifting to social media and streams, we're seeing the whole model of reporting change. A lot more opinion pieces, trend riding, listicles, and even just content dumping, to get as many eyeballs onto a site as possible.
I have seen this issue raised among several different sources, even ones we consider reliable. I'm tempted to create a survey or an RFC, but I wanted to just get some preliminary thoughts here.
Try to recall a source that is "borderline" reliable. A source that technically has fact-checking and editorial review, but sometimes produces journalism that is at odds with writing a good Wikipedia article. It might even be a source that is currently on this list as reliable. Now imagine we started building Wikipedia articles by summarizing those sources. What types of negative effects do you think we would see on Wikipedia articles? Bonus question, which types of journalism would create the most problems? Shooterwalker ( talk) 16:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
produces journalism that is at odds with writing a good Wikipedia articlewe just wouldn't (/shouldn't) use it. That's what "situational" means--ideally we've identified when the source is speaking within their circle of competence + from a position of editorial reliability. Alternatively, if you mean "a source that we've judged to be generally reliable suddenly begins churning out garbage", WP policy is flexible enough to deal with that. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and our sourcing policies very explicitly note that generally reliable sources may still not be reliable in curtain circumstances. Look at WP:GREL to get an example of what those circumstances might look like. We don't have to accept a specific citation just because the site/org has a whole has been judged to be generally reliable. Apart from this, I'm not sure what a "borderline reliable" source is. Either the organization has established a history of editorial oversight, accuracy, and an area of competence--in which case the presumption, but not guarantee, is that it's reliable in that area--or it hasn't. So to rephrase your question as I initially read it: "What if we had a good source that was actually a bad source, and then we used that bad source to create articles--wouldn't that be bad?" Well, yes of course, but WP policies are intended to prevent that.
web sites with an editorial team, those pages aren't considered reliable. Your second bullet is something that's likely not reliable, and the more a site publishes those lists the less we will consider them reliable. Finally,
If I were hellbent on abusing these sources, I could probably create endless spinouts of the best-selling games. Easter eggs in Grand Theft Auto. Ghost themed levels in Mario franchise. Undertale ending.I'm not sure you could. It's not
good sensethat prevents us from creating those articles, it's policy. Policy demands that notability be demonstrated via reliable sources, and those listicles you talk about wouldn't stand up at AfD. I hope this doesn't come off as overly wiki-lawyery, because I do think there are interesting questions about the change in how journalism is funded nowadays. I just don't think the biggest issue is former marquee publications switching to listicles and then editors going "oh well, now I have to let this article through". If that's not what you mean, then I think I need a specific example, because I have a hard time recalling a borderline source as you're describing it. Alyo ( chat· edits) 17:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Dualshockers" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Hi! This site is currently listed as unreliable on WP:VG/RS, but there seems to be a very poor consensus as to why. As it was brought up at Talk:Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes#Unreliable sources, I think it would be wise to reassess. The about us page suggests it has an editorial roll. Previous discussions [17] no comments, suggested COI, [18] one comment, also mostly COI, [19] has some comments, but mostly suggesting the previous entries were somehow suitable to suggest it was unreliable. This is seven years ago, so probably needs a better look. The about us page [20] suggests it has a decently strong editorial backbone. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, we have three calls to re-evaluate... but no clear re-evaluation ;) As MoonJet notes, other sources do frequently report DualShocker stories, and as they proudly claim, they are frequently cited by the industry for accolades and the like. They physical attend and report on industry events. Despite our label as unreliable, the site is widely used on Wikipedia. We have fairly long established site, with a clear staff page with designated roles. Not exactly much in stated staff credentials, but if you work at a publication for 10 years and your stories are being picked up by other outlets, isn't that experience in and of itself? It is however a relatively small staff, and there is, however, a set of freelancers, and the editorial oversight of them is unstated. The terms of use page specifically uses the phrase "editors and contributors" in regards to content being produced. I want to say reliable, but my heart says "Situational, direct staff only, replace with other sources if possible." -- ferret ( talk) 02:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
So is there consensus to consider the site situationally reliable? I do see the site has some editorial oversight and a decent set of writers. In addition, a brief look at the VG/RS search tool shows that several of its articles have been used in sites like Engadget, Anime News Network and even Ars Technica. The previous discussion also listed that sites like CNET, Time and VG247 have also cited articles from theirs as well without necessarily critiquing its editorial backbone or implying DS was unreliable, so that may be promising. I would personally place it as "other reliable" but would be fine if others placed it as situationally reliable. The question is, what are some specific cases where it wouldn't be fully reliable, or would be quite unusable for? Controversial claims about people, even when their claims are backed up by other reliable sources? PantheonRadiance ( talk) 19:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I've run into this site a few times while conducting research, currently cited by 20 pages on Wikipedia. The site's defunct and primarily covered indie games. Although the prose is good the staff seemed to be small, and their about page is brief. I'm not quite sure where this would land in terms of reliability. LBWP ( talk) 20:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
We’re passionate about games, especially indie games. Our goal is to shed a light on the world of indie gaming, inform readers on the benefits of crowdfunding, and call out any shady behavior that may seek to take advantage of customers, and the editor-in-chief doesn't have qualifications:
Joanna is a lifelong gamer and an aspiring animator, which means she spends way too much time obsessing about fictional worlds. But this certainly don't count towards GNG IMO, probably avoid its use where possible. Many thanks! VickKiang ( talk) 02:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources:
"Xboxygen" –
news ·
newspapers ·
books ·
scholar ·
JSTOR ·
free images ·
free news sources ·
WP Library ·
NYT ·
WP reference ·
VG/RS ·
VG/RL ·
WPVG/Talk ·
LinkSearch ·
LinkTo
Find video game sources:
"Game Legends" –
news ·
newspapers ·
books ·
scholar ·
JSTOR ·
free images ·
free news sources ·
WP Library ·
NYT ·
WP reference ·
VG/RS ·
VG/RL ·
WPVG/Talk ·
LinkSearch ·
LinkTo
Hey everyone, I'm inquiring about two foreign publications. Xboxygen (French), as the name suggests, covers Xbox news whereas Game Legends (Italian) centers on broader pop culture topics, including technology, film, Manga, etc.
One English Wikipedia article references Xboxygen and none reference Game Legends (Yes, I'm really scrapping the bottom of the barrel for sources here). As for the
French and
Italian Wikipedia, both have been referenced in a few high quality Halo articles, including the French
Halo Reach article and both the
French and
Italian series articles. As for the sites themselves, their
staff
pages don't provide much information and neither has an ethics page. This is why I am hesitant to use them, despite their decent graphic design and inclusion in some foreign Wikipedia articles. It's worth noting that there's a message at the bottom of Game Legends articles that states it's "registered with the Court of Rome". For reference,
these
are the articles I am considering for use. At least through online translation, they seem to be well written and thorough enough. You can find all the other sources I was able to find on this game at the requests page (some are reliable while others aren't).
LBWP (
talk) 12:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Link. This is an old Polish geek (sf, fantasy, horror, games) zine: pl:Esensja (est. 2000). It sometimes publisher video games reviews too ( here is their games subpage, note it may contain board game reviews too). It has an editorial team ( [21]). It won a bunch of awards, or was positively reviewed in its first years of existence (their award/mentions page seems to to have been updated since 2004/2005 or so, https://esensja.pl/_redakcja/info/tekst.html?id=1297 ). They are obviously notable (based on said mentions, the pl wiki article is meh). For example, in 2003 Polish sf/fantasy magazine Nowa Fantastyka, considered reliable, wrote about them that "I don't think I have to introduce "Essence" to anyone - it is one of the best Internet magazines in terms of content." The are open to submissions but those are presumably reviewed according to criteria listed here: https://esensja.pl/_redakcja/info/tekst.html?id=1315 Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't this (sub)page use "reliable" in its name? Common abbreviations are WP:VGRS/ WP:RSVG not WP:VGS/ WP:SVG (those go to different pages) for a reason too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
This journal has been added by @ Lijil without discussion. Does anyone have any concerns? -- ferret ( talk) 16:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "howtogeek" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
What do you guys think about the reliability of How-to Geek? I'm leaning generally reliable but unsure. Thoughts? — PerfectSoundWhatever ( t; c) 14:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "GameSpew" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Site looks reliable for reviews; has a review policy explaining ratings, their non-acceptance of payment for reviews, and their aggregation on Metacritic. The About Us page lists the three-person team running the site: they have two editors-in-chief and one staff writer. My only concern is that I couldn't find the two editors in other RS, though the staff writer has written several freelance pieces in other RS. A quick look through the reviews found that they were all written by one of the three, though the About Us page also says they accept freelance submissions that the site will pay for. Yeeno ( talk) 19:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Dear video gamers, your friends at tabletop games project have created a page about sources, modelled on your impressive initative here, and we could use help in our discussions: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games/Sources -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:GAMESOURCES and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#Wikipedia:GAMESOURCES until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources:
"PC Joker" –
news ·
newspapers ·
books ·
scholar ·
JSTOR ·
free images ·
free news sources ·
WP Library ·
NYT ·
WP reference ·
VG/RS ·
VG/RL ·
WPVG/Talk ·
LinkSearch ·
LinkTo
PC Joker was the first German-language computer games magazine for IBM PC-compatible computers, and had the same publsiher as
Amiga Joker (which I believe should also be made a reliable source). German Wikipedia page:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_Joker --
Coin945 (
talk) 11:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Many of the sources in this list - both reliable and unreliable - are indeed notable. I wonder if anyone would object if I (we?) redlinked the names of magazines/websites/etc. to encourage article creation.-- Coin945 ( talk) 11:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Rappler" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
I came across this in the context of some East/Southeast Asian esports and thought I'd bring it to this project's attention/get some more opinions. WP:RAPPLER is considered a RS over at the RSN and they have a dedicated esports vertical. Promotional and ad content is clearly indicated, and I see no reason why their editorial standards wouldn't apply to the esports section. Maria Ressa is the founder and CEO. It mostly covers Filipino esports, but I think it's reliable for that. Alyo ( chat· edits) 15:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Coin945 ( talk) 16:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "...Igromania..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
According to a discussion from 2013, the site/magazine Igromania is reliable. Could i add it to the table? 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 13:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Media Clip" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Media Clip is a Japanese review site for eroge and erotic manga. Most of its staffs have experience in eroge magazines such as BugBug, Megastore, and PC Angel, as well as general game magazine Game Labo:
-- So47009 ( talk) 14:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Indie Games Plus" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Find video game sources: "ROMchip" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
ROMchip is a scholarly journal that was first published in 2019. It seems to be similar to Game Studies and Games and Culture, but with greater emphasis on the history of games. According to the journal's website, it has an editorial team (a core editorial group and a general peer review board) from academic institutes and a two-tier review process for articles; interviews and materials (game-related object discussions) are directly reviewed by the board. Based on those aspects, I would consider the journal to be reliable, but I would like to hear some other opinions here. CascadeUrbanite ( talk) 09:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Find video game sources: "Comicbook" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Comicbook.com is a news website that covers a wide range of media including, movies, music, tv and games. I see this one a lot when trying to look for reliable sources, and looking through WP:VG/RS I see that is inconclusive with only one discussion, and even then the website wasn't the main point of the discussion. I am hoping a consensus can be reached this time. Captain Galaxy 20:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Found a Greek outlet based around gaming called " GameOver.gr". Did some digging around, and the LinkedIn page of its owner, George Kallifas, claims that he had been running it for 16 years, that he has had experience in the gaming industry for over 20, and that GameOver.gr as "one of the biggest videogames related sites in Greece". Looking over the amount of citations the website has on Wikipedia, there are a few, mainly for game reviews and mostly on foreign versions of Wikipedia.
I looked further onto GameOver.gr's social media accounts; their Instagram account has around 1.6k followers, while their Facebook account has 11.5k followers, and their YouTube account has 10.7k subscribers. Their Facebook page also claims that they are the "#1 destination in Greece for news, reviews, previews, interviews and giveaways related to the videogames industry", but I haven't been able to find any other Greek outlets to compare them to.
I'm gonna leave what I have so far up. I'm trying to find an editorial policy of sorts, as well as other Greek video game outlets to compare them to in order to figure out if their claims about being one of the biggest game outlets in Greece have any weight to them.
-- Anonymouseditor2k19 ( talk) 09:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "TIGSource" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
I would like to start a discussion on adding TIGSource as a situational source, at least when the articles were written by Derek Yu. Right now it is simply listed as "inconclusive". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 08:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Small question here but if a source from the unreliable section is found in an article and if a replacement is not found, do we just leave it there or do we remove it seeing that it's not situational rather unreliable? 2402:D000:811C:98E8:CC84:D33B:D421:1493 ( talk) 20:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Is the video game website Two Beard Gaming a reliable source?
I mean, the site of Two Beard Gaming is already used as a source in at least 2 wikipedia articles.
They have a top 101 games list that could be put in to the "games considered the best" page should they get approval.
Eseseso ( talk) 22:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Eseseso
GameCola has never been evaluated here, despite a decent number of citations on WP. They've been around since 2002, publishinng many reviews of games both new and old, on top of a slew of other articles on all manner of gaming topics, and a podcast currently at its 157th episode. They have a pretty large staff, too, and the site clearly has editorial overview. So, is it a RS, or not? Phediuk ( talk) 09:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Find video game sources: "svg.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Creating a talk page discussion per
Ferret's undo. I had already found and read the
previous discussion when I made my undo, and I rather disagree that there's consensus to add there? The only other participant (
izno) was responding to the technical question of limiting the search to the site only, and I don't think the standard for addition on this page should be "One person posted and no one objected". In fact, that seems like exactly what our
Inconclusive discussions section is for. So while I'm willing to have a discussion on the merits, I also think it's pretty cut and dry that the addition of svg.com isn't backed by consensus at all, and the burden should still be on the person who wants to add it.
That said, on the merits, this site is terrible and I'm strongly opposed to it being considered reliable. Pinging Ferret, Shooterwalker, and Pbrks. Alyo ( chat· edits) 16:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
graduated high school and avoided college like the plagueentry. They have Fact Checking and Ethics policies, which is reassuring. The articles they write though... I mean, really? I will forgo any "reliable" or "unreliable" vote here, since I am not sure that I can make it unbiasedly at the moment. The biggest issue I have with this whole situation is the addition of SVG.com as a reliable source, even though there was clearly no consensus, which was then reaffirmed since
no one opposed or stated it was unreliable. No opposition does not imply reliability. Every source listed a reliable in VGRS needs to have a backing consensus. – Pbrks ( t • c) 16:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
There's a consensusPlease show it. -- Izno ( talk) 17:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, here goes. SVG is the video game arm of Static Media, which is itself a startup specializing in that sort of 'trending entertainment' content ("We give readers what they want, before they want it", "Static Media's content never stands still", etc). In order to do that, they repeat what other more reputable publications say almost verbatim, or else just put down in words something that has happened on a Twitch stream.
Lets look at
this piece, as it's a topic that SVG's writers are not likely to have any subject experience in. Sure enough, the piece basically just copies content from the
Bloomberg piece it cites and calls it a day. SVG says Microsoft may actually have something to worry about, as FTC Chair Lina Kahn has been an outspoken advocate of a more heavy-handed approach to the regulation of technology companies. Kahn finds that these organizations can often leverage power to devastating effect, exerting control not only within its own business circles but in others as well ... Under Kahn's leadership, the FTC successfully blocked two mergers of tech companies: Nvidia's deal for Arm Ltd. and Lockheed Martin's purchase of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc.
Bloomberg says FTC Chair Lina Khan has long advocated for a more forceful approach to reviewing deals, particularly by the biggest technology companies, which she says are able to leverage their dominance in one line of business to gain power in other markets. Under her leadership, the agency has sued to block two major takeovers - NVidia Corp's proposed purchase of Arm Ltd. and Lockheed Martin Corp's deal to buy of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc.
That borders on plagiarism. In their standard pieces, it's only better insofar as it's technically not plagiarism to write down what a streamer says and call it "news". There are
so
many
pieces
like
this that are just beat-by-beat reconstructions of something that happened in a youtube/twitch video (with timestamps as citations!). Or are just cited to
a reddit user's translation of what happened in a video. I truly cannot imagine how problematic it would be to use a piece like
this, which just prose-ifies some tweets and videos and then makes genuinely intimate conclusions about a person's life and mental health with the same level of sourcing as a youtube comment section, in a BLP. I'm going to assume I don't need to go through each of these and explain how they specifically violate WP policy about RS's.
What else. This one cites to a fan wiki. This one cites "fan responses" by linking to tweets by utter randos. Their "exclusives" vertical is full of this thing where they do one interview and then cut it up and republish smaller pieces as separate exclusives. They will also interview someone in what clearly seems like a promotional feature, and then publish another piece summarizing a group of those interviews as another exclusive. With all due respect to the editors in this discussion, it seems beyond obvious to me that this is not even remotely close to a RS. There is no expertise here beyond "I can read The Verge and cut it down to ~400 words". There's no evidence that their editorial policy is anything other than "as quick as possible". They don't do their own reporting. If another source gets something wrong, SVG doesn't appear to be in a position to fact checking before hitting publish. The more I look, the worse this gets. I don't think it's even remotely in the same universe as a Kotaku, who at least had a history of good work and whose news/opinion work is much easier to separate. Alyo ( chat· edits) 20:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment I'm not going to add my opinion on SVG here, but I think this discussion of Looper I started from a couple months ago would be helpful to talk about. PantheonRadiance ( talk) 23:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
we're still not being clear about what the issue isErr, just to be clear, are you saying that my comment "still" isn't clear enough for you? Are you asking me to specify exactly which Wikipedia policy prohibits us from using sources that actively plagiarize other sources? Or source to fan-edited wikis? Unless someone else says they feel the same way you do, I think you're in the minority there. In fact, I think the burden has shifted to you showing why we would ever want to use SVG, even situationally. Can you link to SVG pieces, like I did, that are reliable, independent, and add value to a topic beyond summarizing a different source? I haven't seen a single one that I would use in an article I was writing. As it stands, if you took away their own statement of ethics, I see no arguments in favor of SVG as a source in this discussion. Alyo ( chat· edits) 20:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I believe there's a consensus here for Unreliable, any opposition? If nothing substantial in a couple days I'm going to go ahead and close this, and put in a row with both Looper and SVG together as unreliable. Recent discussion at Talk:List_of_video_games_considered_the_best#New_Looper_List_and_a_few_questions has also covered Looper again, finding that they have continuously posted articles that were regurgitating years old information from other sources. Additionally, the list being discussed there initially claimed it was by SVG staff despite being under Looper.com, then later was changed to Looper staff. I think it's exceedingly unclear whether SVG is actually independent of Looper or just a place they filter to "Gaming". -- ferret ( talk) 15:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I keep reiterating that the site doesn't have any apparent issues with accuracy or fact-checking.I'm not trying to be annoying about this, but you also have yet to respond to an entire comment I left showing exactly those issues (reliance on fan-created content, verifying their own conclusions via anonymous social media posts, lack of analysis besides repeating other sources, etc). I know wikiprojects often have more lax standards than broader village pump pages, but if you took SVG to WP:RSN with this reasoning it would be a snow close. Alyo ( chat· edits) 02:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
something that's potentially of criminal magnitudeErr, {{ citation needed}}
you appeared to leave the discussionbecause you asked me to help build consensus after I'd left a lengthy comment that led multiple people to change to calling the site unreliable. We built consensus, you're unfortunately just on the wrong side of it. You're now just repeating the same point without seeming to understand that you're completely wrong about what a " situational source" is. The litmus test here is not finding a single instance where they have been factually wrong, as you keep asking for. A situational source is one where one part of the site (a specific author, a category of writers, one type of content that they have expertise in, etc) fully meets WP:RS even if the rest of the site doesn't. And the burden to find that is on the editor arguing in favor. You, not me, have the burden of proof of showing when and how their articles are useful or situationally reliable. Saying "well they have an editorial board so it's all generally fine but we'll slap a warning label on them" won't cut it, sorry. See David Fuchs' comment below: the editorial board is just one element of a multi-factor test. Alyo ( chat· edits) 14:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't see the real benefit of marking stuff "situationally reliable" when it's clear either another, better source covers the same topics or it's just outright bad journalism that we shouldn't be basing editorial content on. What good content are we losing by not being able to use SVG? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Generally unreliable: The problem here is that the site includes a mixture of statements that come from other reliable sites, statements sourced from fansites, YouTube videos, streams, and other generally unreliable sources, and statements that are inferences or generalisations from the site's staff. Clearly articles sourced to fansites shouldn't be used and we might be worried that summaries of streams and videos bring up DUE problems and are potentially unreliable themselves. Furthermore, I don't believe that there is currently sufficient evidence that we should trust the staff's own inferences and generalisations, especially for BLP articles. This is further backed up by the fact that there appears to be virtually no WP:USEBYOTHERS. This might be reason to consider the site as a situational source if not for the fact that these statements are generally not confined to separate parts of the site or its articles. Articles may contain a mixture of content coming from reliable sources alongside unreliable statements from the site itself, and it may be hard to distinguish the good from the bad. Therefore, if the site includes information that cannot be found in other reliable sources, it isn't guaranteed that it will be reliable information. But if it can be found in other reliable sources, those other reliable sources should absolutely be preferred. In no case would it be preferable to use the site as a source for information in an article. Alduin2000 ( talk) 03:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "HLTV" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
This CS:GO related site has been on
WP:VG/RS for a while and has been brought up for reevaluation multiple times as well, but no discussion has taken place. The
original evaluation mentions a lack of evidence that the writers are "experts in the field," and whilst this may have been somewhat true in 2016, the situation has definitely changed. The current head of operations, Zvonimir "Professeur" Burazin has been hired as an analyst by multiple notable tournament organizers including
ESL and PGL (where he was hired for an official Valve sanctioned tournament).
This does not mean their website is reliable per se, but their match database has also been integrated into the official CS:GO client itself. [2] [3]
I should also add as a disclaimer that I wrote the original Wikipedia article for HLTV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lxxl2 ( talk • contribs)
Are the details and statistics reliable? Probably. Should we take note of most of them? Probably notis essentially how I'd frame it, but with the "probably not" allowing for use for the most notable tournaments. I'd analogize to something like Chess_World_Cup_2021#Results. Is the event notable? Clearly. Is there a reliable, third-party/non-database source that wrote about (92) Cristobal H. Villagra 2-0 (165) Goh Wei Ming in the first round? Uhh...I doubt it? I can remove every individual match result, or every link to HLTV from those match pages, but it seems odd when we otherwise acknowledge the accuracy of their data.
Find video game sources: "Gry-online.pl" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
I was surprised not to see this listed here. A large Polish video game portal, has en and pl wiki articles: Gry-Online. It's more of a general gaming with a side of computer news (ex. recent article about Wikipedia, and they also run articles about board games, graphic novels and tv/films, etc., so they seem to be moving towards general geek stuff, although their main focus remains on video games. They have a game database called 'encyclopedia' but as usual it's more of a catalogue. They claim to have about a hundred employees, listed here: https://www.gry-online.pl/team.asp . However, I cannot find a description of their review process, but that's not incommon for many publicaitons. They don't accept user submissions for their articles. I suggest adding them to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Foreign_language. PS. For whatever reason, their English version uses a different name, should also be listed: Gamepressure.com (also it seems to have little visiblity and is not used on en wiki, I think). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Super GamePower" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Super GamePower ( pt:Super GamePower) was a Brazilian print magazine published 1994–2009. From 1994 to August 2001, it was published by pt:Editora Nova Cultural, which originated from Editora Abril, "one of the biggest media holdings in Latin America." The source is currently being used in EarthBound, Reception section. Since this is not a website I don't know what else to add honestly, but I believe it could be considered reliable. In 2012, news website Universo Online, one of the most popular in Brazil, interviewed the team behind the magazine, creating a 32 minute documentary [10]. Skyshifter talk 02:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I came across the site https://brutalgamer.com while researching sources for the article Gameknight999, which I started a year ago in draft space and let languish, and which was recently approved for main space. The source looked pretty good to me, with an editorial staff and everything, [11] so I cited a review I found in it. I didn't see BrutalGamer listed here, though. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 21:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
With digital journalism competing for ad dollars, and more eyeballs shifting to social media and streams, we're seeing the whole model of reporting change. A lot more opinion pieces, trend riding, listicles, and even just content dumping, to get as many eyeballs onto a site as possible.
I have seen this issue raised among several different sources, even ones we consider reliable. I'm tempted to create a survey or an RFC, but I wanted to just get some preliminary thoughts here.
Try to recall a source that is "borderline" reliable. A source that technically has fact-checking and editorial review, but sometimes produces journalism that is at odds with writing a good Wikipedia article. It might even be a source that is currently on this list as reliable. Now imagine we started building Wikipedia articles by summarizing those sources. What types of negative effects do you think we would see on Wikipedia articles? Bonus question, which types of journalism would create the most problems? Shooterwalker ( talk) 16:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
produces journalism that is at odds with writing a good Wikipedia articlewe just wouldn't (/shouldn't) use it. That's what "situational" means--ideally we've identified when the source is speaking within their circle of competence + from a position of editorial reliability. Alternatively, if you mean "a source that we've judged to be generally reliable suddenly begins churning out garbage", WP policy is flexible enough to deal with that. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and our sourcing policies very explicitly note that generally reliable sources may still not be reliable in curtain circumstances. Look at WP:GREL to get an example of what those circumstances might look like. We don't have to accept a specific citation just because the site/org has a whole has been judged to be generally reliable. Apart from this, I'm not sure what a "borderline reliable" source is. Either the organization has established a history of editorial oversight, accuracy, and an area of competence--in which case the presumption, but not guarantee, is that it's reliable in that area--or it hasn't. So to rephrase your question as I initially read it: "What if we had a good source that was actually a bad source, and then we used that bad source to create articles--wouldn't that be bad?" Well, yes of course, but WP policies are intended to prevent that.
web sites with an editorial team, those pages aren't considered reliable. Your second bullet is something that's likely not reliable, and the more a site publishes those lists the less we will consider them reliable. Finally,
If I were hellbent on abusing these sources, I could probably create endless spinouts of the best-selling games. Easter eggs in Grand Theft Auto. Ghost themed levels in Mario franchise. Undertale ending.I'm not sure you could. It's not
good sensethat prevents us from creating those articles, it's policy. Policy demands that notability be demonstrated via reliable sources, and those listicles you talk about wouldn't stand up at AfD. I hope this doesn't come off as overly wiki-lawyery, because I do think there are interesting questions about the change in how journalism is funded nowadays. I just don't think the biggest issue is former marquee publications switching to listicles and then editors going "oh well, now I have to let this article through". If that's not what you mean, then I think I need a specific example, because I have a hard time recalling a borderline source as you're describing it. Alyo ( chat· edits) 17:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Dualshockers" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Hi! This site is currently listed as unreliable on WP:VG/RS, but there seems to be a very poor consensus as to why. As it was brought up at Talk:Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes#Unreliable sources, I think it would be wise to reassess. The about us page suggests it has an editorial roll. Previous discussions [17] no comments, suggested COI, [18] one comment, also mostly COI, [19] has some comments, but mostly suggesting the previous entries were somehow suitable to suggest it was unreliable. This is seven years ago, so probably needs a better look. The about us page [20] suggests it has a decently strong editorial backbone. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, we have three calls to re-evaluate... but no clear re-evaluation ;) As MoonJet notes, other sources do frequently report DualShocker stories, and as they proudly claim, they are frequently cited by the industry for accolades and the like. They physical attend and report on industry events. Despite our label as unreliable, the site is widely used on Wikipedia. We have fairly long established site, with a clear staff page with designated roles. Not exactly much in stated staff credentials, but if you work at a publication for 10 years and your stories are being picked up by other outlets, isn't that experience in and of itself? It is however a relatively small staff, and there is, however, a set of freelancers, and the editorial oversight of them is unstated. The terms of use page specifically uses the phrase "editors and contributors" in regards to content being produced. I want to say reliable, but my heart says "Situational, direct staff only, replace with other sources if possible." -- ferret ( talk) 02:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
So is there consensus to consider the site situationally reliable? I do see the site has some editorial oversight and a decent set of writers. In addition, a brief look at the VG/RS search tool shows that several of its articles have been used in sites like Engadget, Anime News Network and even Ars Technica. The previous discussion also listed that sites like CNET, Time and VG247 have also cited articles from theirs as well without necessarily critiquing its editorial backbone or implying DS was unreliable, so that may be promising. I would personally place it as "other reliable" but would be fine if others placed it as situationally reliable. The question is, what are some specific cases where it wouldn't be fully reliable, or would be quite unusable for? Controversial claims about people, even when their claims are backed up by other reliable sources? PantheonRadiance ( talk) 19:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I've run into this site a few times while conducting research, currently cited by 20 pages on Wikipedia. The site's defunct and primarily covered indie games. Although the prose is good the staff seemed to be small, and their about page is brief. I'm not quite sure where this would land in terms of reliability. LBWP ( talk) 20:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
We’re passionate about games, especially indie games. Our goal is to shed a light on the world of indie gaming, inform readers on the benefits of crowdfunding, and call out any shady behavior that may seek to take advantage of customers, and the editor-in-chief doesn't have qualifications:
Joanna is a lifelong gamer and an aspiring animator, which means she spends way too much time obsessing about fictional worlds. But this certainly don't count towards GNG IMO, probably avoid its use where possible. Many thanks! VickKiang ( talk) 02:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources:
"Xboxygen" –
news ·
newspapers ·
books ·
scholar ·
JSTOR ·
free images ·
free news sources ·
WP Library ·
NYT ·
WP reference ·
VG/RS ·
VG/RL ·
WPVG/Talk ·
LinkSearch ·
LinkTo
Find video game sources:
"Game Legends" –
news ·
newspapers ·
books ·
scholar ·
JSTOR ·
free images ·
free news sources ·
WP Library ·
NYT ·
WP reference ·
VG/RS ·
VG/RL ·
WPVG/Talk ·
LinkSearch ·
LinkTo
Hey everyone, I'm inquiring about two foreign publications. Xboxygen (French), as the name suggests, covers Xbox news whereas Game Legends (Italian) centers on broader pop culture topics, including technology, film, Manga, etc.
One English Wikipedia article references Xboxygen and none reference Game Legends (Yes, I'm really scrapping the bottom of the barrel for sources here). As for the
French and
Italian Wikipedia, both have been referenced in a few high quality Halo articles, including the French
Halo Reach article and both the
French and
Italian series articles. As for the sites themselves, their
staff
pages don't provide much information and neither has an ethics page. This is why I am hesitant to use them, despite their decent graphic design and inclusion in some foreign Wikipedia articles. It's worth noting that there's a message at the bottom of Game Legends articles that states it's "registered with the Court of Rome". For reference,
these
are the articles I am considering for use. At least through online translation, they seem to be well written and thorough enough. You can find all the other sources I was able to find on this game at the requests page (some are reliable while others aren't).
LBWP (
talk) 12:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Link. This is an old Polish geek (sf, fantasy, horror, games) zine: pl:Esensja (est. 2000). It sometimes publisher video games reviews too ( here is their games subpage, note it may contain board game reviews too). It has an editorial team ( [21]). It won a bunch of awards, or was positively reviewed in its first years of existence (their award/mentions page seems to to have been updated since 2004/2005 or so, https://esensja.pl/_redakcja/info/tekst.html?id=1297 ). They are obviously notable (based on said mentions, the pl wiki article is meh). For example, in 2003 Polish sf/fantasy magazine Nowa Fantastyka, considered reliable, wrote about them that "I don't think I have to introduce "Essence" to anyone - it is one of the best Internet magazines in terms of content." The are open to submissions but those are presumably reviewed according to criteria listed here: https://esensja.pl/_redakcja/info/tekst.html?id=1315 Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't this (sub)page use "reliable" in its name? Common abbreviations are WP:VGRS/ WP:RSVG not WP:VGS/ WP:SVG (those go to different pages) for a reason too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
This journal has been added by @ Lijil without discussion. Does anyone have any concerns? -- ferret ( talk) 16:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "howtogeek" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
What do you guys think about the reliability of How-to Geek? I'm leaning generally reliable but unsure. Thoughts? — PerfectSoundWhatever ( t; c) 14:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "GameSpew" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Site looks reliable for reviews; has a review policy explaining ratings, their non-acceptance of payment for reviews, and their aggregation on Metacritic. The About Us page lists the three-person team running the site: they have two editors-in-chief and one staff writer. My only concern is that I couldn't find the two editors in other RS, though the staff writer has written several freelance pieces in other RS. A quick look through the reviews found that they were all written by one of the three, though the About Us page also says they accept freelance submissions that the site will pay for. Yeeno ( talk) 19:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Dear video gamers, your friends at tabletop games project have created a page about sources, modelled on your impressive initative here, and we could use help in our discussions: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games/Sources -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:GAMESOURCES and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#Wikipedia:GAMESOURCES until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources:
"PC Joker" –
news ·
newspapers ·
books ·
scholar ·
JSTOR ·
free images ·
free news sources ·
WP Library ·
NYT ·
WP reference ·
VG/RS ·
VG/RL ·
WPVG/Talk ·
LinkSearch ·
LinkTo
PC Joker was the first German-language computer games magazine for IBM PC-compatible computers, and had the same publsiher as
Amiga Joker (which I believe should also be made a reliable source). German Wikipedia page:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_Joker --
Coin945 (
talk) 11:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Many of the sources in this list - both reliable and unreliable - are indeed notable. I wonder if anyone would object if I (we?) redlinked the names of magazines/websites/etc. to encourage article creation.-- Coin945 ( talk) 11:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Rappler" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
I came across this in the context of some East/Southeast Asian esports and thought I'd bring it to this project's attention/get some more opinions. WP:RAPPLER is considered a RS over at the RSN and they have a dedicated esports vertical. Promotional and ad content is clearly indicated, and I see no reason why their editorial standards wouldn't apply to the esports section. Maria Ressa is the founder and CEO. It mostly covers Filipino esports, but I think it's reliable for that. Alyo ( chat· edits) 15:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Coin945 ( talk) 16:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "...Igromania..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
According to a discussion from 2013, the site/magazine Igromania is reliable. Could i add it to the table? 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 13:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Media Clip" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Media Clip is a Japanese review site for eroge and erotic manga. Most of its staffs have experience in eroge magazines such as BugBug, Megastore, and PC Angel, as well as general game magazine Game Labo:
-- So47009 ( talk) 14:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Find video game sources: "Indie Games Plus" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Find video game sources: "ROMchip" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · WP Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
ROMchip is a scholarly journal that was first published in 2019. It seems to be similar to Game Studies and Games and Culture, but with greater emphasis on the history of games. According to the journal's website, it has an editorial team (a core editorial group and a general peer review board) from academic institutes and a two-tier review process for articles; interviews and materials (game-related object discussions) are directly reviewed by the board. Based on those aspects, I would consider the journal to be reliable, but I would like to hear some other opinions here. CascadeUrbanite ( talk) 09:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)