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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I have to disagree with the exclusion of this as a reliable source for an aggregate score guys: in some cases it's the only aggregate score for a game (such as was the case with Alleyway, which relied solely on EGM) so I think it's exclusion and sole reliance instead on GR may give the wrong idea about the aggregate score a title has received.
Other than that it could be noted the source should still be usable for excerpts from the reviews they cite if a transcribed version needs to be linked to, as well as a source to link to game covers for text/imagery related to same covers, no? What I'm getting at is, instead of "Unreliable"...I think "Situational" may be better for it...-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 22:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
"MobyRanks are aggregate scores from other publications, and are too new to have developed a user base of other reliable sources, however they may be acceptable for some older games."
What does this mean, exactly? What is a "user base of reliable sources"? SharkD ( talk) 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a problem with the example given on when to link to a fansite, and this has nothing to do with the fansite reliability issue:
A notable exception to this rule exists. When a fansite is publishing third party information that is reliable, but is not available elsewhere, or only in video or audio format, it may be cited. For example, a transcript of the text of a cut scene may only be available on a fansite. In this case, cite the video game (see below), and include a link like " Transcript" to the fansite containing the transcript. Do not cite the fansite itself as source. An example from Characters of StarCraft :
The text of a cut scene is a copyrighted work. Per Wikipedia:External links, we should avoid linking to pages hosting copyrighted material that is not licensed. In this example, we should cite the video game with no link to the text. Pagra shtak 21:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
When a fansite is publishing third party information that is reliable, but is not available elsewhere, or only in video or audio format, it may be cited.
I understand ZiffDavis backing it, but...
"GameTab relies on two methods to present the most accurate average score for a given game. First, we only include gaming reviews coming from well-established reviewers. Secondly, once a game has 8 or more valid reviews, we use the statistical measure of standard deviation to remove any highly offbase reviews.
In calculating the average score we ignore any reviews whose score is more than two standard deviations away from the mean. For example, if the standard deviation of all scores for a game is 7.5, and the mean of the scores is 80, we ignore those reviews with a score less than 65 and those with a score higher than 95. This is used to help prevent any one reviewer from having too much weight and poisoning the end score."
This factor of the site seems to make it a notch below the current aggregate score sources, no?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 22:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyone here familiar with this site? I came across it recently, and was wondering what others think of it. I was surprised by the number of interviews with industry personalitites. SharkD ( talk) 22:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not at all familiar with Destructoid, having only visited it once. However, I was greatly impressed with the apparent professionalism and attention to detail (i.e. polish), so I would definitely support listing them in a similar capacity as Kotaku or Joystiq. SharkD ( talk) 02:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The editor-in-chief is reliable IMO, as he has work on IGN (noticed some of it in the survival horror article). With regards to the site as a whole, I'm on the fence. It's an indie, basically self-published site. The publisher is listed on staff as the "webmaster/founder", though not editor in chief. There's a parent company, but it seems to have been born of Destructoid, not the other way around and doesn't seem to have anything else. Also there's no information about any of the staff that I can see. That said they do make pretty impressive claims about the size of their readership as well as being invited to industry events, so that would carry a lot of weight if verifiable. bridies ( talk) 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I added all the mags from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines. SharkD ( talk) 06:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Can we add Cleve Blakemore's site? www.vault-co.blogspot.com SharkD ( talk) 06:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Any objection to listing Insert Credit? They have a pretty big gun as their main editor, and contributions from people like Chris Kohler as seen here.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 07:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Should Rock, Paper Shotgun be moved to the "Situational" section? SharkD ( talk) 00:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Links: [6] [7]. SharkD ( talk) 00:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Link Owned by Bestofmedia Group, which according to the page's citation of Nielsen NetRatings is one of "top three online publishers for technology in the world." I could dig deeper if need be. I do know the links from the author's names for the pages go directly to a feedback page on Bestofmedia, which seems to indicate a rather close watch on the staff by the part of their owners.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 09:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that someone had added a quote from Thunderbolt (website) to one of my FAs. I didn't see it listed here, nor did I see a discussion excluding it, so I thought I'd bring it up before taking action. I'm really not familiar with the site. Pagra shtak 16:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
How about these sites?
A popular RPG site before the staff moved to RPGWatch. SharkD ( talk) 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The RPGDot staff moved here after a change in management in the above site. SharkD ( talk) 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Just came across this site for the first time. SharkD ( talk) 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Gamezebo's staff bios really speak for themselves, Erin Bell is at the helm and she's a game journo, and when a prolific author and journalist who writes for USA Today regularly pops up to review games we're onto a winner. The main issue that may arise with Gamezebo is that it tends to be presented alongside hopeless sources due to it covering casual games, so it ends up tarred with the same brush. Someone another 06:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Just came across this site today, too. SharkD ( talk) 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a developer-oriented site. SharkD ( talk) 03:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Another one I've never heard of. SharkD ( talk) 03:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This seems like an online database in the same vein as MobyGames. From personal experience its coverage of imports is more extensive than MobyGames'. SharkD ( talk) 06:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
A blog about art and video game development. The front page cites a comment by Tycho from Penny Arcade calling it "probably the most interesting article [he's] ever read". SharkD ( talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm having trouble just figuring out what the site is about. Is it an online database? There's no "About" page as far as I can tell. SharkD ( talk) 18:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It's cited in ~40 articles. I can't find any "About" or "Staff" page, though. Also, it appears their parent company also owns a marketing company (which handles all marketing for the site). SharkD ( talk) 00:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Additional discussion of PSXExtreme has occurred here. Consensus seems to be against the site. SharkD ( talk) 16:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Part of the Gamasutra network. Here's their "About" page. Looks pretty good to me. SharkD ( talk) 03:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
For a Japanese site it looks pretty professional (they tend not to). I know zero else about it. SharkD ( talk) 04:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Has appeared in two recent AfDs [14] [15]. I know nothing else about it. SharkD ( talk) 04:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be a network of several gaming-related sites. SharkD ( talk) 04:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I could have sworn this site was discussed already. Maybe it was on the project page... SharkD ( talk) 07:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Any thoughts? A company profile is available here, and they do seem to have some notoriety, though a lot of it seems due to the browser-based game they offer.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 01:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Owned by CBS, useful for getting credit info for articles for voice actors and stuff?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 03:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyone think we should set up MiszaBot II here? This page is getting pretty active. Pagra shtak 14:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
A user is trying to add an award from Die Hard GameFAN ( [16]) which appears to be a web-based continuation of a defunct magazine, GameFAN. Anyone have any experience with this? -- MASEM 18:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a doozy, but when writing an article (more specifically character articles), merchandise related to a subject won't always be covered by mainstream news sources or still have the company website up. What references do we have in these events to cite?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 00:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that given the scope of the discussions occurring here it might be warranted to add a permalink to the official noticeboard at the top of this page. What's the best and most visible way of accomplishing this? SharkD ( talk) 08:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like this cleared up, along with some other people I'm sure. Chrono Trigger uses CC as one of it's major sources. However, it's been called into question because it contains original research and unverified claims about some statements. However, it also uses a lot of info from the game itself and could for that information be considered a lexicon on the Chrono franchise. Per our guideline for when to (not) cite games, it states that we should try to avoid citing the game because of the difficulty of referencing. However, Jappalang argues that citing the video is better because of mistakes. While I agree that we should not cite something CC lists if it contradicts the game, we can take that on an individual circumstance the same way we do when those situations arise. I think therefore CC could be listed as a "qualifiable" source. じん ない 00:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This is platform specific, but I'm thinking they might be good to add after someone pointed them out to me. AMIGA Magazine Rack? じん ない 06:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious. Not sure if it has peer review or editorial standards. But it looks like a strong authority on a lot of adventure game topics, which can be hard to come by. Randomran ( talk) 07:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
this is what i found doing a conservative search on goodle. Justadventure.com has a history of award-winning experts and their opinions are taken seriously in the academic world as well.
former:
There's an edit war going on over at Real-time tactics regarding whether blogs can be considered reliable sources. I'd appreciate some comments on the Talk page. SharkD ( talk) 21:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
FYI, here's MobyGames' list of sites. The ones marked "Pending" probably aren't considered reliable. SharkD ( talk) 07:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to add Deaf Gamers, GameSlant and AudioGames.net to the "Situational" section (or maybe in their own section) in that they can be relied upon to report on issues that specifically affect disabled (mainly deaf) gamers. Good idea? SharkD ( talk) 07:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This site seems to have good editorial policies, are accurate and have relationships with Sony and game publishers. They have also been linked-to several times by Sony and Media Molecule. This site has already been used as a source in several articles with little argument. Can this be considered a reliable source? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 12:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Their ' About Us' page states that they "enjoy great publisher relations but our reviews are entirely unbiased and are as objective as any one person’s view of a game can be." and "We enjoy good relationships with all major European publishers." ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 12:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Is Gamernode reliable? Gary King ( talk) 00:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi i was wondering if anyone knows if Cubed3 is a reliable site. I mainly need to use it for this interview, [33] so i can verify that Rune Factory Frontier is now independent of the harvest moon series but i cant chuck it on the List of Harvest Moon titles if its not reliable. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. Salavat ( talk) 01:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I see it has a checkmark next to it on the page, but I don't see any discussion about it. So, is it reliable? It has quite a lot of useful articles, so it would be nice to get a confirmation on this before adding these articles as references. Gary King ( talk) 03:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I see Giant Bomb is ticked as reliable on the big checklist. I feel it should be clarified to a situational source, as a large amount of the site's database is user-generated content. If you just search the site for whatever game you're taken to a Wiki-esque page. It should be clarified that only features/reviews that are clearly marked as written by staff should be used. I know loads of other reliable sites have user-reviews mixed in, but they are much more clearly marked than Giant Bomb's database. bridies ( talk) 12:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought that the additional note I added was pretty clear. "Reliable for reviews and news content submitted in the site's blog by the site's own editorial staff. Do not use the user contributed content from the site's article/database section for citations."
- X201 ( talk) 13:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Didn't realise that I was the person who added Giant Bomb. I think it was as a result of a discussion in WP:VG. Move to situational, I should have put it there to start with. - X201 ( talk) 13:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering what to do with the addition of a review by mmohut.com to the External Links of Wizard101. In this specific case, the source appears dubious but it's not cited in reference (the article is supported by enough RS in reference) but as an external link.
Beyond the specific case, could someone point me to some more general ways to handle non-RS reviews added as external links? I somehow get the gut feeling that it detracts from the article rather than helping it, on the other hand, links to fansites or wikias as externals aren't necessarily subject to a more stringent standart. Except that glowing reviews from unreliable / self-published source may be a way to break the NPOV. In short, I'm confused. Thanks. MLauba ( talk) 21:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Most of the information from The Magic Box ( the-magicbox.com) is taken from Famitsu, etc. and since the website tells where they got their information from, we can use those sources instead of the website to source our information. However, this page does not mention where the numbers come from; does anyone know what they are using for those numbers? Famitsu? Media Create? Gary King ( talk) 16:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
So from reading past discussions, I couldn't determine if e-mailing individual websites to determine their reliability was an acceptable practice. What's the verdict on this? I've sent out a couple of e-mails to File Factory/Gameworld.net and Gamestyle. — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 09:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to have an "about us" section, the writers don't post their real names, and it looks like a blog. That being said, it looks as though at least some of the writers have been invited to video game industry events (which is specifically why I'm adding them to this list for consideration). They have a corporate owner, "FAD Media," whose website is currently down. Thoughts? — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 06:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to submit the following sources for evaluation regarding their admissible use covering indie games:
Thanks. MLauba ( talk) 14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
— Levi van Tine ( t – c) 06:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
A peer-reviewed computer game journal. Editorial team includes university faculty, and their policies are pretty convincing. Their submission requirements appear to be in accordance with other academic journals. Its articles are included in the library of Georgetown University (see here) and it is listed by Edna, a joint initiative by several departments of education of the Commonwealth of Australia (see here). — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 09:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Owned by Themis Media, itself owned by the Themis Group. Staff includes editorial director Alexander Macris, who is a published author and gives frequent presentations at marketing and game industry events. Also includes editor-in-chief Julianne Greer, an accomplished gaming journalist who was named one of Next Gen's Top 50 game journalists in 2006 and has served on a gaming panel for the Austin Chronicle. Warcry has interviewed members of the gaming industry ( example). — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 11:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm really anxious for a check on Games Radar and Gaming Target. Both of them are going to be hugely helpful for getting two tough genre articles to GA status. I'm a little biased and think/hope they're reliable, so I'd appreciate an independent and fair assessment. Randomran ( talk) 23:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I added GamesRadar to the reliable sources list. I think it's essentially an online sister publication to GamesMaster. In any case the fact it's published by Future is enough, in my opinion. With regards to Gaming Target, I'm leaning towards not reliable. It's an indie publication and the publisher and head editor is one and the same; there's no information on him other than his name. There's also little information on the staff other than their names, though one claims to have been published in UGO. bridies ( talk) 00:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe we could reasonably expand coverage to anything on a game's data page as it appears from the evidence that not only release dates, but anything on the data page held to the same standards. This would allow for publisher/distributor verification as well as alternative titles and sometimes different format verification that is very easy. じん ない 20:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I amended the retailer text because they have traditionally been used in FAs and FLs to verify information on release dates and product existence. However, those are for items that have already been released. The usage goes beyond games and a blanket statement that they are unreliable would be questioning some pretty fundimental aspects of what is a reliable source for Wikipedia.
However in the case that was recently brought up, I ammended the text to take care of situations like that, which is also covered by a high-level guideline. じん ない 00:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Did we ever come to a conclusion on the reliability of Game Revolution? I remember it was discussed before but it doesn't look like any complete consensus came from it.
Also, moving for Green Pixels to be marked as reliable: it's part of IGN's network and has an editorial system run by inviduals with some experience with the industry.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 21:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I get the idea that most people contributing here are more aligned with fandom than strict journalistic standards, nonetheless I'd just like to ask whether we really care about conflicts of interest regarding video game media? In specific platform-specific media are usually associated with the companies who manufacture the platforms these magazines are dedicated to, either as direct subsidiaries or through dubious contract arrangements. Is it really acceptable to source reviews from magazines such as these which have such a low regard for basic journalistic standards? I honestly think even a randomly posted opinion on some backwater messageboard is more likely to pass as 'reputable' than most of this so called 'video game journalism.' Anyone working in the industry is at least cynically aware of this sorry state of affairs, but do we really have to turn a blind eye here on wikipedia? Is there some way we can clamp down on the use of these dubious corporate sources? Ebenheaven ( talk) 01:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Stephan Totilo from MTV is leaving that gig to become Kotaku's managing editor in May 2009. Obviously will have no effect on articles pre-May 2009, but does this suggest that Kotaku may be no longer conditionally reliable post that point? Totilo is a respected games journalist (this would be like Jeff Gerstmann's departure from Gamespot to Giant Bomb). -- MASEM ( t) 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Established as a magazine in 1992, has run as an annual or semi-annual publication since 1987, is the largest magazine of its kind in the country and a few surrounding ones, and the byword for video game magazines in the country. So what do I need to do to get it formally approved? -- Kiz o r 20:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I have been a subscriber of Beckett's MOG since its inception. I have noticed that it does not have an approval here. Many of the articles provide good editorial to the games in the MMO space. Specific ones that stand out recently include the article about Apocrypha for EVE online. In addition, the Wizard 101 article by Stephanie Morrow spent a considerable amount of time discussing the nature of "family gaming". Beckett's as a company started their magazines to discuss the price of secondary market baseball cards. Their entry into the video game space has been going for more than 4 years now. I checked and they have a distribution of 100,000 subscribers with an additional 50,000 on the newsstand. Given their reach, they seem to be generally accepted as an objective editorial for the specific MMO space. GREMan ( talk) 01:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
In this case, I am not referring to their website. I am referring to their magazine. I have serious reservations about the content on their website given their Terms of Service. However, the magazine shows the typical editorial clauses found in magazines and should therefore be considered a reliable source for video games. In addition, why was the source removed from the page. It was placed without the check-mark and the discussion was started for it. If this is not the process, then it needs to be more clearly defined on the project page. GREMan ( talk) 20:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Any objections to adding GamePolitics.com? It's a blog maintained by the Entertainment Consumers Association, and has a general content editing policy. (I would also consider GameCulture.com , also an ESA-run blog) -- MASEM ( t) 14:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like a discussion of these sites to occur here, just so I have something to link to. SharkD ( talk) 17:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
[42] - This site reliable? If it is, we should not that webcite tool should be used as its rankings are updated - and not archived often. じん ない 06:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
What's the policy on using Google cache's images of web pages if the Wayback Machine doesn't work? G4's apparently decided to restructure their old reviews on their website, tossing out a lot of their old ones like Soulcalibur II's. Unfortunately Google's cache is the only one that seemed to document it. Is there an exact policy about this?
Beyond that, might do good to look through a lot of old GA's and FA's that use G4's X-Play reviews or similar from their website and make sure their references are still good.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 22:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Are the following site reliable?
Plus what language are the foreign ones written in. Sarujo ( talk) 07:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Does look like with some searching a few are reliable enough for wikipedia usage in this list at least.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 16:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that, this is still new to me. Anyway I have a list of the staff from Cheat Code Central here. But I don't know how much help this will be, since their bios are somewhat comical. Sarujo ( talk) 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Although the site has user reviews, from what I've seen. It features gaming news that might could be used. Sarujo ( talk) 18:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
This is, I'm guessing, the Portuguese version of Eurogamer. So does this one share the same crediblity as it's counterparts? Sarujo ( talk) 21:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Any idea on the reliability of this as a source? I'm up in the air about it, so discussion one way or another would be good in this instance.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 02:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
EDIT: While I'm at it, I could use some information on the reliability of Gamesarefun.com as well.
Can gamestats be used as reliable source for the verifiability of a game? Chiyo-Channokagi is listed along with a link to the publisher, but has no reviews. Currently it says only the aggregate scores and the press rating can be used. 陣 内 Jinnai 18:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
There are a handful of MMO sites I'd like to discuss:
Thoughts appreciated. Marasmusine ( talk) 08:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to add Crispy Gamer to the list as a conditional site based on author. The makeup includes a number of notable VG journalists (among others, that's why conditional) from other reliable publications working under the name "Game Trust" to provide information. (see their about page and their game trust page). -- MASEM ( t) 13:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's another site that keeps cropping up in external links: Digital Something. From their About page: "Basically we are a bunch of gamers just like you who were fed up with other gaming sites. Instead of just dealing with it we decided to take action and start building our own community. We are gamers first and journalist second. So while our writing may not be top-notch, it will always be honest and fun."
Here's the staff list. Any recognizable "experts in their field"?
If I can be seconded, I'd like to cross this site off. Marasmusine ( talk) 07:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently I've seen people using this as a rationalle to remove external links. Is this appropriate?
7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( t / c) 03:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
How about these:
One claims to be some sort of academic research project, the other seems like some sort of wiki. SharkD ( talk) 16:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Should Gamespot be moved to situational source since a lot of the content is by non-staff member? The issue with it being a reliable source was brought up. IMO a site where one must check each article for whether its a staff member or not constitutes a situational source. Other wikiprojects treat them as such. 陣 内 Jinnai 01:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it really prudent to consider them a reliable source for upcoming games, especially those more than a couple weeks off? Firsthand, I've seen multiple retailers, online and off (Gamestop, Amazon, and Best Buy, as examples) name release dates that contradict eachother, and sometimes even the latest direct information from the developer. One immediate example: Starcraft II was clearly BS, and developers and gaming magazines alike tend to scoff at gamestop dates in response, warning that dates are not official until they give them out, or refusing to comment. Retailers themselves get these dates secondhand from suppliers as often as they get them from the actual publisher.-- Oni Ookami Alfador Talk| @ 11:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
"For unreleased games, vendor sites should not be used as verifiable sources..."
-
X201 (
talk) 11:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)User:Odie5533 added a link to his Google Custom Search Engine:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=009782238053898643791:8naerdbd-oy
I haven't tried it, but this could be a huge time saver for everyone and should be advertised elsewhere. SharkD ( talk) 15:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
When did TopTenReviews get added to our list as a reliable aggregate, and should it be there? ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC))
Is Screwattack a reliable source? GamerPro64 ( talk) 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Then maybe the reference from the Marble Madness VGV episode should be removed from said article. GamerPro64 ( talk) 15:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Kombo - I found them on a google news search about Persona 3:FES portable remake and wanted to know if they're reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnai ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this offically a relible source? EX: [43] GamerPro64 ( talk) 21:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this article confirmed reliable? Some articles seem reliable, but the product page didn't put a checkmark next to it EX: [44]. GamerPro64 ( talk) 22:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
This page has become a lot more active in recent months and quite long and cumbersome. Perhaps we should see about having an archiving bot added to this page? じん ない 03:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The checklist is IMO not useful at all. I suggest that we scrap everything and integrate the important parts (such as diffs about sources) into the listing above, with a straight listing of sources below that we have determined do not meet criteria. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Associated Content should be added somewhere in one of the lists. (The site is blocked by Wikipedia BTW.) SharkD Talk 05:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be valuable to add GameSnob [45] as an aggregator. GameSnob aggregates reviews from only a small set of top review sites (e.g. GameSpot, IGN, 1UP and a few others). Based on the site's focus on top-tier reviews, the resulting aggregate scores are very reliable. Gameresearch ( talk) 07:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the bigger issue here is about the value and use of aggregator sites. Personally, I find them quite useful to get a quick impression of the general reception of a game. In this context, I suggested to include GameSnob for two reasons. First, I find their aggregation approach more transparent than that of MetaCritic or GameRankings, because there's very little doubt about the reliability of the included sites. It's basically telling us what the most prominent voices in the industry have to say about a game (even if no super scientific criteria have been applied to the selection of the underlying sources). Second, as far as I can tell, GameSnob is the first aggregator for iPhone games. Since this is a rapidly growing platform, I'd say the site adds some value here. All in all, I think GS provides a useful additional data point and I don't really see how the inclusion could hurt or blur Wikipedia's mission. Just my two cents. Gameresearch ( talk) 03:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that Guyinblack25 (and Mr Fuchs in the TTR section below) make good points regarding reliability and industry adoption. However, I think that there's a difference between individual review sites and aggregators. I completely agree that the reliability of a review site should always be determined based on industry adoption and citations. For aggregators, I feel that the reliability of the underlying sources is a better measure of reliability than citations. If a site comes along that focuses only on the most reliable industry sources (like GameSnob) does, I'd consider it reliable as well. Regarding my comment on "better transparency", I didn't mean to imply that the aggregation algorithm is more transparent or different from other sites (yes, it looks like an average). I just meant that the fact that only a small number of top-tier sites is used makes the resulting score more transparent and informative to me than MC or GR scores that are made up of tons of sites, including some of potentially poor quality that are washing out the score contributions of more prominent sites. My apologies if I come across as a bit of a fanboy here -- I just like the concept of the site ;-) Gameresearch ( talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, here are my final thoughts on this before I shut up and let the great minds of Wikipedia reach consensus on a yay or nay for GameSnob. I think the classification of a self-published or "personal" web site in the WP:SPS sense doesn't quite apply to GameSnob. The site is not like a personal blog that might publish unprofessional or unreliable information. According to the Company page, GameSnob's platform uses a "semi-automated process to organize, augment and publish content". So, since they're not really creating original content, I don't think the WP:FAC or WP:GAN guidelines apply. In summary, I think the focus on a small set of high-profile sites makes them both reliable and different enough to provide value and be included here. At a minimum, as Krator suggested above, it's not less reliable than other aggregator sites. In addition, their iPhone coverage is a nice bonus. In any case, thanks for listening and all your feedback! Gameresearch ( talk) 06:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Is World of Spectrum a reliable source? I can't find it here. Tintor2 ( talk) 23:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
WoS should be in the 'platform specific' section certainly, the site's resources rather than the database itself is what we need, whether the site itself is reliable is fairly moot if we cite the magazines for reviews. The Amiga Magazine Rack should be here as well. The advice should just be the same as that on the Amiga Magazine Rack.
Someone
another 16:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm hoping we can decide on a definite yay or nay for Home of the Underdogs. There are several articles that cite its editorial reviews. Whilst notable ([ http://www.homeoftheunderdogs.net/about.php Wired article), it's reliability has been called into question. Marasmusine ( talk) 12:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
If someone can second me, I'm going to mark this website off as not an RS. Whilst checking this review [46], I could find no indication on the site that the reviewer ("DeathDude") was a staff member or was a public submission, or any indication of the editorial or submission process. I can't find any indication that this site has "a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking". Marasmusine ( talk) 14:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Can there be something more specific? Rejected by misc. WP venues... by who for what? If interviews are a different kettle... what does that mean? If you give the site a red x today or whenever there will be no special other kettle of fish for interviews without removing that red x first. You are talking about dissing the contents of the site not being selective in its use. Abandonia is the punk.com of punk rock ( Abandonware?). There appear, also, to be more than a thousand unreviewed entries on the list. Let's review some things like HarryBalls.com, Practical Webdesign, contactmusic.com, GameHall, or are they not genuine sore thumbs? There are many entries on the list which are instantly recognisable popular magazines, undoubtably notable resources, for instance, Commodore User, Atari User, Playstation Magazine, Playstation 2 Magazine, Playstation 3 Magazine, Maxim, Loaded, FHM Magazine. And sites, Softpedia, Times Online, G4mers, Game Arena, Game industry News, Gamereactor etc. Why do we not green tick some of those as reliable and notable? Note too, most of the little [47] links on the list link to this page instead of the relevant archived discussions. None of the entries, on the list at the bottom, have text beside them explaining green ticks red xs or orange !! (what is the orange !! anyway?). ~ R. T. G 17:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
For me, a reliable online source has to be distinguishable from a website that any Tom, Dick or Harry and his friends are running (and calling each other 'editors' and 'staff'). This might be a site that is hosted by a known publisher, or it could be one that has "a reputation for accuracy and fact checking". In the case of Abandonia we have a self-published site, so we'll need some evidence that it is "a significant authority on abandonware." Marasmusine ( talk) 14:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Find me a source to establish Brittanica. Even consider trying. The Abandonware Ring, the final say in "authority" and the only abandonware-specific source mentioned in abandonware, gives Abandonia 5 stars ad has done for years [48]. There is no doubt that Abandonia has been in their top ten for years. Now you find me a source to give the Abandonware Ring authority. You find me a source of authority which isn't the law but alas, there it is. You don't know and you haven't looked. Sorry to be so condescending but some folk are ignoring things. Please, replace it or reinstate it in some way. It's not a topic of mainstream interest but it is a solid topic. All defunct computers have solid abandonware setups and I am glad of them. It's culturally significant. ~ R. T. G 03:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking of marking MPOGD.com as unreliable. It has ran since 1997 but is self-published, and reviews ( [49] is the one I'm looking at) are user submitted [50]. Staff: [51]. Does anyone have any reason to think otherwise? Marasmusine ( talk) 12:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there any reason to doubt this as a source when it comes to reviews? Three books and a few independent publications mention it directly according to Google Books and Google News, so there seems to be some reliability.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion reminded me of this previous discussion about TopTenReviews. It is currently checked off as ok on this page and is included in {{ VG reviews}}. The About page is kind of sparse, but staff bios gives some decent information. Nothing there screams video game experts to me though. But then again, they are an aggregate site rather than a review site.
A google search of links didn't bring up much. Searches for "toptenreviews.com" at GameSpot, IGN, GameInformer, Eurogamer, and GameSpy mainly yield forum postings. GamePro and Gamasutra searches yielded nothing. I don't think it has much use in the industry right now.
I recommend removing it from the reliable section of list here and the VG review template. ( Guyinblack25 talk 17:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC))
Can this be considered a reliable source? It's used in the God of War III article for EU and JP release dates, but I don't recall Sony announcing any release dates other than the NA release.-- The Taerkasten ( talk) 18:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
What do you guys think? I'm on the fence, it operates by submissions but also seems to be serious about editorial policies and whatnot. Anyone have experience with them? User:Krator ( t c) 14:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious as why mmohut has been X'd out as a reliable source for information. They have a dedicated review staff and an editor to ensure high quality reviews. I play a lot of mmorpg games so I added their review as a reference to one game, and it eventually got deleted because the site wasn't approved on the list of reliable sites. What's everyone's thought on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.97.223 ( talk) 07:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
With all the Japan-related articles (especially about game developers) going to AfD, we really need an expert on the subject to tell us which sources are and aren't reliable. I always feel guilty when they just end up going down the drain. SharkD Talk 04:18, 5 February 2010 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I have to disagree with the exclusion of this as a reliable source for an aggregate score guys: in some cases it's the only aggregate score for a game (such as was the case with Alleyway, which relied solely on EGM) so I think it's exclusion and sole reliance instead on GR may give the wrong idea about the aggregate score a title has received.
Other than that it could be noted the source should still be usable for excerpts from the reviews they cite if a transcribed version needs to be linked to, as well as a source to link to game covers for text/imagery related to same covers, no? What I'm getting at is, instead of "Unreliable"...I think "Situational" may be better for it...-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 22:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
"MobyRanks are aggregate scores from other publications, and are too new to have developed a user base of other reliable sources, however they may be acceptable for some older games."
What does this mean, exactly? What is a "user base of reliable sources"? SharkD ( talk) 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a problem with the example given on when to link to a fansite, and this has nothing to do with the fansite reliability issue:
A notable exception to this rule exists. When a fansite is publishing third party information that is reliable, but is not available elsewhere, or only in video or audio format, it may be cited. For example, a transcript of the text of a cut scene may only be available on a fansite. In this case, cite the video game (see below), and include a link like " Transcript" to the fansite containing the transcript. Do not cite the fansite itself as source. An example from Characters of StarCraft :
The text of a cut scene is a copyrighted work. Per Wikipedia:External links, we should avoid linking to pages hosting copyrighted material that is not licensed. In this example, we should cite the video game with no link to the text. Pagra shtak 21:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
When a fansite is publishing third party information that is reliable, but is not available elsewhere, or only in video or audio format, it may be cited.
I understand ZiffDavis backing it, but...
"GameTab relies on two methods to present the most accurate average score for a given game. First, we only include gaming reviews coming from well-established reviewers. Secondly, once a game has 8 or more valid reviews, we use the statistical measure of standard deviation to remove any highly offbase reviews.
In calculating the average score we ignore any reviews whose score is more than two standard deviations away from the mean. For example, if the standard deviation of all scores for a game is 7.5, and the mean of the scores is 80, we ignore those reviews with a score less than 65 and those with a score higher than 95. This is used to help prevent any one reviewer from having too much weight and poisoning the end score."
This factor of the site seems to make it a notch below the current aggregate score sources, no?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 22:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyone here familiar with this site? I came across it recently, and was wondering what others think of it. I was surprised by the number of interviews with industry personalitites. SharkD ( talk) 22:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not at all familiar with Destructoid, having only visited it once. However, I was greatly impressed with the apparent professionalism and attention to detail (i.e. polish), so I would definitely support listing them in a similar capacity as Kotaku or Joystiq. SharkD ( talk) 02:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The editor-in-chief is reliable IMO, as he has work on IGN (noticed some of it in the survival horror article). With regards to the site as a whole, I'm on the fence. It's an indie, basically self-published site. The publisher is listed on staff as the "webmaster/founder", though not editor in chief. There's a parent company, but it seems to have been born of Destructoid, not the other way around and doesn't seem to have anything else. Also there's no information about any of the staff that I can see. That said they do make pretty impressive claims about the size of their readership as well as being invited to industry events, so that would carry a lot of weight if verifiable. bridies ( talk) 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I added all the mags from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines. SharkD ( talk) 06:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Can we add Cleve Blakemore's site? www.vault-co.blogspot.com SharkD ( talk) 06:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Any objection to listing Insert Credit? They have a pretty big gun as their main editor, and contributions from people like Chris Kohler as seen here.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 07:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Should Rock, Paper Shotgun be moved to the "Situational" section? SharkD ( talk) 00:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Links: [6] [7]. SharkD ( talk) 00:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Link Owned by Bestofmedia Group, which according to the page's citation of Nielsen NetRatings is one of "top three online publishers for technology in the world." I could dig deeper if need be. I do know the links from the author's names for the pages go directly to a feedback page on Bestofmedia, which seems to indicate a rather close watch on the staff by the part of their owners.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 09:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that someone had added a quote from Thunderbolt (website) to one of my FAs. I didn't see it listed here, nor did I see a discussion excluding it, so I thought I'd bring it up before taking action. I'm really not familiar with the site. Pagra shtak 16:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
How about these sites?
A popular RPG site before the staff moved to RPGWatch. SharkD ( talk) 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The RPGDot staff moved here after a change in management in the above site. SharkD ( talk) 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Just came across this site for the first time. SharkD ( talk) 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Gamezebo's staff bios really speak for themselves, Erin Bell is at the helm and she's a game journo, and when a prolific author and journalist who writes for USA Today regularly pops up to review games we're onto a winner. The main issue that may arise with Gamezebo is that it tends to be presented alongside hopeless sources due to it covering casual games, so it ends up tarred with the same brush. Someone another 06:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Just came across this site today, too. SharkD ( talk) 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a developer-oriented site. SharkD ( talk) 03:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Another one I've never heard of. SharkD ( talk) 03:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This seems like an online database in the same vein as MobyGames. From personal experience its coverage of imports is more extensive than MobyGames'. SharkD ( talk) 06:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
A blog about art and video game development. The front page cites a comment by Tycho from Penny Arcade calling it "probably the most interesting article [he's] ever read". SharkD ( talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm having trouble just figuring out what the site is about. Is it an online database? There's no "About" page as far as I can tell. SharkD ( talk) 18:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It's cited in ~40 articles. I can't find any "About" or "Staff" page, though. Also, it appears their parent company also owns a marketing company (which handles all marketing for the site). SharkD ( talk) 00:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Additional discussion of PSXExtreme has occurred here. Consensus seems to be against the site. SharkD ( talk) 16:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Part of the Gamasutra network. Here's their "About" page. Looks pretty good to me. SharkD ( talk) 03:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
For a Japanese site it looks pretty professional (they tend not to). I know zero else about it. SharkD ( talk) 04:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Has appeared in two recent AfDs [14] [15]. I know nothing else about it. SharkD ( talk) 04:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be a network of several gaming-related sites. SharkD ( talk) 04:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I could have sworn this site was discussed already. Maybe it was on the project page... SharkD ( talk) 07:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Any thoughts? A company profile is available here, and they do seem to have some notoriety, though a lot of it seems due to the browser-based game they offer.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 01:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Owned by CBS, useful for getting credit info for articles for voice actors and stuff?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 03:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyone think we should set up MiszaBot II here? This page is getting pretty active. Pagra shtak 14:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
A user is trying to add an award from Die Hard GameFAN ( [16]) which appears to be a web-based continuation of a defunct magazine, GameFAN. Anyone have any experience with this? -- MASEM 18:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a doozy, but when writing an article (more specifically character articles), merchandise related to a subject won't always be covered by mainstream news sources or still have the company website up. What references do we have in these events to cite?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 00:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that given the scope of the discussions occurring here it might be warranted to add a permalink to the official noticeboard at the top of this page. What's the best and most visible way of accomplishing this? SharkD ( talk) 08:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like this cleared up, along with some other people I'm sure. Chrono Trigger uses CC as one of it's major sources. However, it's been called into question because it contains original research and unverified claims about some statements. However, it also uses a lot of info from the game itself and could for that information be considered a lexicon on the Chrono franchise. Per our guideline for when to (not) cite games, it states that we should try to avoid citing the game because of the difficulty of referencing. However, Jappalang argues that citing the video is better because of mistakes. While I agree that we should not cite something CC lists if it contradicts the game, we can take that on an individual circumstance the same way we do when those situations arise. I think therefore CC could be listed as a "qualifiable" source. じん ない 00:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
This is platform specific, but I'm thinking they might be good to add after someone pointed them out to me. AMIGA Magazine Rack? じん ない 06:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious. Not sure if it has peer review or editorial standards. But it looks like a strong authority on a lot of adventure game topics, which can be hard to come by. Randomran ( talk) 07:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
this is what i found doing a conservative search on goodle. Justadventure.com has a history of award-winning experts and their opinions are taken seriously in the academic world as well.
former:
There's an edit war going on over at Real-time tactics regarding whether blogs can be considered reliable sources. I'd appreciate some comments on the Talk page. SharkD ( talk) 21:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
FYI, here's MobyGames' list of sites. The ones marked "Pending" probably aren't considered reliable. SharkD ( talk) 07:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to add Deaf Gamers, GameSlant and AudioGames.net to the "Situational" section (or maybe in their own section) in that they can be relied upon to report on issues that specifically affect disabled (mainly deaf) gamers. Good idea? SharkD ( talk) 07:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This site seems to have good editorial policies, are accurate and have relationships with Sony and game publishers. They have also been linked-to several times by Sony and Media Molecule. This site has already been used as a source in several articles with little argument. Can this be considered a reliable source? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 12:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Their ' About Us' page states that they "enjoy great publisher relations but our reviews are entirely unbiased and are as objective as any one person’s view of a game can be." and "We enjoy good relationships with all major European publishers." ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 12:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Is Gamernode reliable? Gary King ( talk) 00:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi i was wondering if anyone knows if Cubed3 is a reliable site. I mainly need to use it for this interview, [33] so i can verify that Rune Factory Frontier is now independent of the harvest moon series but i cant chuck it on the List of Harvest Moon titles if its not reliable. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. Salavat ( talk) 01:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I see it has a checkmark next to it on the page, but I don't see any discussion about it. So, is it reliable? It has quite a lot of useful articles, so it would be nice to get a confirmation on this before adding these articles as references. Gary King ( talk) 03:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I see Giant Bomb is ticked as reliable on the big checklist. I feel it should be clarified to a situational source, as a large amount of the site's database is user-generated content. If you just search the site for whatever game you're taken to a Wiki-esque page. It should be clarified that only features/reviews that are clearly marked as written by staff should be used. I know loads of other reliable sites have user-reviews mixed in, but they are much more clearly marked than Giant Bomb's database. bridies ( talk) 12:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought that the additional note I added was pretty clear. "Reliable for reviews and news content submitted in the site's blog by the site's own editorial staff. Do not use the user contributed content from the site's article/database section for citations."
- X201 ( talk) 13:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Didn't realise that I was the person who added Giant Bomb. I think it was as a result of a discussion in WP:VG. Move to situational, I should have put it there to start with. - X201 ( talk) 13:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering what to do with the addition of a review by mmohut.com to the External Links of Wizard101. In this specific case, the source appears dubious but it's not cited in reference (the article is supported by enough RS in reference) but as an external link.
Beyond the specific case, could someone point me to some more general ways to handle non-RS reviews added as external links? I somehow get the gut feeling that it detracts from the article rather than helping it, on the other hand, links to fansites or wikias as externals aren't necessarily subject to a more stringent standart. Except that glowing reviews from unreliable / self-published source may be a way to break the NPOV. In short, I'm confused. Thanks. MLauba ( talk) 21:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Most of the information from The Magic Box ( the-magicbox.com) is taken from Famitsu, etc. and since the website tells where they got their information from, we can use those sources instead of the website to source our information. However, this page does not mention where the numbers come from; does anyone know what they are using for those numbers? Famitsu? Media Create? Gary King ( talk) 16:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
So from reading past discussions, I couldn't determine if e-mailing individual websites to determine their reliability was an acceptable practice. What's the verdict on this? I've sent out a couple of e-mails to File Factory/Gameworld.net and Gamestyle. — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 09:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to have an "about us" section, the writers don't post their real names, and it looks like a blog. That being said, it looks as though at least some of the writers have been invited to video game industry events (which is specifically why I'm adding them to this list for consideration). They have a corporate owner, "FAD Media," whose website is currently down. Thoughts? — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 06:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to submit the following sources for evaluation regarding their admissible use covering indie games:
Thanks. MLauba ( talk) 14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
— Levi van Tine ( t – c) 06:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
A peer-reviewed computer game journal. Editorial team includes university faculty, and their policies are pretty convincing. Their submission requirements appear to be in accordance with other academic journals. Its articles are included in the library of Georgetown University (see here) and it is listed by Edna, a joint initiative by several departments of education of the Commonwealth of Australia (see here). — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 09:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Owned by Themis Media, itself owned by the Themis Group. Staff includes editorial director Alexander Macris, who is a published author and gives frequent presentations at marketing and game industry events. Also includes editor-in-chief Julianne Greer, an accomplished gaming journalist who was named one of Next Gen's Top 50 game journalists in 2006 and has served on a gaming panel for the Austin Chronicle. Warcry has interviewed members of the gaming industry ( example). — Levi van Tine ( t – c) 11:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm really anxious for a check on Games Radar and Gaming Target. Both of them are going to be hugely helpful for getting two tough genre articles to GA status. I'm a little biased and think/hope they're reliable, so I'd appreciate an independent and fair assessment. Randomran ( talk) 23:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I added GamesRadar to the reliable sources list. I think it's essentially an online sister publication to GamesMaster. In any case the fact it's published by Future is enough, in my opinion. With regards to Gaming Target, I'm leaning towards not reliable. It's an indie publication and the publisher and head editor is one and the same; there's no information on him other than his name. There's also little information on the staff other than their names, though one claims to have been published in UGO. bridies ( talk) 00:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe we could reasonably expand coverage to anything on a game's data page as it appears from the evidence that not only release dates, but anything on the data page held to the same standards. This would allow for publisher/distributor verification as well as alternative titles and sometimes different format verification that is very easy. じん ない 20:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I amended the retailer text because they have traditionally been used in FAs and FLs to verify information on release dates and product existence. However, those are for items that have already been released. The usage goes beyond games and a blanket statement that they are unreliable would be questioning some pretty fundimental aspects of what is a reliable source for Wikipedia.
However in the case that was recently brought up, I ammended the text to take care of situations like that, which is also covered by a high-level guideline. じん ない 00:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Did we ever come to a conclusion on the reliability of Game Revolution? I remember it was discussed before but it doesn't look like any complete consensus came from it.
Also, moving for Green Pixels to be marked as reliable: it's part of IGN's network and has an editorial system run by inviduals with some experience with the industry.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 21:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I get the idea that most people contributing here are more aligned with fandom than strict journalistic standards, nonetheless I'd just like to ask whether we really care about conflicts of interest regarding video game media? In specific platform-specific media are usually associated with the companies who manufacture the platforms these magazines are dedicated to, either as direct subsidiaries or through dubious contract arrangements. Is it really acceptable to source reviews from magazines such as these which have such a low regard for basic journalistic standards? I honestly think even a randomly posted opinion on some backwater messageboard is more likely to pass as 'reputable' than most of this so called 'video game journalism.' Anyone working in the industry is at least cynically aware of this sorry state of affairs, but do we really have to turn a blind eye here on wikipedia? Is there some way we can clamp down on the use of these dubious corporate sources? Ebenheaven ( talk) 01:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Stephan Totilo from MTV is leaving that gig to become Kotaku's managing editor in May 2009. Obviously will have no effect on articles pre-May 2009, but does this suggest that Kotaku may be no longer conditionally reliable post that point? Totilo is a respected games journalist (this would be like Jeff Gerstmann's departure from Gamespot to Giant Bomb). -- MASEM ( t) 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Established as a magazine in 1992, has run as an annual or semi-annual publication since 1987, is the largest magazine of its kind in the country and a few surrounding ones, and the byword for video game magazines in the country. So what do I need to do to get it formally approved? -- Kiz o r 20:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I have been a subscriber of Beckett's MOG since its inception. I have noticed that it does not have an approval here. Many of the articles provide good editorial to the games in the MMO space. Specific ones that stand out recently include the article about Apocrypha for EVE online. In addition, the Wizard 101 article by Stephanie Morrow spent a considerable amount of time discussing the nature of "family gaming". Beckett's as a company started their magazines to discuss the price of secondary market baseball cards. Their entry into the video game space has been going for more than 4 years now. I checked and they have a distribution of 100,000 subscribers with an additional 50,000 on the newsstand. Given their reach, they seem to be generally accepted as an objective editorial for the specific MMO space. GREMan ( talk) 01:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
In this case, I am not referring to their website. I am referring to their magazine. I have serious reservations about the content on their website given their Terms of Service. However, the magazine shows the typical editorial clauses found in magazines and should therefore be considered a reliable source for video games. In addition, why was the source removed from the page. It was placed without the check-mark and the discussion was started for it. If this is not the process, then it needs to be more clearly defined on the project page. GREMan ( talk) 20:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Any objections to adding GamePolitics.com? It's a blog maintained by the Entertainment Consumers Association, and has a general content editing policy. (I would also consider GameCulture.com , also an ESA-run blog) -- MASEM ( t) 14:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like a discussion of these sites to occur here, just so I have something to link to. SharkD ( talk) 17:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
[42] - This site reliable? If it is, we should not that webcite tool should be used as its rankings are updated - and not archived often. じん ない 06:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
What's the policy on using Google cache's images of web pages if the Wayback Machine doesn't work? G4's apparently decided to restructure their old reviews on their website, tossing out a lot of their old ones like Soulcalibur II's. Unfortunately Google's cache is the only one that seemed to document it. Is there an exact policy about this?
Beyond that, might do good to look through a lot of old GA's and FA's that use G4's X-Play reviews or similar from their website and make sure their references are still good.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 22:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Are the following site reliable?
Plus what language are the foreign ones written in. Sarujo ( talk) 07:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Does look like with some searching a few are reliable enough for wikipedia usage in this list at least.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 16:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that, this is still new to me. Anyway I have a list of the staff from Cheat Code Central here. But I don't know how much help this will be, since their bios are somewhat comical. Sarujo ( talk) 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Although the site has user reviews, from what I've seen. It features gaming news that might could be used. Sarujo ( talk) 18:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
This is, I'm guessing, the Portuguese version of Eurogamer. So does this one share the same crediblity as it's counterparts? Sarujo ( talk) 21:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Any idea on the reliability of this as a source? I'm up in the air about it, so discussion one way or another would be good in this instance.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 02:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
EDIT: While I'm at it, I could use some information on the reliability of Gamesarefun.com as well.
Can gamestats be used as reliable source for the verifiability of a game? Chiyo-Channokagi is listed along with a link to the publisher, but has no reviews. Currently it says only the aggregate scores and the press rating can be used. 陣 内 Jinnai 18:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
There are a handful of MMO sites I'd like to discuss:
Thoughts appreciated. Marasmusine ( talk) 08:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to add Crispy Gamer to the list as a conditional site based on author. The makeup includes a number of notable VG journalists (among others, that's why conditional) from other reliable publications working under the name "Game Trust" to provide information. (see their about page and their game trust page). -- MASEM ( t) 13:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's another site that keeps cropping up in external links: Digital Something. From their About page: "Basically we are a bunch of gamers just like you who were fed up with other gaming sites. Instead of just dealing with it we decided to take action and start building our own community. We are gamers first and journalist second. So while our writing may not be top-notch, it will always be honest and fun."
Here's the staff list. Any recognizable "experts in their field"?
If I can be seconded, I'd like to cross this site off. Marasmusine ( talk) 07:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently I've seen people using this as a rationalle to remove external links. Is this appropriate?
7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( t / c) 03:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
How about these:
One claims to be some sort of academic research project, the other seems like some sort of wiki. SharkD ( talk) 16:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Should Gamespot be moved to situational source since a lot of the content is by non-staff member? The issue with it being a reliable source was brought up. IMO a site where one must check each article for whether its a staff member or not constitutes a situational source. Other wikiprojects treat them as such. 陣 内 Jinnai 01:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it really prudent to consider them a reliable source for upcoming games, especially those more than a couple weeks off? Firsthand, I've seen multiple retailers, online and off (Gamestop, Amazon, and Best Buy, as examples) name release dates that contradict eachother, and sometimes even the latest direct information from the developer. One immediate example: Starcraft II was clearly BS, and developers and gaming magazines alike tend to scoff at gamestop dates in response, warning that dates are not official until they give them out, or refusing to comment. Retailers themselves get these dates secondhand from suppliers as often as they get them from the actual publisher.-- Oni Ookami Alfador Talk| @ 11:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
"For unreleased games, vendor sites should not be used as verifiable sources..."
-
X201 (
talk) 11:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)User:Odie5533 added a link to his Google Custom Search Engine:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=009782238053898643791:8naerdbd-oy
I haven't tried it, but this could be a huge time saver for everyone and should be advertised elsewhere. SharkD ( talk) 15:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
When did TopTenReviews get added to our list as a reliable aggregate, and should it be there? ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC))
Is Screwattack a reliable source? GamerPro64 ( talk) 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Then maybe the reference from the Marble Madness VGV episode should be removed from said article. GamerPro64 ( talk) 15:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Kombo - I found them on a google news search about Persona 3:FES portable remake and wanted to know if they're reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnai ( talk • contribs) 01:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this offically a relible source? EX: [43] GamerPro64 ( talk) 21:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this article confirmed reliable? Some articles seem reliable, but the product page didn't put a checkmark next to it EX: [44]. GamerPro64 ( talk) 22:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
This page has become a lot more active in recent months and quite long and cumbersome. Perhaps we should see about having an archiving bot added to this page? じん ない 03:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The checklist is IMO not useful at all. I suggest that we scrap everything and integrate the important parts (such as diffs about sources) into the listing above, with a straight listing of sources below that we have determined do not meet criteria. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Associated Content should be added somewhere in one of the lists. (The site is blocked by Wikipedia BTW.) SharkD Talk 05:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be valuable to add GameSnob [45] as an aggregator. GameSnob aggregates reviews from only a small set of top review sites (e.g. GameSpot, IGN, 1UP and a few others). Based on the site's focus on top-tier reviews, the resulting aggregate scores are very reliable. Gameresearch ( talk) 07:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the bigger issue here is about the value and use of aggregator sites. Personally, I find them quite useful to get a quick impression of the general reception of a game. In this context, I suggested to include GameSnob for two reasons. First, I find their aggregation approach more transparent than that of MetaCritic or GameRankings, because there's very little doubt about the reliability of the included sites. It's basically telling us what the most prominent voices in the industry have to say about a game (even if no super scientific criteria have been applied to the selection of the underlying sources). Second, as far as I can tell, GameSnob is the first aggregator for iPhone games. Since this is a rapidly growing platform, I'd say the site adds some value here. All in all, I think GS provides a useful additional data point and I don't really see how the inclusion could hurt or blur Wikipedia's mission. Just my two cents. Gameresearch ( talk) 03:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that Guyinblack25 (and Mr Fuchs in the TTR section below) make good points regarding reliability and industry adoption. However, I think that there's a difference between individual review sites and aggregators. I completely agree that the reliability of a review site should always be determined based on industry adoption and citations. For aggregators, I feel that the reliability of the underlying sources is a better measure of reliability than citations. If a site comes along that focuses only on the most reliable industry sources (like GameSnob) does, I'd consider it reliable as well. Regarding my comment on "better transparency", I didn't mean to imply that the aggregation algorithm is more transparent or different from other sites (yes, it looks like an average). I just meant that the fact that only a small number of top-tier sites is used makes the resulting score more transparent and informative to me than MC or GR scores that are made up of tons of sites, including some of potentially poor quality that are washing out the score contributions of more prominent sites. My apologies if I come across as a bit of a fanboy here -- I just like the concept of the site ;-) Gameresearch ( talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, here are my final thoughts on this before I shut up and let the great minds of Wikipedia reach consensus on a yay or nay for GameSnob. I think the classification of a self-published or "personal" web site in the WP:SPS sense doesn't quite apply to GameSnob. The site is not like a personal blog that might publish unprofessional or unreliable information. According to the Company page, GameSnob's platform uses a "semi-automated process to organize, augment and publish content". So, since they're not really creating original content, I don't think the WP:FAC or WP:GAN guidelines apply. In summary, I think the focus on a small set of high-profile sites makes them both reliable and different enough to provide value and be included here. At a minimum, as Krator suggested above, it's not less reliable than other aggregator sites. In addition, their iPhone coverage is a nice bonus. In any case, thanks for listening and all your feedback! Gameresearch ( talk) 06:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Is World of Spectrum a reliable source? I can't find it here. Tintor2 ( talk) 23:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
WoS should be in the 'platform specific' section certainly, the site's resources rather than the database itself is what we need, whether the site itself is reliable is fairly moot if we cite the magazines for reviews. The Amiga Magazine Rack should be here as well. The advice should just be the same as that on the Amiga Magazine Rack.
Someone
another 16:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm hoping we can decide on a definite yay or nay for Home of the Underdogs. There are several articles that cite its editorial reviews. Whilst notable ([ http://www.homeoftheunderdogs.net/about.php Wired article), it's reliability has been called into question. Marasmusine ( talk) 12:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
If someone can second me, I'm going to mark this website off as not an RS. Whilst checking this review [46], I could find no indication on the site that the reviewer ("DeathDude") was a staff member or was a public submission, or any indication of the editorial or submission process. I can't find any indication that this site has "a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking". Marasmusine ( talk) 14:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Can there be something more specific? Rejected by misc. WP venues... by who for what? If interviews are a different kettle... what does that mean? If you give the site a red x today or whenever there will be no special other kettle of fish for interviews without removing that red x first. You are talking about dissing the contents of the site not being selective in its use. Abandonia is the punk.com of punk rock ( Abandonware?). There appear, also, to be more than a thousand unreviewed entries on the list. Let's review some things like HarryBalls.com, Practical Webdesign, contactmusic.com, GameHall, or are they not genuine sore thumbs? There are many entries on the list which are instantly recognisable popular magazines, undoubtably notable resources, for instance, Commodore User, Atari User, Playstation Magazine, Playstation 2 Magazine, Playstation 3 Magazine, Maxim, Loaded, FHM Magazine. And sites, Softpedia, Times Online, G4mers, Game Arena, Game industry News, Gamereactor etc. Why do we not green tick some of those as reliable and notable? Note too, most of the little [47] links on the list link to this page instead of the relevant archived discussions. None of the entries, on the list at the bottom, have text beside them explaining green ticks red xs or orange !! (what is the orange !! anyway?). ~ R. T. G 17:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
For me, a reliable online source has to be distinguishable from a website that any Tom, Dick or Harry and his friends are running (and calling each other 'editors' and 'staff'). This might be a site that is hosted by a known publisher, or it could be one that has "a reputation for accuracy and fact checking". In the case of Abandonia we have a self-published site, so we'll need some evidence that it is "a significant authority on abandonware." Marasmusine ( talk) 14:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Find me a source to establish Brittanica. Even consider trying. The Abandonware Ring, the final say in "authority" and the only abandonware-specific source mentioned in abandonware, gives Abandonia 5 stars ad has done for years [48]. There is no doubt that Abandonia has been in their top ten for years. Now you find me a source to give the Abandonware Ring authority. You find me a source of authority which isn't the law but alas, there it is. You don't know and you haven't looked. Sorry to be so condescending but some folk are ignoring things. Please, replace it or reinstate it in some way. It's not a topic of mainstream interest but it is a solid topic. All defunct computers have solid abandonware setups and I am glad of them. It's culturally significant. ~ R. T. G 03:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking of marking MPOGD.com as unreliable. It has ran since 1997 but is self-published, and reviews ( [49] is the one I'm looking at) are user submitted [50]. Staff: [51]. Does anyone have any reason to think otherwise? Marasmusine ( talk) 12:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there any reason to doubt this as a source when it comes to reviews? Three books and a few independent publications mention it directly according to Google Books and Google News, so there seems to be some reliability.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion reminded me of this previous discussion about TopTenReviews. It is currently checked off as ok on this page and is included in {{ VG reviews}}. The About page is kind of sparse, but staff bios gives some decent information. Nothing there screams video game experts to me though. But then again, they are an aggregate site rather than a review site.
A google search of links didn't bring up much. Searches for "toptenreviews.com" at GameSpot, IGN, GameInformer, Eurogamer, and GameSpy mainly yield forum postings. GamePro and Gamasutra searches yielded nothing. I don't think it has much use in the industry right now.
I recommend removing it from the reliable section of list here and the VG review template. ( Guyinblack25 talk 17:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC))
Can this be considered a reliable source? It's used in the God of War III article for EU and JP release dates, but I don't recall Sony announcing any release dates other than the NA release.-- The Taerkasten ( talk) 18:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
What do you guys think? I'm on the fence, it operates by submissions but also seems to be serious about editorial policies and whatnot. Anyone have experience with them? User:Krator ( t c) 14:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious as why mmohut has been X'd out as a reliable source for information. They have a dedicated review staff and an editor to ensure high quality reviews. I play a lot of mmorpg games so I added their review as a reference to one game, and it eventually got deleted because the site wasn't approved on the list of reliable sites. What's everyone's thought on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.97.223 ( talk) 07:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
With all the Japan-related articles (especially about game developers) going to AfD, we really need an expert on the subject to tell us which sources are and aren't reliable. I always feel guilty when they just end up going down the drain. SharkD Talk 04:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)