Talk:List of video game magazines

Video Game magazines vs Computer magazines

I think this should be kept to magazines with a primary focus on Video Games. Currently, several are listed that focus on certain computers, such as "Amiga Format". These magazines mention and cover games, but they aren't the primary focus. This is like listing "Sports Illustrated" under Golfing Magazines. If the goal were to list any magazine that covers video games a little, this would be a much bigger and less useful list. I can think of many magazines focused on computers and electronics in general that would need to be added if this were the case. Hastor (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Magazines/Publishers with name changes

How should magazines and publishers whose name was changed during the magazine's run be entered in this list? Multiple entries? Both names in one cell divided by a slash? Derboo (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think a variation of the second option makes the most sense. This is the format I would use:

• ABC Magazine
  (Previously: Alphabet Magazine [1983-1985]; abc Magazine [1985-1993])

This would ensure that the magazine can be located by its current or most recent name, and it would avoid bloat. Hopefully if someone is looking to add a magazine with an older name they will perform a text search. This would more likely if there are already a few entries with the "Previously:" flag. -Thibbs (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I tried that with a new entry for M! Games. Two more questions: How would one differenciate between a magazine that changed publishers and magazines where the same publisher merely changed its name? Also, should an exeption be made for magazines that are most widely known by an older name? For example, Electronic Games is famous as one of the first regularly published video game magazines, but for the last few issues it was renamed Computer Entertainment, a name few people would immediately recognize. Derboo (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to differentiate between magazines whose publishers changed and those whose publishers changed names. The "(later known as X)" or "(previously known as X)" tags seem sufficient to me. Regarding the Electronic Games -> Computer Entertainment question, I guess I prefer mechanical no-exceptions rules like "always use the most recent name" just because it safeguards against the introduction of personal POV. Others may have other opinions, though. I don't hugely care at this point. A much bigger concern is that this entire article is supported by zero sources. -Thibbs (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead section a bit. Left out specific mention of online mags for now, because they pose some issues with the founded/defunct columns when a print mag from a franchise was outlived by its web counterpart. I'm also still not sure about ZZap!64 and Commodore Force. They have separate articles on Wikipedia, yet they are generally described as if Zzap!64 became Commodore Force. Derboo (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. The only thing I'd recommend for the lede is to make sure it also contains a well-sourced introduction to the topic. Right now it's nothing more than a description of the inclusion criteria. That's necessary of course, but we also need to show that the overall topic (i.e. video game magazines) is notable. The new "Refs" column also looks great, but even if it were totally filled, the concern is that these refs only demonstrate the notability of the individual magazines and not of the topic as a whole. We could probably pretty easily skim some from video game journalism. -Thibbs (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Question, is this acceptable sourcing: Writing about games in magazine X before date Y existed. Source: article about games in magazine X before date Y. Derboo (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. The sources covering one of the items in the list should be capable of verifying that the item meets the inclusion criteria. Ideally the sources should be independent 3rd party sources. And you can't use the item as a source on itself unless it is making a claim of some kind. So you can't cite the cover page of Nintendo Power #123 as a source for the claim that Nintendo Power has a cover page. The cited source needs to actually make the claim that is sourced. Does that answer the question or were you asking something else? I'm unclear on the question. -Thibbs (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Should blogs be in here?

Should online news blogs be in this list when there is no print magazine? I can find no print references for meeveo and Gamemunition, neither on the linked sites nor anywhere else on the web. Also, PNM (Pure Nintendo) seems self-published. Are self-published magazines in the list accepable? Derboo (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Online magazines seems like they would fit the listed inclusion criteria. Non-magazine blogs wouldn't, though. Self-published magazines (zines, etc.) are magazines so they would fit the inclusion criteria as listed. This isn't a model article by any stretch of the imagination, though. I had vague ideas of fixing it up some time ago but never got around to it. First of all it's in dire need of sources. No sources is a fast-track condition to getting deleted. But secondly the intro (where the inclusion criteria should be covered) needs to be expanded and I would recommend that the inclusion criteria be tweaked. If you're interested in tackling the job then I say go for it. You should check out WP:CSC for excellent guidance on common list selection criteria. I tend to prefer criterion #1, but I've run into plenty of others who don't like it at all. -Thibbs (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure how one would go about sourcing in a tabular list like this. Like when there is a source that documents the name, range of publication, publisher and country, would the reference link have to go in every column? Is a source even required for magazines that link to the dedicated articles with teir own sources? Derboo (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah all articles need sources. List articles are still articles like the non-list ones. You can of course re-use the same refs from the blue links if they're reliable, but they have to appear in the same article that they're covering. To be properly reffed, each claim should be sourced. I've seen it done before by adding a new column called "Sources" or something and then throwing all refs for each row into that last box. List articles are kind of obnoxious to clean up. -Thibbs (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are some examples of our Featured lists to show what the ideal is:

• List of Sega 32X games - Here they use the "Refs" column to hold refs for each entry.
• List of Sega Genesis games - Here they ref each column instead. This only works properly if every element of the column is covered by the ref.

Anyway that's the ideal. Like I said, it's hard to clean up a list article. -Thibbs (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

List cleanup

After discussion at the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BioGamer Girl Magazine, I suggested, and czar seems to have agreed, that restricting this list to notable entries per WP:SAL may be a good idea. I've boldly cleaned up the list. Feel free to revert and discuss if you think this not the best course of action. --Mark viking (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I've partially reverted this edit, but I want to be clear that I'm generally in favor of this inclusion criterion (i.e. CSC#1). I just think it's better to tackle this in steps. So I've restored all redlinked entries that had any third-party sourcing and flagged those that only had one source as "additional citations needed". Notability is not defined by bluelinks, but rather it's defined by coverage in RSes. So I think there's a good chance that some of these sources may in fact be notable but are simply lacking articles at the present time. I'm in favor of keeping those in the list for now. Sourcing for those entries may yet be helpful to incorporate in a final article on the source. -Thibbs (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I have also noticed that in a number of cases the third party refs were actually links to possibly copyright-infringing sites hosting scans of the magazines in question. Arguments over legal grey areas aside, these sources are largely inappropriate and I have removed them. -Thibbs (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of video game magazines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502003336/http://www.futureplc.com/future/aboutus/history.jsp?all=1 to http://www.futureplc.com/future/aboutus/history.jsp?all=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041129022937/http://www.sincuser.f9.co.uk/ to http://www.sincuser.f9.co.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040703084030/http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/ to http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of video game magazines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105034734/http://nintendopower.com/ to http://www.nintendopower.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of video game magazines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502032434/http://www.replaymag.com/about_replay/about.html to http://www.replaymag.com/about_replay/about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429202342/http://www.library.georgetown.edu/newjour/publication/game-zero to http://www.library.georgetown.edu/newjour/publication/game-zero

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

"BioGamer Girl Magazine" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect BioGamer Girl Magazine. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 29#BioGamer Girl Magazine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)