Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

VG Chartz

A big problem in writing video game articles is the sales information. Sources discussing sales figures are hard to find and coverage is often incomplete. VG Chartz is a nice, centralized resource for finding such information. I realize that WP:VG had already discussed this issue several months (a year?) ago and decided it might not be reliable enough but I'd like to bring this up again since their methods and standards may have changed. I'll just point to their current us and Methodology pages which may or may not assuage the previous discussion's concerns about reliability. Axem Titanium 16:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I had never even heard about this site, which is annoying, considering the other tracking sites offered like NPD weren't working at all. Really, this is the only site I've seen which easily accessible and complete figures. David Fuchs ^(talk) 17:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerns

This proposed guideline IMO is definitely something that is needed for the project, but only if it is done well. If done poorly, we could end up with something that doesn't clarify matters any better than WP:RS. Also, we should keep in mind that WP:VGactually covers more than the games themselves: character articles, system articles, series articles, and such could also use consideration.

• The section on fansites needs to give better guidance on determining what is an unreliable fansite and what is a niche-market news website. This is particularly important when it comes to blog-format sites; some people have a strict "no blogs evar!" viewpoint, which does not take into account the fact that more and more reliable news sites are using a blog format. In the past, I've looked around potential sites for a page describing who exactly posts the articles. If it names just one person, I avoid the site, but if it names several "article writers", "editors", and such I'm more inclined to trust it. Also, if an article has a statement "Some fans believe X, although the game publisher denies this", a fansite could well be used to support the first clause. Anomie 23:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I was reluctant to write up some clear guidelines on which sites are reliable and which are not, because that would mean needless bureaucracy. The guideline that best serves the project, is one that emphasises that fansites in general are unreliable, and allows for exceptions. Maybe a change in the organisation of the section would help, grouping the information related to recognising reliability. User:Krator (t c) 23:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that fansites in general are unreliable, the only thing I have trouble with is determining if something is a fansite or if it's a niche news source. Anomie 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• The section Video games suffers from primary source paranoia. There is not necessarily a need for the Plot section to cite any secondary sources, if the Plot section is just a summary of the game's plot and any analysis comes in a Design or Reception section. Also, FWIW, if a game's manual claims that it "... takes place in a high fantasy setting", that may well be an acceptable primary source for the fact. Anomie 23:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point on the manual case. The guideline needs to make a clear distinction between that and using the game itself. I disagree that the plot section should not have to cite any secondary sources. For example, recognising plot elements (e.g. a deus ex machina or quibble) should be done in the plot section, and requires secondary sources. One cannot cite the scene in question and write it is a quibble. User:Krator (t c) 23:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You have a point about recognizing plot elements, I suppose I've just never bothered trying to do so. ;) One could occasionally identify a plot element if it's so obvious that it's not "likely to be challenged" (as WP:V says), although if it's that obvious it would be as effective to just let the reader identify it themselves. Anomie 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Official information section incorrectly refers toWP:N, which seems to be an extremely common misunderstanding even though WP:N clearly states "These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." WP:FICT is also often misused in this way. When discussing the content of articles, the appropriate references are WP:WEIGHT, WP:WAF, and WP:NOT. Personally, I try to avoid the word "notable" completely in discussing article contents for this reason and prefer "relevant to the topic". Anomie 23:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Should be changed indeed. I will be editing tomorrow, but feel free to change whatever you want to now. User:Krator (t c) 23:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Anomie 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• A more in-depth treatment of WP:SPS is needed, especially with regard to what constitutes an "expert on the topic".WP:SPS is written to apply to academic subjects for use in fighting fringe theories, and applying it to fields where "reliable third-party publications" don't exist is difficult or impossible. This is especially important when dealing with aspects of the topic that are often not considered "newsworthy" for all but the most popular games. For example:
  • We can't directly cite "the routine at ROM offsets 0x32d0f–0x32df9" as a source for "In the original NES version [of Final Fantasy], [the weapon elemental and creature-type effectivity] properties and the critical hit chance were not used due to bugs". But if a ROM hacker who has worked heavily on the game describes that bug, can we cite that?
  • Regarding hardware technical characteristics, most official publications (at least those available without being a major game company and signing an NDA) and reviews in news sources are not going to have much detail, and what is available will likely gloss over the details and may be distorted by marketspeak. If a major homebrew gameprogrammer or emulator author produces a more in-depth document, can we cite that?
  Anomie 23:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I will collect some thoughts on this overnight. In principle, this guideline was written with two main goals on improving the project in mind. One of these is changing the perspective of video game articles from a fan's perspective to a neutral point of view, hence the first and third section. The other is to decrease the amount of source paranoia going on, by explicitly stating in a guideline that in some cases forums and blogs can be cited. The above certainly fits the last goal. I think regarding blog and forum posts as unreliable journals is an important step here. User:Krator (tc) 23:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Particularly regarding sales figures but relevant in general, a list of sources considered to be reliable (and unreliable sources that keep coming up) would be helpful as a starting point for anyone trying to find sources. Anomie 23:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My only concern here is length. Maybe we should just start writing such a list, and see what becomes of it. Properly identifying some of the reliable websites in the area would help, especially concerning the open source/hacker communities. User:Krator(t c) 23:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• • This is where I point to the issue I raised above about the reliability of VG Chartz. Axem Titanium23:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:4X

Here's a list from the talk page for 4X. All comments are made by User:Mckaysalisbury. I'd like you to discuss them.SharkD (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

1. CGW, reliable. Yes
2. Strategy Gaming Online. Probably not? UGO network, yes.
3. Deaf Gamers. I'm going to say "no". So will I.
4. RPG.net. probably not. Yes, part of a commercial network with a proper editorial standard.
5. GamersInfo. probably not. Just a yes.
6. Strategy Page. No Not relevant to video gaming.
7. Tacticular Cancer. No Couldn't find this one.
8. IGN, yes, but we're linking IGN Reviews. It's a user-submitted guide? So I'm kinda iffy on this one too. IGN yes of course, user submitted content not.
9. Gamespot. Yes reliable, but it doesn't mention the term "4X", it's being used in this article to discus RTSs Yes
10. Google search for "4X". No way. No.
11. MOO2 Guide at Blogspot. No No.
12. Faqs.org. No No.
13. Apple. Yes Yes.
14. Gamespy. Yes Yes
15. Rakrent/RTSC. No No.
16. MobyGames. It's user contributed, sure, it's an established wiki-like project, but using it to establish notability? Yes, reliable.
17. Georgia Institute of Technology. Yes. Not relevant to video gaming

Commented some. Only ones I disagree with the original author are 2,4,5. User:Krator (tc) 13:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Browser/flash/MMOG games

I'm especially curious as to what is considered a reliable source in the browser/flash [edit: & MMOG] gaming market. Are they being ignored by the mainstream press because they don't come in a box? Or, are they just not notable? Are they being reported on in some cases and I just can't seem to find them? I'm not that familiar with these games, as I've not played them.SharkD (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you're going to have a hard time with this due to the transient nature of this class of games, the difficulty in identifying the origin of the game in some older games that have poor credits and are copied on about a dozen "game portals". I think you would really be limited to games that hit some form of critical mass. For instance I would definitely include Xiao Xiao in a list of notable flash games. You're also going to need to reference some of the earliest games which were actually Java based though. This would certainly be lots of work.BcRIPster (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oooh. Just had a thought... if you're going to say browser games, then you'd also have to touch on their origins of rudimentary text like adventures based on Gopher systems. And early Graphical Adventure style games that utilized ImageMaps for hotspots on an graphic that took you to the next page (akin to Choose Your Own Adventure type games). Even currently you'd probably have to include (at least peripherally) web based games/emulators like the web based Z-Machine emulator for playing Infocom style text adventures. Really where do you draw the line in defining what is a "Browser" based game? I'm guessing this isn't the can of worms you were looking for :P BcRIPster (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not so interested in discussing the games themeselves; rather, I want to understand more about sites that cover them. SharkD (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The specific issue is over the usage of JaGeX.com (the creator of RuneScape) as a source on RuneScape. See[1] for the relevant discussion. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not the issue. I haven't started that topic yet. My concern in this topic is regarding non-affiliated sites that cover these games in the form of news, interviews or reviews. SharkD (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Ok, I understand. Well personally a reference here or there that points to a press release or other timestamped material that is used to establish chronology via the related site in and of it self doesn't bother me, but I can see where it can get to be excessive. There should be a balance wherever possible to spread sourcing around. As for publications that specifically cater to covering browser based games? I can't think of any. You may be able to find references to certain games like Runescape, Gaia, etc... in the mainstream gaming media whenever one of them has gotten some spotlight exposure due to some event (most simultaneous log-ins, licensed some patented tech, star developer/artist involvement, commercial enforcements, etc...), or in an article comparing the platforms, but good luck with that. Plus that class of game has to much bleed over with other thin client MMOs so it's hard for alot of people to make a distinction at that point since it almost becomes artificial. I think I can count on one hand the number of sites I've run across that cater to this and I think they're all gone now, surely replaced with others, but I'm not confident if they would count as credible sources in the eyes of the WikiCops.BcRIPster (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I was a little too strict in limiting the subset of games I feel this topic applies to. I've broadened the topic title to include MMOGs. Secondly, I'll just list some sites that I've either come across previously, or are featured prominently in Google results: Online Free Gaming, Blitz Gamer,Massive Online Gaming, Online Multiplayer Games Network,Business Week Gameroom, Multiplayer Online Games Directory. What do you think of these? The Business Week site seems like a good source. Massive Online Gaming is a print magazine. The directory-type sites seem to be quite common; they've sort of become the stereotypical online gaming site in my mind—they're the main reason why I'm doubtful there are any good sites covering the subject matter. SharkD(talk) 18:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd dump the first two on your list. They're aggregation sites. Businessweek would get high regard as just based on their name I would imagine they have an editorial standard. mogonline.com would come next as they publish strategy guides and appear to be doing industry news as well. The other sites look like portals with basic news feeds, not sure how I would qualify them from a cursory glance. I'll see if I can recommend some others for you in light of your expanding this to cover MMOGs.BcRIPster(talk) 19:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

MPOGD isn't really any better than game ogre, they just dump links to video games and push advertising. I findGame Tunnel helpful for citing indie games, particularly casual ones. They have annual viewer-voted awards for the games they've covered with write-ups, and when the game developers receive them they seem extremely happy to display them on their sites. Jay Is Games provide actual articles instead of just links, and again hold contests of their own (I've seen numerous mentions of this site around the web, it's held in high regard). One good example from there is this article abouta period costume drama bitch-slapping game I read about on Kotaku. Any number of sites will mention it or offer it for download, but to actually come across something worth citing.. We've gotKotaku themselves of course, who can deal with various obscure games of all kinds. Gamezebo is a nice site with lots of casual game reviews, they also host the Zeeby awards. Casual gaming's become big business, and whereas Xbox magazines may offer one short paragraph on an XBLA game, there's every chance one of these has an entire review dedicated to whatever it is, to back it up. Someone another (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice GameRankings isn't on the list, is there a reason for that? There's also two good adventure-game specific sites,Adventure Gamers and Just Adventure. Someone another (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The list is incomplete. Feel free to add whatever you want. User:Krator (tc) 13:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I didn't want to slap more in if there was a reason, I'll add the above three but I'd like to hear what others think before adding Game Tunnel and Jay Is Games. Someone another (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Self-published sources

I know that game manuals are commonly cited for information on game mechanics, rules, fiction, etc. Could you clarify the position on use of self-published online resources, such as wikis, online manuals, self-published "news" sites, etc.? My concern is that they in part act as a sort of advertisement for the game they're covering, as well as the community surrounding them. I know that paper game manuals often feature advertisements in them; so this issue is not necessarily limited to online sites. The issue is discussed in part here. I was directed to WP:SELFPUB, and it handles the subject, but I thought it was kind of vague. It also doesn't cite any actual examples.SharkD (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The golden rule is that self published sources may only be used in two instances.

1. When the author is an expert discussing his field of expertise, material he has self published is acceptable. For example, a past case I've seen discussed a "letter to the editor" of a newspaper by a Harvard professor. That is acceptable. For video game related issues, I would not hesitate to use Chris Taylor (game designer)'s blog as a source for commentary on any RTS game. He sadly has no blog I know of, though.
2. In articles about themselves. For example, the Supreme Commander manual can be used in Supreme Commander.

The above two are exclusive, as in, there is generally no other exception to the rule. User:Krator (tc) 10:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, what are the criteria for being an expert in a field where there are no peer-reviewed journals?

Personally, I've always thought there should be an additional "exception" that isn't really an exception. WP:SPS applies to use of the SPS as a secondary source, although it doesn't actually say so anywhere. It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with using it as a primary source in any article (e.g. "The Supreme Commander manual says X about this topic" in that topic's article, perhaps in a discussion of common misperceptions or fictionalizations of the topic) subject to the normal restriction that the statement it is being used for is relevant to the topic (e.g. "Is that relevant information or useless trivia?" But this applies whether we're citing the manual or some RSS that mentions the manual's information).

In reply to the original question, note that a forum or open wiki is not likely to fall under instance #2, as they're "published" by the collaboration of many unassociated authors. Instance #1 could apply to an individual post or diff depending on the author, or instance #2 could apply to a wiki which only certain strictly-authorized people can edit. Anomie⚔ 13:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's another question: does the overuse of self-published sources (as in, well over half the sources; especially online self-published sources that link to subscription/membership/purchasing forms) constitute advertisement-like language? The way I see it, overuse of self-published sources lends an aura of notability to those sources which may or may not be justified. Additionally, those sources make the subject of the article look more notable through their affiliation with the subject (i.e., it appears as if the article is saying, "Look at us, we have a notable source on our side/in our ranks; that makes us even more significant").SharkD (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

IDG Entertainment

I was wondering what your opinions were on the reliability of other gaming sites (other than GamePro) by IDG Entertainment:

• Games.net
• GamerHelp.com
• GameProFamily.com
• GameGirl.com
• SucksOrRules.com

SharkD (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

GameProFamily is a great little site which offers a very specific niche, I'd be quite happy to slap a reliable label on that one. GamerHelp didn't impress me much, at a glance it looks like poor man's GameFAQs. The FAQs posted are probably no less reliable than those on G-faqs, but why bother at all when there's slim chances of anything being unique to that site? Or have I missed the point? GameGirl seems to be little more than a social blog, regardless of IDG's affiliation, nothing on there struck me as something which wouldn't be covered in more depth by a more reliable source, seriously suggest leaving that one out. SucksOrRules seems to be a user-driven timewasting tool, not something which would ever be a source. Games.net looks OK... except they seem to have very little original content, the 'top ten' lists were good for a laugh, again it's probably something that not many would have a use for as a cite. Someone another (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

MMOGChart.com

Is this site reliable? The BBC has cited some of the site's ratings in some of their reports. Just thought I'd ask.SharkD (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:VG Reviews

I've noticed that some of the magazines listed in this template do not match the list found here which supposedly is the most reliable one (Cincinnati Enquirer, wtf?). Also, there were some concerns on the talk page there about people wantonly adding magazines/websites without discussion. I'm hoping to achieve some level of synchronization between these two pages. One other thing, perhaps CNET is overrepresented in the "aggregate sites" category? Both websites currently listed are owned by CNET. Perhaps adding GameStats (owned by IGN) for good measure? I have nothing against CNET, but NPOV concerns is all. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I too am ambivalent about adding in newspapers in general, and all the game publications in particular. We should be striving for a selection of some of the most high profile, not every single one we can dredge up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources in Sega Mega Drive

Hi. I've been working on the Mega Drive article for a little while now, and sent it to peer review. The peer reviewer had a couple questions about two sources used extensively in the article, and said he was not sure himself if they were reliable sources or not. The first is source 10, at the url http://www.skillreactor.org/cgi-bin/index.pl?megadrv . While it appears to be someone's report on the Mega Drive with a personal touch, the person who wrote this information has sourced his report, making this a tertiary source. It has proved to be invaluable, and I hope it can be deemed reliable. The second source is source 12,http://www.consoledatabase.com/consoleinfo/segamegadrive/index.html . Console Database provided information that I was unable to source otherwise, and I believe it is reliable. However, the reviewer suggested I ask here to be sure. Thanks for your time.Red Phoenix (Talk) 23:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will only comment on the second article as that is the one I have read. While the article does have some factual information spread throughout it, it is also heavily weighted with personal opinion about company motives and personal opinion about market events that have little substance. I would reference this second piece with a grain of salt and only use it as an article to give you some ideas that you can use to track down more accurate historical references.BcRIPster (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is "blogs" a useful category for the list of sources? Why do we have categories anyway?

As title. User:Krator (t c) 14:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a better question—why should we consider a blog reliable? Pagrashtak 15:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's an official blog run by a game making/publishing company, I can see it as being reliable. Otherwise, I can't really think of a case where a blog would count as reliable. --Eruhildo (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are never a "useful" source in and of themselves. A blog can be a way a compny makes an official site work, but that would be the extent of it. Seems this needs some cleaning up here. 2005 (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the Blogs section. Not to say that you'll never find anything reliable there, but I don't think we can imply any sort of across-the-board reliability for them. Pagrashtak 21:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a talk with Ealdgyth about blogs such as Kotaku and Joystiq and he basically came to the point that we have to prove that each writer we use in those sources can be considered reliable. It's not hard, actually; I found that my writers had also been in Gizmodo and The Escapist, but it means we can't *always* rely on them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would consider a developer's official "blog" as a reasonably reliable source, especially for details on the development of the game. By official, I mean one that is hosted on the company's website and is by a member of the developement team. Well known technical blogs, they will need to been seen on a case by case basis, mainly because you need to establish that the author of that particular blog is reliable. It also depends on what you are trying to source to the blog. Something not too controversial, by a well known games writer, on a well regarded blog site (like Joystiq, say), would probably pass muster. Something by an unknown writer, stating some claim that is pretty farfetched, on an unknown blog site would probably not pass muster. I'm not really that mean and nasty about sources, I promise. Luckily, video games aren't often subject to BLP concerns. And, by the way, I'm female. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that's what I was basically trying to say, but your wording is better. --Eruhildo (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with removing the blogs category, they're just websites who use that format rather than personal blogs, but aren't we past the point of hanging question marks over Kotaku and Joystiq? They're well established sites reporting on video games rather than the nesting habits of rare birds from the rain forest. Game Set Watch is run and written by staff from Gamasutra and a developer's magazine - not only is it reliable but it is useful in covering some more obscure topics, there's an entire column devoted to roguelikes for instance. Someoneanother 06:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How did this turn to a section discussing the reliability of well established websites who just happen to use a particular technology? My initial post was to question the sorting of websites into a category "blogs", because you wouldn't really need to look up sites under "blogs", because there's no information that specifically appears in "blogs". User:Krator (t c) 15:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the "blogs" category because I wanted to give people the heads up about them being blogs. One should be cautious with blogs becuase they tend to have a more informal tone which is at odds with the objective tone expected of truly professional journalists. SharkD (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a joke right?BcRIPster (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See the note by DWF on self-published sources, below. Prominently notifying users that a site is self-published is an important precaution for us to take, IMHO. What we have here is a long (or growing) list that users might simply glance over without analyzing in detail. SharkD (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Also because at FAC people will ask us to justify iffy looking sources, and if we have a note here, and full disclosure and info on the kind of source it s, this page is more useful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not commenting on the referencing. I think referencing sources is a requirement. I'm challenging the notion that as a blanket rule a self published blog has any less credibility than a editorial news site consideration that I see made frequently around this site.BcRIPster (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Set this up and knock it down

Ok, here's my proposal:

• We thoroughly clean the decks of this page and get verifiable lists of how these pages are notable; if they are only notable in some cases, we put these caveats down.
• We then sync this list to {{VG Reviews}} and remove all the (gaming) publications we determine are not notable. Thoughts? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. --MASEM 22:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O)09:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me! Fin©™ 15:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Confused. Why is notability relevant here? User:Krator (t c) 10:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Now a bit confused too. Notable or reliable? There's been discussion of thathere too. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean notable, which I believe should be the threshold for those reviews we put in {{VG Reviews}}. Reliability does come into play, but I think to serve both purposes we should focus on proving the reliability of the source here, and then deciding whether it is notable enough to go with the reviews template (ideally, they will satisfy both.) As noted on WT:VG about the review sites (link above), The NYT and other newspapers are reliable, but I don't think we should clog up the reviews template with print sources which are not exclusively or strongly tied to games themselves. The less links in the template, the easier it is to use and if we establish a good criterion, there won't be a pile-on to add sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Some investigations

• Shacknews is as long-lived as GameSpot or IGN. Its editorial staff are paid professionals ,[2] and are experienced in the gaming industry.[3]
• The Adrenaline Vault (Avault) used to be one of the premier gaming sites but slowly died due to an internal conflict.[4] It has recently been resurrected and is small scale. The current staff are volunteers,[5] and some of its news are sourced from other major news sources.[6] Some of its staff such as Bob Mandel, have been heavily involved with the games industry for years. It can possibly be used for reviews and features but I am uncertain on its usage for news (perhaps older archives from its heydays could be considered reliable for old games?).
• Voodoo Extreme used to be an independent site heavily focused on games using the Voodoo graphic cards. It is now, however, part of IGN.com.[7]

Certain concerns

• Yahoo games are basically a regurgitation of GameSpot. Pointless to use them when GameSpot can serve the purpose.
• GameFAQs are certainly not reliable. If there are claims of GameSpot using them as sources for release data, then quote GameSpot as the source. Jappalang (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re The Adrenaline Vault, I tried a link at [8]] to an Avault news announcement, and got a 404. I used to like Avault a lot, but have been unable to get anything good and usually unable to get anything at all from it for about a year. We might have to go to webarchive for pre-catastrophe Avault content.Philcha (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my plan is for the clearly notable ones, put the information regarding reliability and notability into a ref as justification. Depending on what happens at the Halo (series) FAC, we might add justification for the GameCritics one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest a four column table: Source name, general type of info found, any stipulations/limitations on how used as a ref, and justification w/ references. Having the justification out of the footnotes seems to be perfectly appropriate for a page that discusses sources. --MASEM 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, could you change it? (I suck with wiki-markup and would just spend twenty edits tweaking it properly.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Boldly added TLeaves.com

A few people have tried to start this discussion on the video games wikiproject talk page, but to no avail. I've boldly added it, and I'm willing to go to bat for it. Here's a link, for anyone concerned: Tea Leaves. Looking forward to any discussion. Randomran (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a blog, so how is the author a shown expert in the fields of video gaming? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd already explained why I'd regard Tea Leaves as a reliable source. Oh, well:

• Some serious people take Tea Leaves seriously. For example comment #10 at Tea Leaves' 4X: Master Of Orion is by game designer Troy Goodfellow.
• For that reason Tea Leaves is closer to peer-reviewed than most "big name" mags.
• The authors are experienced computer system designers / developers, know a lot about the theory and practice of UI design (one article cited Donald Norman's book The Design of Everyday Things while commenting on the UI of a game).
• The authors know the history of computer games better than most reviewers on big-name mags.
• There have often been complaints about the quality of reviews in big-name mags, see for example Why video game reviews suck: part one,Why Videogame Journalism Sucks. If you're still in doubt, see MTV Multiplayer » Reviews Week.
• To put this in perspective, IGN is listed as a Reliable Source. Now see how many errors you can spot in IGN'sMoO2 retroview.
• Conversely, some of the most respected commentary comes from self-published sources, see for exampleWhy No Lester Bangs of Gaming? The real kicker is on the 2nd page.

PS I've restored Tea Leaves to the RS list. Philcha (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I suggest. Ealdgyth is basically FAC's source-checker. Leave him a note on his talk page pointing him to the web site and giving him the rationale you described above; see what he says. Then, if he gives a green light, I'll summarize up the findings and put it in the sources page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm a she (grins). Yes, that mythical "female who games". That's one reason David picks me for this stuff, since I didn't go "What's IGN? What's Game Informer?" That said, I'm not convinced by the above. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. I'm not seeing anything given above that shows that. Note that for reviews, I'm not very picky, especially if you go with the cheaters method (as I like to call it) of saying in the article "So-and-so from Review-Site-A said in a review of the game that "quote from review"" which nicely gives attribution without needing to show reliablity. It's giving an opinion, so you don't need to worry about the reliablity, with one caveat that you must be citing to the site that gave/hosts/published the review. Going to Amazon and culling out a blurb from the product page doesn't give the full context of the review. Note that this also applies to the next section below too. As a general rule, blogs, unless they are "official game development blogs" won't pass muster. Remember that when the article makes FA, it will eventually go on the main page. When it's on the main page, it will garner criticism, and video games seem to garner more than their fair share, so having your sourcing be excellent helps insulate you from critics. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Grrl Gamer!

Your "It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated" is the key point, with which I totally agree. As often the devil is in the details methods:

• IMO sites' statements about QA methods are of little value. I'm a retired computer consultant, and I've seen too many organisations that mess up projects despite having impressive standards libraries. The most usual reason is political pressures to shorten project schedules or otherwise make the results politically acceptable to the management. These pressures are also significant at big name mags, see MTV Multiplayer » Reviews Week andWhy No Lester Bangs of Gaming? (especially page 2). For example IGN's MoO2 retroview contains 2 serious errors in one paragraph, and they undermine the article's comments on a very important aspect of Master of Orion II.
• I'm not at all convinced by "backed by a media company/university/institute". It seems that in the last 40 years or so any crank can set up a "university", and setting up an "institute" or media company is even easier. IMO "backed by a media company/university/institute" is a circular argument, because it begs the question "How do we know the media company/university/institute is reliable?"
• In the free world long-established universities and those set up with government backing are generally regarded as reliable (universities elsewhere are usually reliable on subjects that have no religious or political implications), but only because centuries of experience have shown that their output is good. Academic publications have a QA process, peer review, but that is not infallible - for example Cyril Burt got published, there have been other cases of Scientific misconduct discovered after publication, and further cases where published articles have been condemned because of failure to provide access to raw data or because it turned out that the raw data did not support the articles' theses (for a fairly recent example see Permian–Triassic extinction event#Impact_event). Even for these august institutions the ultimate criterion is whether the articles / books stand up to prolonged critical examination by outsiders.
• Articles in big name mags are in general not peer-reviewed. In the gaming world the nearest things I've seen to peer review are:
  • Quarter to Three, where for a long time Bruce Geryk and Tom Chick published responses to each other's reviews / articles.
  • Blogs like Tea Leaves, where serious people likeTroy Goodfellow comment on articles. Not on every article, I admit, but there's an old chess maxim"The threat is stronger than the execution".
• "official game development blogs" are not an intrinsically reliable source, as they are a form of advertising and therefore not Wikipedia:Independent sources. They can be useful on some issues (e.g. what earlier games have had an influence), but are unreliable on anything to do with the quality of the publisher's games - an outstanding example of this is the official Master of Orion 3 site, which produced many interesting articles / diary entries / etc. but the product was a turkey.
• The hard truth is that there's no such thing as a 100% guaranteed-in-advance reliable source - one always has to look for issues on which the author and / or publisher might have a POV for whatever reasons, and one always has to take account of the known strengths and weaknesses of the author. I've come across several examples of variably-reliable sources recently while editing articles on top chess players, but I won't bore you with them unless you absolutely beg ask me to.
• As far as I can see articles from the various self-published sources I've mentioned are free from the POV, political and schedule pressures that can cause trouble in big name publications. And so far I've seen in self-published video game articles no examples of the proverbial odium schaccisticum that quite often distorts articles on chess from "reputable" sources.
• Returning (at last!) to the main point, the best source for a "reputation for reliability" is the attitudes of recognised experts writing in POV-free outlets. For that reason if someone like Soren Johnson or Troy Goodfellow treats a source with respect, that's good enough for me. Yes, that's a circular argument - but reliability of sources is always circular, and at least in this instance it's a very tight circle with minimal room for the distortions I've described.
  Grrrouch GamerPhilcha (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

One question: Who are the authors of Tea Leaves? In other words, who are "peterb" and "psu"? If their names are unknown, how can anyone vouch for their credentials? In fact, what are their credentials as reliable sources of video game information? Who judged them and openly stated so?

Game developers and reviewers have the same amount of equal rights as anyone in posting on whichever forum/site they choose to. Just because they post on a certain site does not make that site an acknowledged site for reliable information. Neogaf has many reviewers and developers from established gaming sites and companies posting on it. That does not make the Neogaf forums a reliable place to get information. Developers and reviewers are just like normal people who post in whichever environment that made them feel comfortable or valued. Jappalang (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out that we do not need our sources to be peer reviewed, but we do want editorial oversight. They are two different things. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re "credentials" AFAIK one does not need a PhD in the theory of games or UIs or whatever to be a game designer, programmer or journalist. What Jappalang is demanding that all reliable writers must be controlled by some "reputable" institution. That is exactly the same as what Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs has just said.

Unfortunately the institutions are not performing particularly well, and the "editorial control" that Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs considers so vital appears to be part of the problem. - seeMTV Multiplayer » Reviews Week andWhy No Lester Bangs of Gaming?. I'm not even sure if either Jappalang or Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs either of these. So here's a little test: what's the most serious of the problems described in Why No Lester Bangs of Gaming?

Who are the individuals who exercise "editorial control" over each of the big name mags, and what are their credentials? I've just looked at a random sample (the first few cited in randomly chosen Wikipedia games articles), and have not been able to find this information on the mags' web sites. The only place where I found a games mag editor's name was atSex, Fame and PC Baangs: How the Orient plays host to PC gaming’s strangest culture - and that is a self-published games blog! According to your arguments that is not a reliable source, so we don't reliably know the name of PC Gamer UK's editor. And of course when PC Gamer UK changes editors, we will be back to the usual situation of not knowing the editor's name or credentials. Gentlemen, your criteria just shot themselves in the foot. Philcha (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I asked simple questions, looking for simple answers. Just answer them. Who are "peterb" and "psu"? Who called them experts in the gaming industry? Jappalang (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see an "about" page, but this states that at least one of the authors has contributed a chapter to a book on game design published, according to Amazon, by Palgrave Macmillan, andthis claims they are writing for a game magazine. Nandesuka(talk) 04:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The two links add a bit of stuff we can associate to "peterb". His full name is Peter Berger; that was found by digging through the game site pointed by the second link.[9] Unfortunately, the second link itself is a referral for his work (which pointed to a 404 redirect to the site's main page) in an online magazine called played.todeath.com (PTD). PTD is not a reliable source (no known editorial process in place) nor is it a publication with a wide reach. The first link is of more interest. There is not much known about the book. However, thanks to Google.[10] we found its conception here.[11] We find that it is a collection of papers under the criteria:

Contributions should

• be empirically or theoretically well-founded

• show new aspects or access to the subject

• be as yet unpublished

Authors with interest are asked to submit an abstract (3.500 characters, incl. blank, max.) until June 1st, 2005. In case of acceptance the author has ten weeks time to complete the article (40.000 characters, incl. blank, max.). Date of submission will be September 1st, 2005. Date of publication will be spring 2006.

It appears to be a collection piece and as Peter's solitary published work (as a compilation), no indication of his expertise in the industry. Let us hope that Mr Berger publishes more papers and books or gets acknowledged by a reliable third-party publisher, so that we can use him for a reliable SPS. As for "psu", none of those links help his reliability in any way.Jappalang (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Other self-published sources that are worthy of respect

• Troy Goodfellow's blog --- who's Troy Goodfellow? Yes, that Troy Goodfellow.
• Tacticular Cancer - cited by Troy Goodfellow. For a sample of their work see "GalCiv2, SotS, SEV: a 4X Comparison".
• Soren Johnson's blog - Johnson worked for several years as a designer withFiraxis.
• BoardGameGeek - Soren Johnson cites it
• Trent Polack's blog - Trent Polack is a programmer atStardock and has in 2002 published a book that is still in Amazon's catalogue as of May 2008. HisA Glimpse into Modern Real-Time Strategy is cited byTroy Goodfellow. Philcha (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As respected journalists/et al that meet WP:SPS are the exception rather than the rule, however, we should probably leave most of them off this list, as they will have to be justified on an article-by-article basis regardless. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS says, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." That would seem to include Troy Goodfellow, Soren Johnson and Trent Polack.

"in some circumstances" (WP:SPS) is regrettably unspecific, and I suggest should include where there is good reason to doubt the reliability of the big names - see Why No Lester Bangs of Gaming? and MTV Multiplayer » Reviews Week for the reasons, and MoO2 retroview for an example.

In fact the wholde idea of "reliable third-party publications" is a case of circular reasoning - what are the criteria for deciding what is a "reliable third-party publication"?

As for the other sites on the list, if they're good enogh for Troy Goodfellow and Soren Johnson they're good enough for me.Philcha (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be cautious against what people cite on their blogs. A lot of the time people just include links for the sake of links, or simply want to reflect on someone else's opinion: which may be interesting yet unreliable or uninformed. That said, I support the addition of a few of these experts, particularly Soren Johnson. Randomran (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I included links so that others could check what the citations said - they are certainly not "links for the sake of links", and certainly do not treat the cited pages as "interesting yet unreliable or uninformed".

Johnson's citation of BoardGameGeek says, "... the Risk franchise has been undergoing a bit of a renaissance lately, based on some spin-offs with surprisinglyhigh BoardGameGeek ratings" - in other words Johnson thinks highly enough of BoardGameGeek's ratings to link to 2 of them in as many words, and expects his readers to understand this.

Troy Goodfellow's page criticises one point inTrent Polack's "A Glimpse into Modern Real-Time Strategy (part 1)" but concludes "As a history, it is quite good so far." Goodfellow's comments on part 2 of Polack's history states that he partly agrees with and partly disagrees with Polack on the games in question. AFAIK that's fairly common when people discuss the boundaries of (sub-)genres, and Goodfellow's "since they are, to my mind, simply wargames with some RTS interface" indicates that these points are matters of opinion, on which he respectfully begs to differ with Polack. (PS: This time I linked to part 1, as Goodfellow did in his first entry; previously I linked to part 4 because, as usual with series, the last part has the links to all previous parts.)

Troy Goodfellow's page says "spotted atTacticular Cancer" - implying that he finds Tacticular Cancer worth watching.

For another sample of Tacticular Cancer's work, try Lost Empire Review. Don't be fooled by the artless writing style (for all I know it might be fashionable right now; I've just seen an episode ofBritain's Next Top Model in which a major designer was talking like a Jamaican - hey, mon, it de faashun). Note the game version number at the top left (has the reviewer experienced Simtex games?), the often amusing way in which the review makes you experience the game through the reviewer's eyes, and the link to a technical article about an algorithm the game's designers should have used for a particular graphical effect. Not so artless after all. Philcha (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing I should point out reading your posts above is just because someone reliable or whatnot cites it doesn't make the source cited reliable. For example, VGChartz is unreliable for units sold because it measures volume shipped, not actual sales; that doesn't stop publications like the New York Times from quoting it. Likewise, Wikipedia won't be a reliable source even when it's commonly used for at-a-glance items. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Some more sites

I've created a list of sites I stumbled across while searching for sources that I'd like you to review:

1. wargamer.com - Part of the strategy allies network.
2. Armchair Arcade
3. Strategy Core - This site and Tacticular Cancer share some staff members.
4. Armchair Empire - Has an affiliate program, don't know much else about it.
5. Deaf Gamers
6. WorthPlaying
7. GameShark
8. Game Chronicles Magazine
9. Virtual Console Reviews - A site dedicated to the Virtual Console on the Wii.
10. RPG Codex - Shared server space and forums with Tacticular Cancer. Has had some issues in the past with staff members going berserk[12][13][14][15]. Not always "safe" for viewing from work.

--SharkD (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Some more:

1. looneygames - a Blue's News publication
2. JoystickRequired
3. Games32
4. Gay Gamer
5. RetroRemakes

--SharkD (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

On another note, I suggest we create a list or table where we can vote for each site. We could do this by leaving a "yes" or "no" vote next to the name of the site as well as our initials. It would also be proper to link to detailed discussion (past and present) of the site at the end of each line or row.

I know voting isn't looked upon to favorably on Wikipedia, but coupled with detailed discussion (encouraged), it might serve to streamline our efforts within this project. SharkD (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wargamer.com

I believe we can rely on this site. First off, it subjects its articles to an editorial process which seems fairly rigorous.[16] Its staff are experts in their fields,[17][18] and the site has received several accolades in its history.[19][20]

There are two possible minuses. It is not a professional staffed site (could be a mix of paid and volunteers),[21] but I think in light of the pluses, this is a non-concern. The site also seems to cater to a niche crowd—28,400 hits on Google for "wargamer.com",[22] 27,000 hits for "The Wargamer" (the second search would encompass other content not related to the site).[23] However, Alexa shows that its traffic ranking seems respectable for a niche site (96,522).[24] That with the awards received should show that this site does reach out to the wargamer communities.

I say this is a pretty good reliable source. Jappalang (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Deaf Gamers

I would dearly love to support this site. It offers another view point on games from the hearing impaired. Unfortunately, if we go by Wikipedia policies, things seemed to be stacked against it to be a reliable source. For one, there is no indication that the site has a rigorous editorial process in place, compounded by the fact that it seems to accept review from just about anyone.[25]

The site does get mentioned in other reliable sources, but these cannot totally help determine its reliability (helps in notability though).[26][27][28] The best bet for this site would seem to be determining if its owner, Lora Willets, can be accepted as an expert on deaf video gamers . I can only offer this Times article mentioning her and the site.[29] She is hired by PC World, so that could be of help (though one would have to know in what capacity). She is not deaf, but she runs a voluntary organization to help the deaf. Jappalang (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Worth Playing

Nothing it has state its editorial process nor experience. Any mention about them from the industry seems to be about them being hosting sites for files (trailers, demos, etc). Not a reliable source in my opinion. Jappalang (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, unreliable and hosts copyright violations. Should be delinked on sight, in fact, due to issues with WP:C. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify what copyright violations they're hosting? Thanks, --Oscarthecat (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Here is a list of their editors/managers/reviewers. They at least use their real names, which is a step in the right direction, IMO. Also, the supposed copyright violation doesn't seem to load for me. Only one hit in Google Scholar or Books, though.SharkD(talk) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Here is a list of sites that link to WorthPlaying. About half of them seem to not be English. SharkD (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    • None of the links in languages I can read are worthy of notice. User:Krator (tc) 23:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Game Shark

Very interesting... Owned by Mad Catz, so there is industrial backing, although this could be of no use to proving reliabilty since it is a game peripheral company and not a media company. Some of its staff, however, have industry experience.[30] Questionable if they brought their experience into establishing an editorial process. (Would this serve as an adequate description of their review process?[31]) Perhaps this site could be referenced based on who is writing the article? I think it is reliable if the article concerns GameShark codes. Jappalang (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Game Chronicles Magazine

No evidence of any editorial process and no background of its staff. No mention on other reliable sites of it. I think this site will fail in an FAC. Jappalang (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this may be what you're looking for. SharkD (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a page on its staff (this gives information on the jobs), but unfortunately, it offers no help on their editorial practices. The listed bios of the staff also do not inspire confidance in their experience. Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Criteria in selection

Just so I can understand the standard here: What is the evidence of editorial process used by, let's say, IGN? It's not clear to me that the standard Jappalang is asking for actually exists in any non-tautological sense. Nandesuka (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not the original decision maker, I am only judging by the criteria others have used. Let us just say that from observation of the FACs—long established heavy-traffic game sites are presumed to have a rigorous editorial process in place. For less well known sites (and young ones), evaluators tend to look for these sites to check their articles heavily either through a few editors or peer-review for logical fallacies, factual inaccuracies, and such. Grammar, prose, and tone are just basic editorial processes. Furthermore, it seems critical to establish the site and reviewers are regarded as reliable industry experts. Hence, mentions on other more reliable sources are a plus (but seemingly minor contribution to establishing reliability). More clearer indication would be a report on the author being an expert (i.e. a reliable source interviews the author or site), invitations to comment or speak industry panels and conventions, jobs with reliable sources, etc. It is an uphill task for us to get young gaming sites to be accepted as reliable sources in an FAC (and it seems they are encouraging the same standards for sources be applied to GACs as well). Ealdgyth is the hardworking volunteer in FAC questioning the sources' reliability. You can read her methods in the above posts on this page. She can probably shed more light on evaluating sources. Jappalang(talk) 15:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So a site has "evidence of editorial process" if you think it does? Or if we think that maybe it gets a lot of traffic? This is rather troubling. I mean, this isn't rocket science. Either there is a standard that can be judged, or there isn't. Either way, it's not really appropriate for us to be just making things up, which is sort of what this sounds like.

To be clear, I'm not against having standards. But those standards need to be transparent and not subject to abuse. The standards you seem to be applying fail that test badly. Nandesuka (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I led you to believe "popularity" equals "reliability", but in all seriousness presenting up "popular" sites as reliable at FACs is a sure failure. I should not have used "heavy-traffic" but "successful" as in being acknowledged as industry experts by both the industry and the visitors. To make it clear, my observation is that FACs deem IGN and GameSpot to be "reliable" without heavy scrutiny because of their reputation—they are long-running sites that have become multi-million businesses and are frequently quoted or featured in articles related to the games industry. Presenting "evidence of editorial process" or "evidence of expertise in the field" for unfamiliar sites is, for better or worse, part and parcel of FACs these days. As already stated, the criteria presented here is not mine—I am only using what others have used (aside from small personal thoughts). If there are issues with the criteria, bring it up at WT:RS or at the FACs themselves. There is no point arguing with me here that they are wrong if this project's articles are constantly failed there for referring to sources that are unreliable by the FAC standards. I do not set the "guidelines", I am just following them. In fact, I would love it if this project hammers out a set of clearer guidelines for reliability that abides WP:RS, WP:V and other Wikipedia general "rules", sort of what Randomran has done in streamlining WP:VG/GL. Jappalang (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There's also going to be a featured content dispatch in the Signpost by Eald about sources coming up to. Japp, I'd say since I trust your judgment if you want to just copy over the clearly reliable sources with the justification, that's fine. Rather speed through the easy stuff and focus on more borderline issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, there is a fair length of discussion over reliable sources in this FAC for Strapping Young Lad. I think it is a good read for any editor wanting to know more about sourcing for FACs, how to defend reliable sources, and what to defend them with. Ealdgyth is also a participant in the FAC. Note that the FAC has been restarted and is ongoing. Jappalang (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Required reading

Many thanks to David for giving a heads up on this; Ealdyth has posted the dispatch regarding reliable sources in the FAC process.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches

Any volunteers to work this into our Sources article? Jappalang (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A few sources for your consideration

I think a few of these are pretty reliable:

• Game Revolution appears to have solid editorial standards.
• PAL Gaming Network has a lot of user-submitted content, but the stuff generated by the editors looks solid too.
• Gaming Nexus looks a little sloppy, but seems to have editorial review in place.

These are more borderline:

• Gamers Info is unabashedly unprofessional, and I can't find an editorial policy. But the content looks quite factual.
• Deaf Gamers has some good content. I wish we could accept some of it, even though they accept a lot of user reviews.
• Game Almighty has some good content, between the user generated content. But I can't find their editorial policy anywhere.

I'm interested if someone could clarify and/or add a few of these to our list of reliable sources. Randomran(talk) 05:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised Game Revolution isn't listed; I always thought it was considered an RS (and thus agree with you). PAL Gaming Network is very big in Australia and has solid editorial standards (for staff reviews). I'm not that sure about the other ones.giggy _(:O) 08:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at Game Revolution and their staff page (posted by Randomran) does not speak of editorial standards. It lists their staff and past writers, and apologizes on copyright issues. Their grading page speaks of their grading system in general terms. They are not helping us in proving their editorial standards.

Perhaps these could help us for Gaming Revolution; the gaming site is cited in 62 scholar articles per Google.[32][33] It is also a source material for several books,[34] such as Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences by Peter Vorderer and Jennings Bryant,[35](p. 310) and Alice's Adventures: Lewis Carroll in Popular Culture by Will Brooker.[36] (p. 254)

I am uncertain if numerous book and scholar citations are enough to show it is a reliable source, but perhaps someone can be the first to raise these rationales up at an FAC to help prove the case.

Anyway, Gaming Nexus' about page offers nothing to help its case. PALGN's staff page does not offer help but its scoring system gives some detailed breakdown of how they rate games (unlike Game Revolution).[37] PALGN is also used as a source for an IEEE paper "Pokemon: Game Play as Multi-Subject Learning Experience" by Lin, Yu-Hong,[38] and surprisingly in Jack Thompson's Out of Harm's Way.[39] Jappalang (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it be unreliable to simply ask them? There's always email... Randomran (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I am uncertain if it could be done. I am guessing that you would have to put up the emails (with details on the editorial processes) for public display as proof. Jappalang (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an awesome example of the pitfalls of "determining reliability by making things up." It seems, frankly, to violateWP:RS in a fairly egregious way. Nandesuka (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is not a good way to determine reliability, then we should not do it and try to find other sources that can be proved to be reliable. Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for additions

Since otherwise we're going to be slowed up, I suggest for every "pretty reliable" or "definitely reliable" site, just be bold and add them to the page, along with links to their staff/about page, who owns them, how long they've been in operation, et al. We should only have to argue about the borderline ones, to save us time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

From KFM

I've added Derrick Sobodash's website CinnamonPirate to the listing, with justification. Added because I used it heavily before as a reference on one article, and it is the primary reliable source for information on such games.--Kung Fu Man(talk) 16:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would advise taking his site off until we can determine with certainty his reliability at FACs. Hisblog states he is a journalist and his forays into the gaming world are not his work, but his hobby. That does not help to establish his reliability in this area. As far as I know, he has not written articles on games for Beijing Today or PiQ (the latter even more unlikely since it has been discontinued). As such, what would help are reports or articles, published by other reliable sources, about his exploits in investigating "bootleg" games on the Chinese market.Jappalang (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

On a quick Google search: PiQ article mention(which was a game article), Beijing Today articles. (I did misspell his name in this initial bit, it's Derrick not Derrek. x_X'). Btw, PiQ's last issue is July. Sobodash also seems to have an account here too interestingly enough, which lists a few other verifiable credentials. The point with that being to show he does have credibility as a journalist. As for citing him, his articles are full and concise enough reviews that they have a great deal of information, even for a hobby, to the point he has been cited by other sources, such as the titanic review by a chinese blog, or FFVII Famicom which in turn involved many sites ripping his review off entirely but also brought coverage to it. He has been responsible for fan translations of games and was a part of a major one or two (some of which put on carts by third party groups and sold without credit or informing him, such as that Sonic game), so he does have verifiable experience in the fields he's being cited for. He's got proven credibility, experience in the field, lives in the country rich in pirate games, and has been cited by other major sites; that should cover him as a reliable source of information, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Recognition is from recognized reliable sources. Us (meaning we the nameless editors, the masses of unwashed forumers, anonymous bloggers) talking about his feats and saying he is an expert play no part in this. A Hollywood celebrity with no professional connection to gold cannot be made out to be a reliable source on the game just because many bloogers claimed that he has a 5 par handicap and that he plays a beautiful game of golf. Regarding Sobodash as a journalist, his work must pertain to the field of video games to make his "out-of-work" activities recognizable. One cannot say that just because Phil Donahue is a writer, anything he does outside of work is his expertise. We can only quote his articles (if any of them are on games, that is). The Super Fighter Team is more of interest at this point. However, it must be proved through reliable sources that this company is more than a simple flash in the pan (a startup that just did not disappear without significant work). Furthermore Sobodash only programmed a translation tool not a game. To call him an expert in video games because of this would be akin to calling someone, who programmed Microsoft Excel, an expert on Half-Life 2.

In short, Sobodash,

• has no published work on video games.
• is not recognized (awards, reports) by reliable sources (Wikipedia context) as reliable in the video games industry.

The criteria for reliable sources are not met by him. Jappalang (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm. So of course we have obvious a better expert on the subject of pirate versions of video games that we can cite lined up? That's my primary concern here. To be more exact, I'm using Sobodash as a primary third party source on the Final Fantasy VII (Famicom) article, since a) he did the most extensive dissection of the subject and b) ...everyone else that even covered the game either ripped his article off or just linked to it adding their own reception. So the obvious problem comes up if I pursue FA as I intend to once the article is up to snuff that someone is going to point at said subject and go "how is this reliable?" Way I understood it, the best recourse to bite that in the bud is to confirm him as a reliable source here. So since we can probably rule out awards, what should I gather to confirm him as a valid source for notable pirate games also covered by other sites and an expert on emulation? Because this isn't the sort of thing that's going to just pop up in the pages of EGM one day.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand the dilema. It is one of the problems the project is going to have with old games (the pre-90s era) and games that have quite a lot of following but no mainstream is going to bothered about unless they turn up in court cases. I seriously have no answer to this. You can try bringing up Sobodash at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see if they can help, or find more niche computer printed material to see if there are mentions of Sobodash or the products he is talking about. Jappalang (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal for review

Just RPG

Site: http://www.just-rpg.com/
Unable to find any editorial process on their website and their rating system is generic.[40] Its staff page indicates nothing about their expertise.[41] Game development essentials: an introduction, by Jeannie Novak, also states that the staff members and reviews are simply player reviews (ala GameFAQs, Amazon, and IGN/GameSpot player reviews). Jappalang (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Random thought, what about using it as an interview reference solely?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to be safe and avoid it as one would not be certain if the interviews are reliably printed (i.e. not altered or misquoting the subject). However, if the interviews are referred to by the subject themselves, I think they could be reliable. At the moment, Crash of the Titans is going through an FAC, and it quotes interviews by an unreliable source, so perhaps that can be seen as a test case of how it goes. Jappalang (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Backing for sources

For ease of showing the references for a source listed as reliable,

GameZone

• Appraised to be an objective review site by fidelidad en la red by Ellen Reid Smith
• Proclaimed as a reliable gaming site by The Young Person's Guide to the Internet by Kate Hawthorne and Daniela Sheppard
• Recommended as a site for reviews by Serving Older Teens by Sheila B. Anderson
• As a reference for M-rated games in Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children by the Federal Trade Comission
• As a reference in Alice's Adventures: Lewis Carroll in Popular Culture by Will Brooker
• As a reference for SimHealth in Future of Health Technology by Renata Glowacka Bushko
• As a reference in Women Pulitzer Playwrights: Biographical Profiles and Analyses of the Plays by Carolyn Casey Craig
• As a reference in Radical Children's Literature: Future Visions and Aesthetic Transformations in Juvenile Fiction by Kimberley Reynolds
• As a reference in What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy by James Paul Gee

• Referenced for its interviews, editorials, news, and reviews in 30-odd scholarly works[42]

End for GameZone. Jappalang (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Kotaku

Okay, for Kotaku, we must establish that the author is reliable for his work (instead of assuming the entire site is reliable).

• Brian Crecente has appeared on Fox News in relation to gaming topics, and his work has appeared in other publications.

Who are the other reliable Kotaku editors, e.g. is Brian Ashcroft one of them? Was he interviewed by Fox or has his work appear in publications? Note this section is for bringing up proof of Kotaku's authors with regards to the policies and guidelines, not for debating the criteria to make them reliable for use. Jappalang (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Leigh Alexander has written for other publications, is the associate editor of Kotaku and editor ofWorlds of Motion. Still looking for things on Luke Plunkett and others, but this is going to probably end up a bigger problem: most people myself included cite Kotaku as proof "so and so existed" or "people thought this" compared to "so and so will be this". I'm just worried this is going to land up a massive "pass/fail" test that some article reviewers will take too absolute.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Fox News reliable? ;) SharkD (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Stratos Group

Site: http://www.stratosgroup.com

Although part timers, they are recognized in the industry as a professional games developer.[43][44] They have written various manuals for several game companies,[45][46] as well as several guides for GameSpot and IGN,[47][48][49][50] qualifying them as experts in the video game industry. This is further backed up by them being part of the team that writes the Parent's Guides to the video game industries.[51]

• Parent's Guide
  • A Parent's Guide to Computer Games: A Comprehensive Look at PC and Macintosh Titles by Craig Wessel, Stratos Group, Stratos Group (COR)

  Published by Mars Publishing, Incorporated, 2001, ISBN 1931199078, 9781931199070

  • A Parent's Guide to PlayStation 2 Games: A Handbook to PlayStation 2 Titles by Craig Wessel, Stratos Group

  Published by Mars Publishing, Incorporated, 2001, ISBN 1931199000, 9781931199001

VGChartz

Did VGChartz suddenly become reliable? I thought consensus was that it wasn't. SharkD (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I've moved it to a new table for questionable sources that should be replaced if possible. --MASEM 02:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose since the section now exists that Kotaku, blogs, mobygames, etc. could be moved there. SharkD (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's actually not too great an idea. VGChartz has all out been proven to be unreliable (they list different sales number for the same game under two slightly different names for example), while the others you mentioned have some degree of reliability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Some degree" still implies "some degree" of questionability. Also, the notes beside each of the publications already advise caution. SharkD (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, MobyGames at least should be listed there. It was removed from the regular table for a reason I can't remember, and there was originally a caveat of some sort with regard to its reliability (I can't remember that, either). SharkD (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I, too, would rather remove VGChartz totally. Even the Gamasutra reference for it shows it to be unreliable (retroactively altering data). Are we supposed to accept "second-rate" sites just because no reliable site covers the information we desire (note the slippery slope)? Jappalang (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I know for sure when I first started working on the Alleyway article and there was a hubbub about missing sales data in some FACs, it was mentioned articles relying on VGChartz, even if they stated "according to VGChartz" before the actual data, would have it counted against them in a FAC. Of course the flipside is that some people won't support or will object to a FAC game article that *lacks* any sales data, but if you can prove the information just doesn't exist or some citable general statement that shouldn't be a problem, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the consensus at WP:VG against using VG Chartz as a source, as stated by others in this discussion, WT:WikiProject Video games/Archive 55#VG Chartz, and numerous prior discussions at WP:VG? Because it is listed here, VG Chartz is being added as a source in articles, such as in this featured article. --Silver Edge(talk) 12:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

VGChartz is a reliable source. This page　says, "Sales figures are determined through two important methods 1. Data Sampling – VG Chartz gathers random data from a sample of the total number of retailers. 2. Shipment information – VG Chartz has contacts with publishers who give their best estimates on number of products shipped." This method is almost the same as those of NPD Group and Enterbrain. VGChartz has won the confidence of many publications such as BBC, Forbes, Fortune, The New York Post, and The New York Times. This website should be listed on the table for general sources.--Eisai Dekisugi (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Except there are some big differences. VGC does not say how many retailers or what retailers they check with (NPD does state that info). VGC does not have any contacts with publishers either. TJ Spyke 23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

@ Silver Edge: VGC needs to be used sparingly, and at least if I have to use it because no one else has sales data or statements, I always preface with "According to VGChartz.." as to allow the user to make the assessment of VGC's inaccuracies. Now, when you have a title like LoZ:WW, I will find it completely unbelievable that there is no NPD or Enterbrain data for that top-level title, as this should always be used over VGC. Thus, it definitely should be avoided on clearly best selling games.

@Eisia: See the VGChartz article for several analysis of their data that puts their methods into question. They're often close to the NPD reports, but they're using information that is one step removed from what NPD and the like put out, and are prone to changing their data (even if they do find a better source) --MASEM 13:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"they are prone to changing their data" does not mean they are unreliable but it means they try to publish data that are as correct as possible. Reliable sources are reliable for the reason that they change the information they published if they are wrong.--Eisai Dekisugi (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

True, but reliable publications aren't supposed to throw out guesses as fact in order to be the first to post sales figures, which is what VGChartz often does. We shouldn't cut them slack for such unscientific and inaccurate methods even if they later admit they make mistakes and change them. There's no official "we goofed" response, they just modify them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Eisai Dekisugi: "Reliable sources are reliable for the reason that they change the information they published if they are wrong." Dekisugi, you missed out one very important qualifier for a reliable source on that criteria. A reliable source admits they made a mistake and make the correction. VGChartz does not do that; it alters information without informing anyone of the changes.[52] Jappalang (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we finally get this site banned as a source? They are not reliable at all. They have numbers that are usually off (as much as 20% per week, which is not acceptable when it comes to statistics), when they are wrong they will sometimes change the info but not state it. The only reason any mainstream sources quote them sometimes (which is what causes problems here) is because NPD charges a lot of money for their services and these outlets may not consider it worth it. The members of this project don't use it, but some IP's and other non-members sometimes do and state it's because the project just discourages using the site (but doesn't outright ban it). TJ Spyke 23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... Anyone want to pitch in for an NPD subscription? We could get Jimmy Wales to put his picture on a banner for us. :)SharkD (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WomenGamers.com

The website has a pretty clear editorial process even for contributed material citedhere and here, and google notes 33 books that cite or otherwise mention the site. Is anyone familiar with any downside to using it as a reference though? I planned on using the digital women articles on Tira and Ivy on the site to beef up the reception for the articles here, just wanted to clear it as a reliable source before moving ahead.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The book references look good with these lots:

• Provides material for gender studies of gamers for Removing Barriers by Jill M. Bystydzienski, Sharon R. Bird
• Provides material for gender studies of gamers for Computer Games by Diane Carr, David Buckingham, Andrew Burn, Gareth Schott
• Provides material for violence in media study for War and Virtual War by Jones Irwin
• Provides material for gender-based games for Dungeons and Dreamers by Brad King, John Borland
• Provides material for gender studies of the gaming industry for Play Between Worlds by T. L. Taylor
• Provides material with Roberta Williams for The International Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments by Joel Weiss, Jason Nolan, Jeremy Hunsinger, Peter Trifonas
• Provides material for game studies for Designing Virtual Worlds by Richard Bartle
• Provides material for feminism in gaming culture for Feminism in Popular Culture by Joanne Hollows, Rachel Moseley
• Reference for Cyberculture by David Bell, Brian D. Loader, Nicholas Pleace, Douglas Schuler

What is worrisome about the site is that nowhere in its submission guidelines does it talk about the editor checking on facts and accuracy (rigorous prose, grammar, tone, and style checks only). In fact, it seems none of the articles are written by regular staff; every piece is a user submission. I think perhaps we can qualify this as a case by case basis, by considering the history of the authors (bios), somewhat like for Kotaku and Joystiq. Opinions? Jappalang (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jappalang. The authors cited in the above linked pieces would be considered reliable, but not everyone who writes for the publications is considered relibale by default. —Giggy 10:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed a disclaimer at the bottom of the articles I wished to cite saying that the opinions presented were the authors and "could be discussed", which cheapens them significantly. The real kicker is with both the Tira and Ivy articles I wanted to cite them for the opinion presented which was different than the usual reception points for both characters of "Ooh gameplay!" for Tira and "OMG she has boobs!" for Ivy :\ Is there a work around possibly? (The author of both articles no longer seems to frequent the site as it stands)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Podcasts

Would podcasts be considered acceptable sources, provided the source of the podcast is from a reliable site?MuZemike (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to if the podcasts are simply recorded radio shows by reliable sources. Simply prove the site producing the podcast is reliable. If the site is only hosting the podcast, prove the person recording the podcast is reliable. Jappalang (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

MobyGames and ModDB

What do you think about Mobygames and ModDB? User:Krator voiced his support for MobyGames previously, but I also recall some[edit: other people with] reservations regarding MobyGames' user-submitted (but admin-approved) content. I've also heard some reservations regarding ModDB's reliability with regard to editorials and critiques of mods, contrasted by support for their reliability with regard to information about mods (e.g. developer-contributed). So what's the skinny? Personally, I'm OK with putting them in the "questionable" category, like VGChartz, though I don't think they're quite as bad. SharkD(talk) 20:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, they don't have a nebulous method of information collecting, so yes, they aren't as bad as VGChartz. I'm going to get back to you on that (my battery is running to the dregs), so hold the thought :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think GameFAQs should be moved to this section, too. SharkD (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I do not think MobyGames qualify as a reliable site for any news or opinions of games. This is based off them being a compilation of user-submitted data, hence coming across as a GameFAQs. MobyGames, however, seems to be a reliable ludographic source, i.e. source for credits on a game, based on several books on the gaming industry naming them as such.

As for ModDB, I repeat what I mentioned in Talk:Freelancer (video game). Moddb has no editorial process in place. Information is user-submitted and factuality is not checked. Anyone can submit articles per "Our community-based features mean that it's not some mysterious editor in an ivory tower writing reviews - it's anybody who can put pen to paper." and "Perhaps most importantly, opinions on gaming aren't just our own - they are the combined feelings and views of anybody who has taken a moment to make themselves heard."[53] Simply put, it is a community site akin to forums. Content is not regulated by a fixed process but in a chaotic manner, "all content on the site is controlled by the community. This means you can add / edit and delete your content and others in certain circumstances. We ask that you respect fellow community members and freedom of speech and don't delete comments and other content which disagrees with your opinion. Fair ground to edit / delete others content is when it is in breach of this Terms of Use".[54] and "DesuraNET empowers its 230,000 registered members to create, collaborate and tailor their entertainment experience to suit their interests."[55]

In a manner, community sites are generally not accepted as reliable sources. Moddb and Desuranet has declared themselves as such per "'Consumer generated content will continue to revolutionize the definition of entertainment' Reismanis said, 'and DesuraNET will be at the forefront of this trend, empowering its community to create the content it desires.'" and "Consumer desire for creative self expression through entertainment has become incredibly popular. The recent emergence of sites which thrive on community generated content, such as Flickr, Youtube, Myspace, Digg & Wikipedia are only a few examples of consumers controlling their personal entertainment experience."[56]. Jappalang (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I just want to emphasize my support for a "questionable sources" section. There are some sources that are commonly used that are actually unreliable, and it would be helpful to not have to revisit and re-explain these sources over and over. I've been told repeatedly that ModDB is unreliable. I think GameFAQs is too, and we can still have the "release date" disclaimer that suggests it's reliable for a narrow band of information. I might also suggest including Home of the Underdogs here, as well as the various "planets" of gamespy -- which are community areas. Randomran (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So, can I go ahead and add the sites? I would also like to re-emphasize (since the point got lost somewhere in the discussion) that ModDB is reliable for information developers submit about their own mods. (Of course, being listed on ModDB doesn't make them notable.) SharkD (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It is pointless to add it. If you are suggesting ModDB be added for information regarding technical specifications about the product, then it would be functioning as a primary source (WP:SPS in a manner), similar to commercial products' official websites (which do not get listed here). Even then, how reliable are those claims of their products (with no editorial oversight)? Jappalang (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If there existed a single, centralized site where video game publishers came together to publish information regarding their own products (i.e., as a replacement for their own, self-run websites), then I would agree it would be a primary source worthy of similar consideration. However, such a directory doesn't exist; instead, video game publishers can afford to (and prefer to) host promotional webpages under their own domains. The reliability of these sites is the reason they're being listed under the "questionable" category. SharkD (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In the same manner we generally do not even consider Wikis as reliable source, we should not even promote ModDB at all. I have already stated my opposition to a "questionable" category for VGChartz, and ModDB is even worse than that site in terms of editorial control. Who controls the information? Everyone, according to their policies. Who can guarantee the information developers submitted about their own mods has not been altered by somebody else (or in the midst of an edit war)? Furthermore, technical specs can be cited from release documentation as primary sources, and developers' controversial opinions about their software are disqualified under WP:SPS.

I question the purpose of the questionable category. Is it for "umm, this source is not reliable" or "ya know, maybe it is reliable, if not, can we have it here for the moment please?" I would like to think that editors trying to write a video game article can come to this list, and use the sources and reasons provided to write articles that can stand up to scrutiny atWP:GAC and WP:FAC. Jappalang (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there's value to having a list of commonly used unreliable sources. Too many times I'll see someone cite information using ModDB, and it would be nice to point them to something a little more authoritative than "my opinion".Randomran (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that developers have control over who has access priveledges to editing/contributing to a project. Anyone outside that control can only add comments, per a discussion forum. You're right that release documentation would serve as just as good a source for technical specifications, feature lists, and so on; but I don't feel ModDB is an inferior source in this regard, and I don't feel users should be discouraged from using this source for this purpose. SharkD (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Note, also, that ModDB is referenced in quite a few scholarly sources[57][58]. SharkD (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The references are trivial, more of "ModDB has this on their site" rather than using the site as an authorative source of information, "The conclusion is that .... (according to ModDB)." The situation is just like GameFAQs (which is printed in books as a place to go to for help with games). Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It might also be helpful to list IMDB as an unreliable or questionable source. Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#General_principlesconsiders IMDB to be a source that can help identify further areas of research, but itself provides only trivial facts.Randomran (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Style

Since this is a style guideline, some mention should be made regarding proper style when referencing sources (such as when to use italics). SharkD (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ITALICS and MOS:TITLE seem quite clear in stating that books, and periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines) are to be italicized. Jappalang (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Still, I feel it should be re-iterated here, as I doubt users contributing to articles on video games are as likely to refer to these guidelines, and I've noticed that neglect of proper italicization is extremely common in VG-related articles.SharkD (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sales information

Sources that can be added. Chart-Track is explained here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. Another new reason is their alliance with NPD Group and Enterbrain.[59]All methodologies at the bottom. Also, is anyone familiar with Kombo.com ? They have five pages of F-Zero information[60]... it would be a shame if their not reliable. « ₣M₣ » 23:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Chart-Track looks a shoe-in for a reliable source for sales figures. The fact that they are in a collaboration with two other established data-gathering firms and controlled by research institute GfK[61][62] gives it a credibility as a reliable source in my opinion.

As for Kombo, there seems to be nothing to vouch for its reliability. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I contacted Kombo:

We're a video game blog focuses on covering the latest on the video game industry and sharing our opinions on the industry along the way.

Just a blog, how disappointing. Anyway, what category should Chart-Track and other similar sources be listed under? Games industry-related? « ₣M₣ » 01:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe, for sales-tracking sites, we could place them in the Games industry-related section. Jappalang(talk) 03:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Suikosource

Would Suikosource, especially with regard to stuff related to Suikoden? be considered a verifiable source? I ask because the site does have some sort of editorial system in place, but nothing much else from that. This question comes from a merger proposal at Talk:Suikoden#Merger proposal. MuZemike (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In what ways is there an editorial system in place? I fail to see that here andhere. In light of that, the claim that "Suikosource in particular doesn't just post anything, but information that has been verified." rings false. Suikosource is a Wiki ran by and edited by fans, not much different than us over here (albeit with a different focus). Is there an author acknowledged by the industry as an expert who writes articles that are protected from non-experts? There have been cases where a Wiki is acknowledged as a reliable source—look for a Go (chess) FA. It qualified because the members (who have to be vetted) are experts at the games (usually association members or champions), and the site has been explicitly recommended (not just linked) by professional associations and publications. I do not see that case for Suikosource here. Jappalang (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Strategy guides

Can published strategy guides be used to verify a video game article; that is, establishing notability for an article perWP:GNG? MuZemike (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Source yes, notability usually no, because most strategy guides are not published independently of the video game. If they are, yes. User:Krator (t c) 22:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think in part it depends on the context noted in the guide though too. For example, some Pokemon players guides would have an aside talking about a particular fistful of the characters like Jigglypuff or Mewtwo and their opinions on them. Something though stating facts about all characters in a fighting game...sometimes not so much unless opinion gets tossed in there too. At least that's how I've always looked at them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Same sentiments as Krator. Most guides are endorsed by the game's developers (Bradley's and Prima's "Official" game guides). They are primary sources that can only be used to source information pertaining to the gameplay and mechanics of the game, but are not considered reliable for disputable information (such as claims of being the "first" game to do such and such, or receiving "universal acclaim"). Guides fail the "Reliable" and "Independent of the subject" criteria in the GNG. Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, most guides aren't independent of the developer: officially licensed/authorized/commissioned or what not. In my experience working on 4X, you can get an article up to featured quality using sources like game guides and instruction manuals to fill in important factual gaps. But you'd be getting into WP:GAMECRUFT if you started using it for more than that, and it probably can't establish notability. That's my understanding of it. Randomran (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Videogamepricecharts.com

An IP has been trying to add http://www.videogamepricecharts.com as a source in Mario Kart Wii, seethis edit. I'm wondering if it's a reliable source. --Silver Edge (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally our articles shouldn't even mention price, and there's nothing on the web site to suggest it meets WP:RS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The reference to suggested retail price appears to have been made to help substantiate the 'scalping' of the product due to supply and demand issues, which would in itself be relevant to the subject that the article speaks of. From looking at the website itself, I see nothing to suggest that it does not meet WP:RS. Its a neutral site that cites its own sources and show data and information to substantiate its claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by69.105.94.123 (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Fansites

I disagree with the current fansite discussion which give an instance in which content can be linked to on fansites. If a site is not a reliable source that means we don't trust it for anything, that includes hosting other things. If we can't trust the site then there is no evidence that they haven't tampered with a transcript, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

By that extension that would negate a multitude of available information for the purpose of citations. When we cite anything in a magazine or whatnot we're still taking that very same risk regardless: there's nothing to say an article in EGM couldn't be skewing material so that it "harmlessly" presents a subject in a viewpoint the writer wishes to express; editorial process doesn't cover something like that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's also point out that it's unlikely that a fan site devoted to a topic is going to host material from the game and then manipulate it. Either way the only fan site I ever look at and use for sourcing in Halo.Bungie.Org, but it's a bit different as it has attracted mainstream attention and its owner has a close relationship with the game developer. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

unlikely doesn't mean impossible.--Crossmr (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Either we trust a site or we don't. There is no half-trust concept here. We trust magazines because they stand by their reputation, and have a reputation for fact checking, responsible editing and reporting, etc. If we can't trust fansites for any content, we can't trust them to host transcripts. We don't even trust a lot of 3rd party hosted videos here because they might have been tampered with. With that being the case, I can't see how 3rd party hosted transcripts should be any different.--Crossmr (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with "We trust magazines because they stand by their reputation, and have a reputation for fact checking, responsible editing and reporting, etc." There's plenty of commment about: their suceptibility to commercial pressure; tight deadlines that aloow for only a couple of hours' play-testing; and factual errors.

The difficulty with fansites as a class is that they vary. The best know far more than the mags, while the worst are just fan-boy ravings.-- Philcha (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really that difficult. If a fansite doesn't have any editorial oversight and any accountability they shouldn't be trusted period. If we're going to cite something we can cite the video that we're taking it from, there is no requirement to provide a transcript for people to read. As an example I'd point to Neurotically Yours. Not a video game, but this very issue. A fan site(really the only one of any substance) hosts official transcripts of the episodes (in that they're linked from the creators site). However, they take great liberties with them. if characters don't have names, they give them one, etc. To the point where they've edit warred for months (or years at this point its hard to recall) to include those fan created names on wikipedia. Reading your guideline it would suggest that they could do that, and if they read it, it would probably start a whole new round of trying to push those names in to the article. (Even though its on the deletion block). The fact is as editors we can't be sitting here making judgment calls about how good we think a particular fan site is and if this one is really trustworthy. Fansites should at best be relegated to external links and at worse not at all. In extraordinary circumstances a site might be considered reliable but that needs to be taken on a case by case basis.--Crossmr (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you talking about citations or external links? SharkD (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about citations. The current guideline says that we should be allowed to link to transcripts hosted on fan sites and consider it reliable. I disagree.--Crossmr (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've posted about this at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Fansites_and_official_transcripts to generate a wider consensus as I feel the issue of using fansites for any kind of citation far exceeds just their usage in the matter of video games.--Crossmr (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to offer my two cents on the matter, since a page I'm currently editting is having problems with this.

I respect the need for reliable sources. Now, yes, some fansites aren't reliable. But I disagree with "we either trust them, or we don't." Sometimes, fansites offer content that is reliable, and content that isn't. Honestly, sometimes the fansites have more content than the official ones. I'll provide an example; Yu-Gi-Oh! GX. At one time, the official site had two-three paragraph biographies for seven characters, that was it, and the information was sorely outdated. Several fansites like "Janime" provide detailed episode and character summaries with little to no bias, but as they are fansites, their content is considered unreliable. The fact is, I see it often, where official sources provide no where near the coverage fansites do.

Also, I work as staff on a StarCraft fansite. So I know that yes, we do write some stuff ourselves. But we clearly mark it as such. We source everything we can when we can. But sometimes, stuff can't be sourced - at a gaming convention, we wrote an article covering a Q&A panel, most of it quoted directly. But this content is unreliable because we are a fansite.

It just bothers me that fansites are universally unreliable sources simply because they're fansites. Many fansites are well-known in their communities for providing detailed and reliable information. What, excactly, is it about fansites that makes them un-usable? I honestly think it shouldn't be uniform like that. A fansite's reliability should be judged on the quality of its content, not just on the fact it's a fansite. Really, what makes "reliable" sites like, GameSpot or IGN, different from some of the other sites that are just as good if not better? Why is that? The Clawed One (talk)

it comes down to the description at WP:RS for one: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication I don't generally see that describing any fan sites. There might be the extremely odd exception as pointed out above, but random fansite X doesn't meet this criteria. Self-published (which generally all fansites are) isn't considered a reliable publication process. The fact that fansites go into more detail than other reliable sources is part of the point. Its their job to do that, they're fan sites. Reliable sources are often in a position of covering all the details that are relevant to the general public outside of the fandom. WP:NOT covers us not being a gameguide (which a lot of video game articles can devolve into), or a compendium or all human knowledge. If reliable sources don't feel that various aspects of subjects, including games, are relevant to be covered or necessary for the understanding of the reader, we typically don't either. I could probably find a lot of information about George Bush's house, details on the construction, layout, materials used, placement on the property, etc all a matter of public record kept at the city planning office. I could write a terribly detailed and interesting section in the article about him on this aspect, but unless reliable sources have been giving coverage to his house and the house itself is a really notable aspect of his life, its not really relevant to the article about him for the general public. Its just not necessary to understand the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing we even get anything done with guys like you making a fuss. But regardless, there are fansites with sanction from third party sources and even the primary sources. Soul Calibur Universe, for example, was the off-site link for Namco's official US Soulcalibur Archive website before their site died, and has also been linked to by places such as UGO Networks as a source of information on material related to that series. It's effectively in the end the same case as a blog: if the site can be proven to be reliable and is vouched for reliability, there's no reason not to include the material if it's beneficial to an article and the only available source. Is that foolproof? No. Does it make sense to blacklist all of them because they might be wrong? Hell no. I think many of us can safely say they'd rather see a site like The Clawed One's if he demonstrates an editorial hierarchy and demonstrated reliability can be cited for some fact in an article over a case where a mainstream website like IGN gets the very same fact dead wrong. And as a pre-counter, I'll add that to a general public a website such as that will tend to cover a subject much more readily sometimes than a mainstream one, given that there's no money to be made for the mainstream site to cover such a topic (and writers have to be paid, after all).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as a FYI, when we publish original content on my fansite, first, we typically run the idea past the head guy. He gives the okay, we write the article, and share it with the rest of the staff. We discuss the content, change it when we feel its needed, add and remove stuff, decide the format for the content to published to the site, and then we go and do that. We always discuss our content with each other thoroughly before making it public. The Clawed One (talk)

You seem to have an issue just continuing the discussion without tossing in a little dig to get things started. You might want to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before you continue in this and related discussions. If we consider it the same case as a blog, which is a self-published source the guidelines for citing that are only in the case when the subject of the article is the author of the blog, or when the blog author is shown to be a published expert in the field in which he's writing. So if reliable sources are constantly citing a particular self-published source yes you can make a case that it is probably a reliable source, but again, a reliable source making a mistake isn't a license to cite an unreliable one.--Crossmr (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And there's ignorance on your part. Not all blogs are self-published. And truth be told I could really care less if you find my "digs" bothersome: I find your whole demeanor detrimental and clear inexperience with this matter despite you expressing yourself as an expert rather troubling. And you can avoid twisting words as well: nobody said to cite an unreliable one. I stated very plainly that a fan site can have just as much reliability, and shouldn't be excluded for being a fan site if that can be proven.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. I've seen reliable sources gives faulty information, and fansites give spot-on accurate information. I just don't see how a fansite, simply being a fansite, automatically makes it unreliable. The Clawed One(talk)

I'm aware that there are some sites who use blog in name only to cash in on the trend. In fact if you looked through my contrib history to this type of discussion I've often made that distinction. Newspapers and magazines often use the term blog to describe a type of editorial-opinion column. However those are given the same oversight and backing that all other articles in their magazine/paper/etc are given. Those were never in dispute. My use of the word blog was obviously referencing self-published blogs since I followed that up with a discussion about self-published ones. Pretending I was making a comment about something I wasn't doesn't prove your point. In terms of the fansite being shown to be reliable it would be on the editor trying to include it as a source to demonstrate that it meets all the aspects of a reliable source. Trying to prove that the author or authors of the site are considered trustworthy and/or authoritative is going to be rather problematic unless newspapers and magazines have been citing the site. As for my demeanor I've never once claimed I'm an expert. but I do have a long contrib history to discussions both on WP:V and WP:RS and have only ever given my opinion tempered with what I've seen agreed to on the talk page there and other article talk pages.--Crossmr (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but here's the problems I see with that.

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process - Reliable...how? What exactly makes a publication process reliable? Is there a step-by-step guide?

Their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand - Regarded as trustworthy and authoritive by who?

Self-published (which generally all fansites are) isn't considered a reliable publication process - Except that a billion internet sites are self-published. IGN and GameSpot, are often self-published.

If reliable sources don't feel that various aspects of subjects, including games, are relevant to be covered or necessary for the understanding of the reader, we typically don't either - Except that different reliable sites give different information. For example, my Soul Reaver article, I've tracked down about half a dozen reviews from reliable sources. One such review says the gameplay is similar to Tomb Raider, another review makes a point of saying it's not, and the other reviews say nothing either way. So what do I say in the article, if anything, when different reliable sources provide different information? Eidos Interactive's official website, and their entry on Soul Reaver, gives a single paragraph summary and a few bullet points. Is that all we should give as well?

It just seems to me there's plenty of room for interpretation here, and I'm wondering one who's interpretations these guidelines are being followed. Is there some Wikipedia God we go to and request an analysis of a source to determine it's reliable? Do we take the issue to Jimbo Wales? Who is the judge of reliability here? The Clawed One (talk)

If you get conflicting information that is when you make statements like some interviewers felt x, while other interviewers felt y. Those are perfectly acceptable kinds of things to write in an article if you have reliable sources to back up both sides. You can see WP:NPOV for information on presenting 2 or more points of view about a subject. As for what a reliable publication process is and how it differs from IGN and Gamespot, this typically comes down to is there editorial oversight? Are there fact checkers? does the site guarantee its content (and make a statement to that effect). Plus a host of other duties a publishermight do. We don't give any more credibility to self-published books than we do self-published websites. I'm sure someone far more knowledgeable than I can really explain the distinction between a site like gamespot and Bob's Peggle Fansite. I realize some fansites put together small 'editing teams' which can appear similar but thats when we get in to the difference of someone being an editor as a hobby and someone who is actually a professional editor. Just because I flew a cardboard airplane off my roof doesn't make me a pilot. Which comes to the trustworthy or authoritative part, generally this is established through a variety of means which can include professional awards for journalism, being cited in academic papers, or other things we consider reliable sources.--Crossmr (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a different subject. When someone's given a game to review for a majority it usually comes down to "here's a game, play it, give me a review to print." I've had more than a few state directly when I asked "why don't you discuss 'so-and-so' characters in their review" that they're just given this game, know nothing about it and just have to get a quick experience. And we're putting this opinion as a sole forefront if another more in-depth opinion can be validated? That's poor judgment.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what he means. With Soul Reaver, IGN's reviewer has specifically states he finds the drama of the series tiresome at times and annoying for not revealing answers but only questions. GameSpot's reviews are all business. Whom do you think, is more knowledgable - a review for the sake of a review, or a review by a member of the staff who actually knows the series? The Clawed One (talk)

Is it? All view points are relevant. The reviewer who is a fan of the series and the reviewer who knows nothing about it. The reviewer who knows nothing about it can give a good perspective for those coming to the article to learn about the game but who know nothing about it. Maybe they heard a friend/kid/etc talking about the game and want the outside view it, they don't particular care about the fact that there are still unanswered questions in the story that started 3 games back. Putting both in an article (if they exist) is much better than just one.--Crossmr (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot taking submissions

This may not be new, but it is the first time I've noticed it. GameSpot, as a part of its new site design, is now taking user submissions for game data such as release dates and so forth. Seeimage. SharkD (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you follow the link all you can update are:

Region:

Title:

Release Date:

Publisher:

Distribution:

Product ID:

ESRB Rating:

References/Notes

They ask for a reference, which imdb does as well, but the community no longer considers IMDB reliable. The page does state All data submissions become the property of CNET, but you will be credited if your information is used. so I would say if any release dates are shown being contributed to a user it shouldn't be considered reliable and verified elsewhere.--Crossmr(talk) 06:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Another games database

I just came across Video Games Rebirth. I find it has fairly complete info on developers/publishers/release dates, especially for obscure Japanese releases. It fills in a lot of holes that MobyGames leaves open. SharkD (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sega-16.com

Looking for clarification from those with better knowledge of reliable sources regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pier Solar and the Great Architects: would sources from sega-16.com (source in question: [63]) be considered reliable? MuZemike (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• The following are some interesting excerpts from the site itself. I've highlighted the most important sentences:

On the site's Three-Year-Retrospective in 2007, site-founder Ken Horowitz writes:

Our readership has exploded. When Sega-16 first launched in 2004, we were getting a scant fifty to sixty unique visitors a day. As it stands, we're consistently topping two thousand daily. This growth has been in a steady climb over the years, as more and more people begin to notice us. The more people who read us, the more they'll spread the word. We're out to provide accurate and interesting content, and it appears that our readers agree with what we're doing!

Our prestige has continued to grow. Since last June, Sega-16 has been featured on the front page of such major sites as Gamespot, IGN, 1up, Kotaku, Joystiq, and Gamasutra. Our interviews with former SOA [Sega of America] president Tom Kalinske and former STI designer Peter Morawiec made major waves across the Internet (both almost doubled our visits for their respective months), and we've been cited as a source in Genesis articles for two issues of Retro Gamer magazine. Not bad! We're also linked in almost every Genesis-related article in Wikipedia, which has helped our exposure greatly. For the coming year, we look to maintain this prestige and get the word out even more about what we're doing.

On the site's Four-Year-Retrospective earlier this year, Horowitz writes:

Our audience has expanded. Last year I was happy with our our readership growth, and that has carried over to this year. Sega-16 has grown beyond the niche of just being a fan site and has become large enough that people from all over the industry have come to read our content. I've been emailed by designers, journalists, executives, and a lot of old Sega corporate alumni. The response they've given me has been overwhelmingly positive, and it feels great to know that we're doing something that those who worked behind the scenes can appreciate.

We have a great and thriving forum community. A friend once told me that site traffic does not necessarily equate to forum traffic. That's quite true, and once a site reaches the point where both are on par, it can safely be said that a successful community has been established. All sorts of great new members have come to the forum this year, from older gamers to businesses, and we've had a great period of growth. Our regulars are as active as ever, and they've even managed to bring over (nag?) their friends into joining.

One thing that I am especially impressed with is the amount of young forum members we've gained. It's heartening to see people who were weren't even born when the Genesis was launched come to the site and actively participate in the discussion. Getting the new generation of gamers into retro consoles can be difficult, and I'm impressed with how successful we've been at passing the torch.

We've gained a reputation in the industry. Not only do the fans like us, but the big fish have taken notice of us as well.Retro Gamer magazine recently interviewed me for their "site of the month" feature, and companies like Namco and Capcom have added us to their press lists. These last two companies have granted us interviews (check out our interview with Namco about the new Splatterhouse and be on the look out for our upcoming Commando 3 interview with Capcom) and press privileges for future articles. This is a big deal, as publishers are reluctant to deal with smaller sites, and establishing press credentials with them means we've moved up to a bigger league. I've already made ties with Sega itself, and getting noticed by more companies means faster and easier coverage of any new Genesis-related properties that come out in the future. I intend to make spreading our name in the industry a major objective for this year, and so far we're off to a great start.

DCEvoCE (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Long story short: no. All the above is simply marketing spiel from the site itself. How does one get "front page" appearance on GameSpot and IGN, especially when their main pages are segmented templates, sectionalized into News, Features, Reviews, etc. That is some marketing spin there... Furthermore, being featured as a "site of the month" is no proof of reliability. A site that has fancy widgets and a large interactive community can be promoted as a "site of the month", but unless the article itself distinctly states the site is known for accurate information, we do not assume that the featured site is reliable. Finally, when the site'scontribution guidelines distinctly state "It is your responsibility to verify your sources and submit truthful and accurate work." and has no statement that the site does any fact checking of its own (spell- and grammar-checks do not constitute fact checking) or would fess up to any such errors, it is pretty much unreliable. Jappalang (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, of course it's from the site itself. I clearly labeled as as such. I posted it to have provide something to start the discussion, not necessarily to end them. - Regarding the site's contribution guidelines: They are meant for reviews and certain features. What makes the site a VERY reliable source for Wikipedia articles are the monthly interviews conducted by the site's founder: 12345678910 - all of which were published in 2008. One of the most notable interviews was conducted with Tom Kalinske, which got Sega-16 coverage in all major video game sites [64][65]345 is what I could find after a quick qoogle search. DCEvoCE (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Interviews do not make the entire site reliable. Jappalang (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that we have an expert on the subject who happens to have a site on which he publishes his research. That's what makes his articles reliable in most cases (even experts can be wrong), not the user submitted content he happens to host, after being reviewed by him personally btw. This user submitted content makes up about 60-80% of the reviews, and at least a few of the features. However, even some of the features and reviews obviously were written by experts on the subjects. That's what makes their articles more reliable than e.g. articles published at other publications like IGN, or whatever. The authors at e.g. IGN might be capable of writing an article about classic video game systems, but not all of the authors at IGN are experts on this subject. DCEvoCE (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What about if you quote an interview? It should be more "reliable" (whatever that means in these circumstances) than original content by an author. Who asures bigger sites like IGN are "reliable", when they are full of misinformation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by94.191.168.76 (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Verifiability" and "reliability" in Wikipedia-context do not take into account a singular opinion of a site's accuracy. The established media's quoting of and sourcing from the bigger sites lend them credence. For interviews, as pointed out elsewhere, their existence on un-reliable sites would generally make them unreliable (basically the devil's advocate would say, "how can we be certain the subject was not misquoted or had his words changed or made up"). If the subject himself points back to the interview and recommends it, that would be the best proof that the interview (and it alone) is reliable on the site (but not making the site a "reliable" one). Jappalang (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

quick RS check

Would www.imperial-library.info be considered a reliable source on anything video game related? I figure the answer is obvious, but I wanted to get a second (and third) opinion Randomran (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No. It has truly extensive information on the Elder Scroll series, but it is all fan-generated and has not one reliable source vouching for its accuracy. The tooltip popping up over Forum Scholars Guild stating, "contains articles and research papers created by fans of the Elder Scroll series and its lore" can give shivers up Wikipedia's RS policy. It would have been better for its Interview section if they did not have "An interview with some Vvardenfell locales about Morrowind and her culture, conducted by Skeleton Man." and such. Nonetheless, for those interviews with real-life subjects, they can be deemed absolutely reliable if the subjects themselves linked back or recommended the interviews. Jappalang (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Japanese sites

Could someone come up with a list of reliable Japanese video game sites? I'm fairly clueless in this regard. SharkD(talk) 11:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have provided 4 in the list (JP). Most of the rest do not seem reliable (although there are some that seem to be, but I am unable to verify if the company behind them is truly a substantial media company or not), either start-ups like Kotakus and Joystiqs of the West (hence, requiring an analysis of the author's reliability) or totally fansite-ish. There could be some sites which belong to small-scale niche game-magazines that I may have left out. Jappalang (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Article on GamesIndustry.biz

This GamesIndustry.biz article (published on October 26, 2007) which is used in two featured articles, Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy XII, to source the top 10 best-selling PlayStation 2 games, appears to have copied its "The top-selling PS2 titles worldwide" list from List of best-selling video games#PlayStation 2 (October 14, 2007 version), which I have also noted here. I'm wondering if this article is considered a reliable source since it appears to use a Wikipedia article as its source, at which time it was inaccurate—the figures for Grand Theft Auto III and Vice City were deemed to include the Windows and Xbox versions, not just the PS2 version; also Final Fantasy XII's figure wasn't a "worldwide" total as it only included sales in Japan and the US. --Silver Edge (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

But there's no way to know if it used the Wikipedia article as its source. I mean, you could try contacting them, but it's just as possible they used the same questionable sources in writing their article too. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Quoting user-ratings averages for games?

hi, what are the relevant guidelines/policies in respect to quoting user-ratings averages for videogames (especially freeware amateur games)? eg "Game XYZ scored 7.9/10 in a poll of 80 users in the Game Competition 1997". should this kind of info even be included? if so, is it a reliable source, or does it count as user-generated content? thx86.27.105.148 (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't use user-generated content such as rankings for the same reason we don't use blogs; anyone can game the scores. For example I could get a couple of my friends to game the Metacritic user averages for a game. As such, it's unreliable and not allowed per policy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks. 2 follow-ups though: (a) is there any specific quotable text in any policy or guideline that confirms this, and (b) what if the polling ended at a specific date in the past and you cannot "game" the averages (now)? do different rules apply in that case? cheers! 86.27.105.148 (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

On a), it's descended from the policy of WP:SPS. As per b), it still wouldn't fly. If we were talking about reader polls that were published, for example IGN or a print mag in Game Informer, you might be able to get that to fly under WP:RS.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Games Radar

I'm taking a look at Games Radar. I don't believe that it's unreliable, but I haven't seen definitive proof that it is reliable. The most evidence I can find is here:

• http://www.gamesradar.com/f/about-gamesradar-us/a-20080319234425185086

... which shows there are standards of editorial review. To my knowledge, they are factually accurate (so long as we're not looking at user-generated FAQs and so on, which are included in parts of the site). But I was looking to discuss it and try to get to the bottom of it. Maybe someone else has seen something that would give this a clear thumbs up or thumbs down. If there is doubt either way, it might be a good idea to contact them. Thoughts? Randomran (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I know you want it to be reliable as your article relies on it heavily :P But yes, it has editorial policies, and perhaps more importantly (and surprisingly which their own site doesn't make clear), they are part of Future Publishing,[66], see footer which ownsComputer and Video Games, Edge, and a couple other print mags. So I think it's safe to add to the list. Perhaps we should send an email to nail down exactly what content can be trusted? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's reassuring :) I haven't the faintest idea who to contact or what to ask. Would you be okay with taking the lead on this? (Unless someone else knows.) Randomran (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll see. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

... Any progress? Randomran (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I kinda forgot about this... it's on my todo list. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's cool :) As soon as you have time to get to it... Randomran (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

ESRB

The Entertainment Software Rating Board provides a database of titles submitted by publishers for rating in the North American territory.[67] These ratings are already listed on innumerous individual game pages on Wikipedia (seeFinal Fantasy VII, Super Mario Galaxy, etc. ad nauseum). Titles often appear in the ratings database before commercial release, providing data for individual titles' ratings as well as revealing previously unannounced titles being prepared for release by their respective publishers.[68] Publishers pay non-trivial fees in order to register game ratings.[69]

I submit that the ESRB is an official video game industry organization serving North America, and as such, can be treated as a reliable resource for information on video games in the region. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out, Cheesemeister is only begging it to be a source, due to this discussion:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Ongoing_issue_regarding_ESRB_as_a_source. In the discussion, it's proven that ESRB isn't reliable all the time. However he refuses to understand the difference between fact and speculation. Several editors have pointed out issues with the ESRB, but he refuses to listen. It simply isn't completely reliable, therefore it shouldn't be used to source articles. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No source is 100% reliable. Facts change and reports are updated accordingly. The ESRB is as official as it gets, having been established by the ESA for the purpose of rating games prior to being released. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, let's not be so accusatory, Rob. However, I believe that not only should the ESRB not be listed as a reliable source (for we will have to speculate as to whether companies consider the cost of rating to be non-trivial enough to not secure a rating), it should be listed as being unreliable to verify a release, as it only indicates that the game exists, not that it will be released. And Cheese, your interest is in securing the ESRB as being a source for a game's release. The only thing the ESRB may be used for is that a game exists, not that it will be released. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

and obviously ESRB doesn't give release dates. However, if they did then it would be a reliable source...that is NOT the case though! Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fact: when a title is rated by the ESRB for a particular platform, it exists. If said title has not already been released, then it is by definition a potential release. The lack of release dates means there's no expiration date, aside from an entry being removed from the database altogether. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To list it on the VC games list suggests that it is a future release, which is original research. I don't think you understand that no level of speculation is appropriate. We can only add content that can be verified by sources. That a game is verified as existing does not become "this game will be released" without speculation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A potential release is not equal to a future release. No such claim need be made. ESRB-rated titles are, in fact, potential releases. No speculation is involved. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A potential release lacks the significance to be mentioned on the list. - A Link to the Past(talk) 08:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

First, something that does not truly apply here but could do with clarification. The accuracy of the source does not fully determine it as an WP:RS. It is only a part of the requirements and need not be 100%, especially if editorial policies declare that a company is willing to correct mistakes in an open and verifiable manner. I am not going to discuss ESRB's editorial policy as it does not have one; it is not a media company. Now, that is gotten out of the way; let us move on.

A personal declaration: I do not favor articles dealing with pending or future releases as personally I think it violatesWP:CRYSTAL. Games shown to be long-standing vaporware are in a class of their own (note that game development cycles stretch to 5–6 years, so only games that have not been released beyond that duration should even be considered as vaporware). Hence, I would say that if everyone avoided dealing with such items and focused on what is released, we might have avoided all such drama.

Disregarding my opinion and focusing on policy, when we source something to back up the statements in this project, it must be in the correct context per WP:V: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." That said, since the focus is on games that will be released, where is ESRB's mission statement that the games they rate will definitely be so? ERSB's mission is not to release or sell games, theirs is to rate the games at various stages of development. Some games get cancelled in certain stages and never go past production, and the ESRB cannot do a thing about that. In short, the ESRB is no source to be used to determine if a game will be released. Jappalang (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jappalang that jumping at a game being announced is an unneeded practice among video games articles. It is not Wikipedia's (or any other encyclopedia's) job to provide up-to-date news about topics.

Back on point, I also agree that the context needs to be properly taken into account. The ESRB should only be used to source that a game has been rated a particular rating because that is their sole purpose. However, if a separate third-party source cites them and reports that a game is coming out, then that third-party source can be used so long as it is reliable (I believe similar to how we handle VGChartz). But as it stands, using the ESRB listings as such dips too much into speculation and original research. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC))

Concur with the above two statements. Really, there's no reason to make this much of a fuss over such a limited source of info.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

An ESRB rating means that the company getting the rating has completed (or near completed) the game and needs the rating to release it. While it can't be used for a release date, it is relieable enough to know that the game does exist. TJSpyke 15:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

VC games were completed in the first place. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

TJ Spyke, as already been stated, ESRB may give a rating, but that does not mean the game company will release it. Nowhere in its process does it state that giving a rating will guarantee a game's release. Saying that just because ESRB gives a rating means the game will be released is pure original research. Jappalang(talk) 01:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As an example, Dr. Mario Online RX was rated for Wii long before its release. - A Link to the Past(talk) 01:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinions about average user-ratings statistical analysis

There is a live discussion at Talk:Floatpoint about the inclusion/exclusion of this sentence (sourced directly to the statistics themselves, although the statistics do not actually make the comparisons, or indeed list the years together) about average user-ratings for the game: Floatpoint had an average score of 8.4.[2] That score is the highest of any Interactive Fiction Competition entry from 1999 through 2007.[3] That score was topped in 2008 by Violet 's score of 8.53

one user believes it's an important fact, another that it's a meaningless irrelevance and should not be included, citingWP:WEIGHT and the fact that no external sources discuss this fact.

as this is a little-seen page, would appreciate some 3rd-party opinions in the discussion at Talk:Floatpoint#Floatpoint statistics. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.206.218 (talk • contribs)

RPGamer and RPGFan

Bringing this up for discussion. These sites are in the list without offering convincing explanations to their reliability (the media groups they belong to do not seems reliable in themselves)? What makes them reliable? Google books and searches offer little to help their cause. If nothing can back them up, then they should be removed from the list. Jappalang (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

it's come up at FAC, and I couldn't find any real justification then. I'd remove. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say more research might be in order though. They're used readily for game-related soundtrack articles, I know that much, so those that have worked on such articles may be able to shed light on their reliability?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There's this old FAC, which might help a little for RPGamer's case--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The FAC did not pass, and no one else vouched for the sites' reliability. RPGFan is a total wash since Cerberus Media Group is a mystery to everyone. As for RPGamer, they might seem to be affiliates rather than owned (managed) by CraveOnline Gaming Channel (AtomicOnline), since "This is accomplished by having a network of gaming sites along with our in-house gaming news and reviews team." and might not receive the same level of editorial control as the in-house sites. RPGamer could turn out to be reliable per the project's guidelines but we need further evidence for it. Jappalang (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Might add this about RPGFan too. Seems GameRankings readily uses them as seen here: [70], [71], [72]. Not sure on their full criteria, but if we discount them as a source how's that affect the credibility and use of GR's composite score for related games?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No go for claims of "GameRanking (or Metacritic) uses them". I tried that in an FAC and got shot down. GR and MC have their own criteria, which do not match the guidelines for Wikipedia. I shall go ahead and remove RPGFan from the table. Let us continue looking at RPGamer, which seems more promising. Jappalang (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we *completely* sure we want to omit RPGFan as a resource? The reason I'm saying this is because I think on a grander scale this is a bad move that I actually have to object to. I mean the whole issue of us rejecting RPGFan as a source when GameRankings readily uses it in some cases for 50% of a score seems to be odd. In a case like Final Fantasy Legend, their score completely skewed the final score upward by a significant amount. To some degree I think we should be able to argue that if GameRankings does cite a review by them in their score of a game, the review should be usable for that game and articles related to it in the worst case scenario, no?

Beyond that I'm contacting the owners of the site directly to see what info I can get on their verifiability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, did a search on Google News for "RPGFan" -"RPG Fan", got Gamasutra citing them as a source. I'll keep digging around.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Spoke with Patrick Gann of RPGFan. He offered that the european version of Atelier Iris 2 cited the website on the back of their cover. He noted IGN has cited them before as well (found this) and has been cited by Kotaku more than once it seems. There's a literary reference to one of their review scores too found here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I know, rapid responses but I got an answer back quickly on the question of their owners and this was the response:

"Cerberus Media Group is a company formed, and only formed, for the legitimacy of RPGFan. CMG is made up of a couple of shareholders (I am not one of them, sadly...). They don't make any profit, but they are the business wing. When we bill a company after running an ad for them (such as Hudson, NIS America, Atlus, etc) the bill is from Cerberus Media Group."

He asked also what other info would be needed on CMG to prove the legitimacy, including offering a list of shareholders if desired.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, CMG was formed for the sole purpose of legitimizing RPGFan? That sounds like a step backwards in establishing reliability. Pagrashtak 03:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well from what he meant it was set up as their business end to set it up as a company for shares to be bought and whatnot. It does show corporate structure at the least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he just worded it poorly. When I read that I got the impression of something closer to a front. Pagrashtak 17:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Having one's reviews boasted by the product is no measure of reliability (I believe some of us, including me, have tried that at FAC, and again been told of that). Commercial products cherry-picked reviews to boost their product's profile, like a production company would put Ebert's "Two thumbs up!" on the movie poster, but would discreetly leave out Ebert's "Raises a stink worse than a skunk" for another.

Again, we do not follow GR's or MC's selection because their criteria are different from this project.

Gamasutra citing RPGFan is for its translation of the Dengeki newspiece, not a good example to prove it is reliable (akin to "according to VGChartz").

As for CMG, Pagrashtak is correct. We cannot recognize a corporate backing for RPGFan because CMG is not a reputable media company. It was set up to legitimize RPGFan as a business venture, instead of "Joe running a fansite". Therefore, CMG must show itself to have professional editorial standards and a reputation; right now, there is none to speak of. Jappalang (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say in the end this is a horrid lapse in judgment, and I don't mean offense by that to anyone here, I mean in general to the regulars at FAC. To say one source is invalid when it can skew a citable aggregate score significantly is disturbing. Especially given this is a decision that affects 13 current FA and no clue how many GAs, some of those articles citing RPGFan extensively for their editorial opinion. I'm sorry but it just doesn't sit right with me.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we have different criteria for different types of content? For example, I wouldn't cite any hard statements to RPGFan (e.g., statements like "Nintendo is currently developing a game with fuzzy bunnies."), but would it be acceptable to quote editorial comments, such as reviews? It seems to me than RPGFan is definitely a step down from IGN, GameSpot, etc. for facts, but is a step up from a random personal site when it comes to reviews. Do we acknowledge this, or draw a hard line for reliability? I need to think about that some more, as I see valid arguments on both sides. I'm curious what others' initial reactions are. Pagrashtak 21:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Let us be clear on one thing. Game Rankings' policy on what sites get included is here. Recapping,

1. At Least 300 archived reviews if they review multiple systems or 100 reviews if they concentrate on only one system or genre.
2. The site does at least 15 reviews a month.
3. The site is visually appealing and looks professional.
4. The site reviews a variety of titles.
5. The site has it's own domain name and is not hosted on GeoCities or another free server.
6. The reviews need to be well written.
7. The site conducts itself in a professional manner.''
8. There are some sites that have very short reviews that are non-informative and others that are just so poorly written, they are not included in the composite scores.

In what way does their criteria mirror WP:RS? We should look for sources that abide or are recognized by the policies and guidelines so that no one, unfamiliar with or particularly critical of video games, can dispute their reliability. GR is a statistics-gathering site that is recognized by the industry for the "mean industry average", but that does not make them the best judge of sites that are Wikipedia-reliable. Jappalang (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then shouldn't that bring into question the validity of even using GameRankings scores? Outside of that though there's still the issue of citing a source for its opinions vs citing it for stated facts, especially when RPGFan is effectively the only source for reviews on some material, notably soundtracks. I mean after all given the site has an established editorial process, what's to make their staff's opinion any less viable than IGN's?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, GR is recognized by the industry for providing a statistic, which is the simple basic arithmetic average of selected reviews (underlined for emphasis). They are not used as a reliable source for choosing reliable sites for the gaming industry. Back to RPGFan, what "established editorial process" has it? Listing editorial staff is no proof of that (basically, every fansite now has "editors"). IGN is also recognized by the industry for providing information that is reliable (with open corrections) while RPGFan is not even known. Jappalang (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the staff members, moreso Patrick Gann who was the one I spoke with, have been interviewed by a few sources (though I'll add none were IGN or that sort), and they do conduct business with the industry in terms of advertising. I mean no offense but "not every fansite" has that to fall back on. And again it is the only source for reception on some material. As it stands we wouldn't have a series of articles covering the Music of the Final Fantasy series if it wasn't for their coverage. You're effectively saying they're no better than some random fansite or blog where someone belts out their opinion, which doesn't seem to be the case of a group building a rapport with companies. Not to mention are we more than willing to drag over 10 articles to FAR because they cite it when we've said up until now they were a valid source?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, if I am not wrong, those 10+ articles were promoted when sources were not that intensively reviewed. The VG project has relied on several questionable sources on its articles (including FAs) in the past (including me during my initiation with Wikipedia). We should not simply pass sources off as reliable because it is the "only source" for that information (ref: Chrono Compendium). Advertising does not contribute to reliability (many fansites have advertisement banners as well), and the interviews with Gann seems more like a "closed garden" notability than an industry acknowlegement of his status (which in effect may only relate to him and not his site). I am not saying RPGFan is "simply a fansite", what I am saying is that at this moment, it just fails the policies and guidelines for a reliable site; there are plenty of equally impressive sites out there that would be questioned and opposed to in FACs. Jappalang (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got one of my own FAs affected by this, but that's not going to stop me from questioning reliability. If you ask me, the number of (older?) FAs using a certain website shouldn't hamper us from weeding out sources if they turn out to be bad. I suspect that should we start excluding one or more of these sites, most of the FAs will be cleaned up before they ever reach FAR. Pagrashtak 15:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Back to RPGamer, since they have no reliable publication or website to vouch for reliability,[73][74] the remaining avenue for recourse seems to be its acquisition by Crave Online. If Crave can be proven to exert editorial control over RPGamer, then that would be a good sign. However, Crave is simply a content portal.[75] They buy a bunch of sites they consider to be professional and interlink them together into one attractive package (consider the Portals on this project). They may have employees from giant media groups, but they are not in the editorial capacities.[76] Crave itself also does not seem to be considered by publications,[77] or websites to be of significance.[78] Does anyone have any information that pertains to Crave's control over its acquisitions? Jappalang (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Did we ever come to a decision here? I'm thinking we might remove these from the list since we haven't come to a consensus of reliability. Pagrashtak 16:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm keeping an eye on a FAC using these which seems to have gone a bit further in the studying of them as sources. Here's what's said in it:

• RPGamer: "Owned by Craveonline Media, LLC, which is in turned owned by AtomicOnline, LLC, which is a smallish media conglomerate that runs several dozen sites in three distinct areas (men 18-34, women 25-54, teens) with 13 million+ unique pageviews a month across their main sites. Article talking about them."

• RPG Fan: "A subdivision of Cerberus Media Group Inc., a Florida corporation formed to provide a backing company for the site. I have contacted both the head of the music reviews section as well as their marketing director, who both have said that all of their reviews are edited and fact-checked for accuracy, cross-checked and cited against other legitimate news sites whenever possible, and are also corrected if any error is later found."

That seems to be a bit more research gathered from both than we had here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of RPGamer being cited as a source. SharkD (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)