Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Revisiting Dot Esports

Dot Esports is currently listed under "reliable", but are we certain that's accurate? A recent featured article candidate had to remove all references to the website before it was passable. Should it be moved to situational/unreliable to not blindside people that check this page when writing high-quality articles? Anarchyte (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth and ImaginesTigers: Pinging those that took part the FAC discussion regarding this source. Anarchyte (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

After doing something thinking about this, I want to say that I'm pretty mixed on Dot Esports. At FAC, I had to defend the use of it for League of Legends's nomination. Here was what I wrote then (and what, full disclosure, was rejected by the reviewer): Dot Esports are weird! Surprisingly niche, but very well-established in that niche. To just name a few to give you a sample of their pedigree, they are regularly quoted by Reuters (1, 2), Wired, Polygon, and PC Gamer. A former writer for ESPN, Jacob Wolf, made an appearance in The Washington Post for moving from ESPN to Dot Esports. You can even see some of his writing on League for ESPN in the Gameplay section of my nomination :) The writing is absolutely fine, very accurate when it comes to League-related stuff; I can't speak for the rest of the site. It was a really useful resource and I think that, in being forced to remove them, it made the article overall a little weaker than it was before. At the same time, the site is a mess: their About page is essentially only reachable by typing in the URL. There's no ethical page on their site. But they do have writers with good pedigree who produce good work (again, for League of Legends-related stuff). I don't think it's suitable for FA candidates, but acknowledge the disadvantages of ruling it out. Situational seems a good idea; reviewers should try and make a determination about whether the information is accurate at GA. At FA, it’s too junky... we should revisit this in a year or so. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The "About Us" page is accessible by hovering over "More" in the right-most part of their header. I've only found high-quality coverage on the site, at least pertaining to Overwatch-related coverage, as well. Pbrks (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. It's true that some big names cite Dot Esports but I don't think that stands up to scrutiny. The two Reuters sources (12) are press releases. Wired uses them to source a quote that they probably couldn't get themselves. Polygon's ultimate source is a Reddit thread but they give Dot Esports credit for finding it, which is pretty standard in tech and games journalism. PCGamer quotes an interview on YouTube but also gives Dot Esports credit. I searched through Google News for "dotesports" or "dot esports" and got only 168 results. Most aren't reputable sites. A few are, but they're also just crediting Dot Esports for the tip or showing a tweet, like Engadget. I found one case of a source relying on original reporting from Dot Esports—this GameSpot article—but it's by a freelancer so not reliable. As far as I'm concerned, this site doesn't meet WP:REPUTABLE. Woodroar (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thoughts on this Daily Dot article (2021), this USA Today article, this PCGamer article, and these Esports Observer articles: [1], [2]? Pbrks (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
    • The Daily Dot is still mostly citing a Reddit thread, along with quoting Dot Esports citing two Tumblr threads. They even put a hat tip ("H/T Dot Esports") at the bottom of the article. Their update to the article cites KnowYourMeme as well, and we certainly don't consider them reliable. All things considered, this doesn't come across as an endorsement of Dot Esports' journalism—and it's not exceptional journalism on The Daily Dot's part, either. USA Today cites Dot Esports for an interview they couldn't duplicate. I think that's pretty standard and not something that I personally put much stock in. PC Gamer cites the Call of Duty League and credits Dot Esports for the tip ("Thanks, Dot Esports.")—but, again, they don't use any original reporting from Dot Esports. That first Esports Observer article cites Supercell but credits Dot Esports for finding it. The second article does cite original reporting by Dot Esports, which is good. But it's one article out of how many? To me, that's what it comes down to. I think we need to separate X cites Dot Esports because they do good journalism from X cites Y but thanks Dot Esports for finding it first, and virtually every citation is the latter, unfortunately. Woodroar (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I see those were not the best examples. Not trying to beat a dead horse, but I have a quite a bit more that I do believe meet the standard you're looking for:
        • Kotaku with major coverage based on Dot Esports' findings.
        • Rock Paper Shotgun relying on Dot Esports' report for the postponement of the Asian-Pacific finals for WESG's Counter-Strike: Global Offensive tournament.
        • Variety using a Dot Esports report regarding a lawsuit between Tencent and Moonton Technology.
        • ESPN using a Dot Esports report regarding fines for League of Legends players.
        • ESPN using a Dot Esports report regarding a team's nonpayment to its players.
        • The Verge relying on a Dot Esports report for the date that DrDisrespect began his streaming career.
        • PC Gamer using a Dot Esports report for information regarding Dota 2 player count.
        • PC Gamer using a Dot Esports report regarding users creating multiple accounts to receive Valorant beta keys.
        • PC Games using a Dot Esports report regarding a record in Apex Legends.
        • PC Games relying on a Dot Esports report for the date of League of Legends season 10.
        • PC Games using a Dot Esports report regarding a League of Legends show host on TBS.
        • PC Games relying on a Dot Esports report for details regarding a Twitch lawsuit.
        • IGN using Eurogamer and Dot Esports for Fortnite tournament placings and prize money.
        • International Business Times using a Dot Esports report in regards to weapons available in Apex Legends.
        • VPEsports using a Dot Esports report regarding a CSGO player transfer fee.
      • I believe that many big names do use Dot Esports because they do good journalism, and not because they found it first. I hope these examples sway your opinion. Pbrks (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Thank you for finding those! I have to admit that I stopped reading after the first six or seven, once it became obvious that it's not a fluke. I'd consider Dot Esports reliable at this point. As a niche outlet, I probably wouldn't use them as the only source reporting on controversial subjects, but it seems like bigger sources cite them enough that it likely wouldn't be an issue. Woodroar (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a difference between "reliable" and "highest-quality reliable sources in a field". Perhaps we should have some additional marker for people trying to take articles to FAC that certain sources might not meet gold standards, but I don't think just because they're not good enough for FA quality we should treat them like unreliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. Ideally, we could create a top-tier section (or hatnote/color) for sources that are considered FAC-worthy, followed by what we currently have: reliable, situational, unreliable, and inconclusive. While this would take a decent amount of time and effort, I think it would be very beneficial and removes a good bit of guesswork for users trying to bring articles to the featured status. Pbrks (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I would say go the other way. Right now we only have one source we believe is reliable but FAC has rejected. Mark it special, rather than the other way around. If and until other sources end up rejected. It may also be useful if, when a FAC has approved of or rejected sources from this list, we link to those facts for historical purposes. Beyond just recording it, the next time a FAC takes issue with a source we can point to past discussions that accepted it. -- ferret (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am fine for Dot Esports being used to cover the field of esports - but I would definitely veer away from them when it comes to BLP-related issues. (Eg: its fine to talk about player being an MVP, or trading between teams, but not used for allegations of being removed from a team or the like) The other esport sites tend to be a bit similar in this area I've found, pandering a bit to the level of "gossip rag" journalism when it comes to covering these types of things. But on the larger schemes around esports, just talking the leagues and formats and general stuff overall, Dot Esports is about as close to ESPN for this (ESPN itself covers esports but not to the same depth). --Masem (t) 16:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable, clearly, reliable sources consider Dot Esports to be a reliable source, so we should follow suit. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable per Pbrk's example sources with the usual provisos that not everything a reliable source publishes is that useful (i.e. per Masem, don't use dotesport's "gossip" stories and speculation - just the nuts & bolts of teams, players, and competitions). SnowFire (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. No less than the Gray Lady herself, The New York Times, directly cited DotEsports today: [3] ("The news of the restriction was first reported by Dot Esports", with link). SnowFire (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable given it is frequently used by other RSs it is reliable for its own niche in respect to eSports coverage.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Is Games Domain a reliable source?

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

According to its Wikipedia article, Games Domain was famous before going defunct. However, the source is a dead Business Wire source, so I don't know how accurate that is. The main reason I am asking is that I about to work on the article for Fallout and Games Domain has an interesting review of the game. Is Games Domain a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazman321 (talk • contribs)

Reliable. Games Domain, specifically GD Review, was an online magazine that started as a volunteer website and had since grown to include paid staff. Its owners were Attitude Network, then TheGlobe.com, then British Telecommunications, and finally Yahoo! Europe. The website had a section on its editorial policies, and has been cited by mainstream and other gaming sources. As I was writing this opinion, I found out that it also issued physical magazines. FreeMediaKid$ 08:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Fanbyte

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

Taking the temperature on Fanbyte.com. EIC is Danielle Riendeau (former reviews editor at Polygon.com, managing editor at Vice Waypoint) and the About page is full of familiar names with bylines at other RS (e.g. Imran Khan, Steven Strom, merritt k, etc.). Axem Titanium (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see why not. The EiC is clearly a qualified and experienced journalist, and the other writers’ credentials speak for themselves. Haleth (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been seeing some quality stuff coming from them too. I'd want to understand more about their editorial policy. But I'm a soft supporter of putting them on the reliable list, ideally with a few more editors who have experience to say one way or another. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Situational seems like a fair assessment to me. It would have helped knowing about its editorial policy, rather than having just an About page, so I have doubts considering all of the site to be reliable. However, there are certainly many credible journalists to be found there. At the very least, one should establish the credentials of an article's author before citing it. FreeMediaKid$ 09:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That Retro Video Gamer

Find video game sources: "That Retro Video Gamer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Looks like a self-published blog to me. Only used three times so far, on the specific subject of the ZX Spectrum Vega+. Opinions? - X201 (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure that this is an unreliable, personal blog. The owner is a Chris Thacker but Google has practically no hits for his name + this blog. The only other authors are "Izzy", whose profile is also called Chris Thacker, and Larry Hryb (Major Nelson), although his posts appear to be copy-pasted from his own blog (cf. original/copy), most likely by Thacker. IceWelder [✉] 07:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Total Games Network

Find video game sources: "Total Games Network" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I am a little surprised to see that Total Games Network is not on this list of sources. I should not be, though, as it was a relatively short-lived magazine and website that only existed from at least 1998 to 2006. Total Games Network, also known by its website domain, TotalGames.net, was founded and published by the accredited Paragon Publishing until 2003, when Highbury House acquired it to form Highbury Entertainment. The publication continued to run until 2006, when Highbury Entertainment itself was purchased by Imagine Publishing, after which the website presumably was shut down. Descent II is the article in which I learned of the website—and the one I am preparing for GA. My judgement on the publication defaults to it being a reliable source due to the reputations of its publishers, and I am confident in that guess unless someone here offers a valid objection. FreeMediaKid! 04:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Since it has been professionally published by companies generally known for having staff and editorial policy, I don't see a reason not to classify it as reliable. IceWelder [✉] 07:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Gamepur?

When I was searching for more citations to add to Bloons TD 6, I have noticed some articles on Gamepur. I am not quite sure how I should approach this website. Re liable or not reliable? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I was actually wondering this, too. According to their "About Page", GAMURS Group currently owns Gamepur along with Dot Esports, which is already listed as a reliable source for esports. Apparently a note on Dot Esports states that it “was previously part of The Daily Dot before being sold off to Gamurs,” which in my perspective either implies that Dot Esports is still reliable even as a part of the GAMURS media network, or its affiliation with GAMURS makes it unreliable but it hasn’t been properly checked yet. Personally it seems reliable to me, but I’m admittedly not the wisest wizard at the council when it comes to verifying “reliability.”

PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought we had previous discussions that it wasn't. If not, I'll look into it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the Sources page and searched for Gamepur in general on Reliable Sources/Perennial Sources, but I couldn't find anything; maybe there was a discussion before that I somehow overlooked. From their "About page" the site does have an editorial staff with senior, staff and contributing writers, but could you (or anyone) please look into it? Thanks. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I am on the fence about how to rate this source. Gamepur does not strike me as outstanding, nor does it strike me as coming close to being outright useless. An Ethics or Editorial Policy page would have helped, but as has been pointed out twice, they do have a section listing its editors, so I will describe what credentials the writers may have. I see that some of them have written for sources deemed reliable; one has written for GameRevolution, one for Prima Games, one for GameSpot and Digital Trends, and one for Destructoid and Paste. Scanning three of its thousands of articles, I see nothing out of the ordinary in its style of reporting. No rumors being pushed, just a few occasional typographical errors, and it cites the right sources whenever appropriate. Gamepur is occasionally cited by more reputable sources, and it even has conducted interviews, at least one of which has also been cited by those sources. However, because of my concerns stated earlier, I would not use Gamepur for its reviews, and I cannot describe it as truly reliable, so I am stuck being left with two choices of declaring it generally unreliable or situational. To be on the safe side, I would rather use other sources because I doubt leaving this one would cause problems. FreeMediaKid$ 03:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I originally considered that it could easily pass as a reliable source because from the quality of their articles, everything seemed in order as one would expect from a gaming news outlet; it wasn’t like Game Rant or anything with overly clickbait articles, and aside from the occasional listicles nothing seemed too outlandish. It had also been used as a reference in over 80 articles, several of them featured as good articles and one in particular on a FA (I did check to make sure the sources were added before the peer reviews for these articles as well). And as you pointed out, several of the writers have written for other reputable gaming outlets. I also couldn’t find anything on their Editorial Policy or Ethics Statements on their website besides the short description on their About Page, which is definitely something of concern. But overall it does seem at the very least situationally reliable so far; there aren’t any obvious red flags that I saw that would lead me to doubt it.

Also, I apologize for failing to clarify the point I wanted to make in my previous two comments. My rationale for voting Gamepur as reliable was a matter of association. If Dot Esports is still considered as a reliable source in spite of its new ownership by GAMURS Group, then I assumed it wouldn’t be unreasonable to consider Gamepur as also reliable, seeing as how it would presumably follow the same level of editorial scrutiny and expertise that one would expect from its sister site. However, just like notability isn’t inherited, reliability (probably) isn’t either. While their About page does state that they “hire freelance writers,” it seems less like an offer opened to the general public that would classify it as WP:USERG and more of an actual job in which writers require some level of actual experience. But anyway I digress; for now I believe situationally reliable would be appropriate, but I wouldn't object if anyone else found it reliable (or not). PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Revisiting HLTV.org

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

Since no discussion has taken place over this site's position as an Unreliable Source since this discussion in 2016, I feel it is time to revisit its place.

There is still no on-site credential listing for the sites news writers that I can find, which as far as I can tell is the reason for its listing as unreliable from the above discussion. Digging into a few of the individual journalists provides more information about their credentials. Luís "MIRAA" Mira has previously written for SkySports [4]. Tomi "lurppis" Kovanen (who is no longer active on HLTV) has written a guest article on PCGamer [5]. No one else who has made recent contributions seems to have any other credentials, after searching both their names and aliases.

HLTV's reporting and interviews have been used by Reputable sources repeatedly since the last discussion [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Their end-of-year player rankings are reported on by multiple reputable sites [11] [12], as are their weekly team rankings [13].

HLTV's event listings are reproduced in CS:GO's Main Menu.

HLTV and/or HLTV writers' work are consistently cited in Wiki articles about CSGO players: S1mple, Allu (gamer), Coldzera, Dev1ce, GeT_RiGhT, NiKo, Olofmeister, Twistzz, GuardiaN, NEO_(gamer).

I think HLTV has enough of a track record to be considered a reliable source in its niche, similar to consensus from this discussion of Dot Esports, but the lack of credentials for all but one of the sites active staff is concerning.

Birko bird (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

RPGamer

Introduction: I believe RPGamer is a situational source, not a reliable source. It should only be used for interviews. Here are my reasons why:

Staff credentials: I looked at the staff page and put every staff member (with the exception of those from the podcasting and development section) in both the reliable video game sources search engine and the situational video game sources search engine with RPGamer results being excluded. When a staff member is entered in, the search engine either returns no results or irrelevant results. The closest to a staff member with reliable credentials is Pascal Tekaia, who seems to be an author for Adventure Gamers. Even then, they are most likely not the same person as they have different usernames, different profile picture, different bios, and Pascal's Linkedin page only lists credentials for RPGamer. (Note: We have no way to determine if Pascal wrote the page as Linkedin is a social media site for workers and building up a resume. Anyone can claim to be whoever. However, it does help visualize the problem with Pascal.)

Use by other sources: Inputting RPGamer to the reliable video game sources search engine shows up only three things, irrelevant examples, Metacritic (which cannot be used to determine the reliability of a source), and sources only using RPGamer's interviews including Ars Technica Venture Beat, and IGN. This is why I believe RPGamer should only be used for interviews as that is what other reliable sources seem to be using it for.

Prior discussions: RPGamer is currently listed a "reliable". However, the prior discussions seem to either be inconclusive,[14][15][16] or mentioned in passing.[17][18][19][20] Two of the inconclusive discussions of RPGamer seemed to leaning towards the unreliable decision. The other inconclusive discussion asked a question but got no response. Also, sources getting mentioned in passing during discussions are not good determinations of whether or not a source is reliable.

Verdict: Considering the above, I believe that RPGamer should be listed under situational sources and only be used for interviews. I rest my case. Lazman321 (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not familiar with "modern" RPGamer, but "classic" RPGamer should still be considered a reliable source IMO - they were a reasonably competent shop. It's possible there's nobody left nowadays, of course. SnowFire (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• @SnowFire: Question, do you have source that says RPGamer was a "reasonably competent shop"? Also wait, "shop"? RPGamer is a journalism website, not a shop. Lazman321 (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• • • I think you're taking them a bit to literally. "Shop" can be used informally to refer to any organizational group, I don't think he literally meant they were a storefront. And I think he's saying that in his experience, he hasn't had any problems with using them. No glaring typos, click bait content, etc. Thats what I meant when I said something similar below. It's not worth a ton, but can be worth mentioning. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Sergecross has the right of it. See wikt:shop#Noun definitions 4 & 5. SnowFire (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• A couple initial notes. It's not required to know who wrote which article as long as they don't allow WP:USERG-content, which I don't think they do. And while I do recall it being situational in the past, I don't recall the "interviews-only" restriction. Anyways, I'll have to do some digging. I've always used the source without issue, but it's been a while since I've done a deep dive on them. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable. They've been around a long time with no observable changes to their editorial policy. They're a known-enough publication ("shop") to get big-name interviews in the industry. I don't see a compelling reason to remove them to situational on the account of some 10 year old discussions at VG/S. Their use by other reliable publications is a reason in favor of their reliability, not against. And the weird tangent about one particular reviewer is a baffling non-sequitur. We don't hold it against an entire publication that one reviewer might not be the same person as another reviewer at a different publication? Is that what you're trying to get across with that point? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• My point was the staff do not seem to have reliable credentials. But otherwise, I do see your point there. Lazman321 (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ah I see. The presence of "credentialed" reporters on staff is a sufficient but not necessary criterion for establishing reliability of a source. RPGamer as an institution has demonstrated a continuity of good editorial practices over the years, which thus confers the aegis of reliability onto its individual staff members who may not be independently established themselves. This institutional knowledge and reliability is presumed to persist until there is good reason to suspect otherwise (e.g. big sudden turnover after the outlet is bought by another company; cf. Deadspin). The VG/S list is best used as a rule of thumb about reliability, not the be-all end-all judge. Individual articles from a VG/S reliable outlet may be unreliable for various reasons and vice versa. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable As a niche site, I don't think its necessary that they have reliable credentials when they have the history within their niche of what they've achieved, and that others have found them reliable. Obviously would not be reliable for any non RPG game but as I've seen them publish about non-RPG games, I don't think we need to worry about this being situational. --Masem (t) 14:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• I do not see particular reasons to regard that site as unreliable: however, the release dates are sometimes wrong or vague: for example Megadimension Neptunia VII displays JP:Q2/2015, it should be 23/04/2015 (as stated here) or Pokémon Emerald, in which the EU date is missing, and it should be 21/10/2005. And there are a lot of cases like these ones. I have asked them to fix come of those errors, and they actually did it once, but they had never replied to me since. --Marcodpat (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Nerdist Industries

Hey guys. Is TheNerdist.com, of Nerdist Industries, a WP:RS or not? I came upon this. Thanks! — Smuckola(talk) 20:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Nerdist is considered reliable by the comics and film projects, so I don’t see why we wouldn’t consider it reliable either. JOEBRO64 17:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Flipreview.com

I was wondering if https://flipreview.com/ could be used as a reliable source, or maybe as a situational one. I would regard it as unreliable, but I am not quite sure. --Marcodpat (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Marcodpat, is this not just a collection of YouTube videos presently (badly) in a blog format? This should be the given example of what an unreliable source looks like. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I know that, but there may be the case in which the video itself becomes unavailable while this site still retains its content. In that case, provided that the video is reliable, the text could be used anyway? --Marcodpat (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The videos already appear unreliable. I'm not sure how a tertiary source/collection of these could be considered reliable. IceWelder [✉] 15:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Siliconera

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

Siliconera is listed on our sources list as reliable, seemingly based mostly on this discussion from 2015, which elevated it from situational. As per a request on the Rockstar San Diego FAC, this should be re-reviewed. The site is currently owned by Enthusiast Gaming (Destructoid, Escapist Magazine, etc.), previously by Curse, Inc., and seemingly independent before that. I cannot find an editorial policy, only an about page. Prior to Enthusiast Gaming's buyout in 2019, the writers went only by their first names. I would like to ping the editors previously involved with the discussion cited above: @GamerPro64, Benlisquare, Masem, Maplestrip, ProtoDrake, and Sergecross73. IceWelder [✉] 15:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

My opinion, Siliconera is situationally reliable and useful. For a period it included detailed sales breakdown translations via Media Create and Famitsu, and to this day it includes interviews both translated and original with JP game-focused topics. I'm surprised to see it used in a Western article. I'm a little surprised and way that it didn't have an editorial policy, but I've found them generally more reliable than more mainstream sites such as IGN which tend to be more general interest or don't cover JP-originating sources. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

ProtoDrake, in which situations would you consider it reliable? Just Japanese translations? The articles in question are 1 and 2. IceWelder [✉] 17:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@IceWelder: Both aren't primaries, and aren't strictly fully related, so can be replaced. The first references uses a different article from Gamasutra and a page from Unseen64 as reference (plus Angel Studio staff profiles), and is covering it due to Miyamoto and Japan-American co-development being involved, so I think using the Gamasutra source is better overall. The second is sourced from Michael Limber's website, so that should ideally be used as the source instead. Don't know why the website was covering this, but they occasionally covered obscure Western elements or niche projects, but I don't normally go to them for that unless there's no other source. Here, there is. The whole thing covered by two Siliconera articles is also covered by VentureBeat, using Limber's portfolio as source. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The VentureBeat and Gamasutra articles were in use but Siliconera added in both cases that the games were unreleased, and is the only to mention Le Femme Nikita. I removed the sources and worked around the lacking info, irrespective of this discussion's outcome. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Siliconera is frequently cited by other sites we consider reliable (IGN, VG247, Gamasutra, VentureBeat, Polygon) and has dedicated and experienced editorial staff. I consider them reliable.--Alexandra^IDV 19:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Fully support it as reliable for this reason. Sergecross73 msg me 23:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for games that originally released in Japan or other Asian reasons. While no editorial policy, they have an editorial staff (including EIC), and as per discussion above, they cover non-mainstream Japanese games usually with translations out of Famitsu or other Japanese sources. I would consider them as "see if replaceable" for mainstream games (eg Resident Evil) or non-Japanese games - not that they aren't reliable here but there are more reliable sources in these areas we can start from. --Masem (t) 00:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable for news and interviews I'm not sure for reviews though.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable, or situationally reliable I don't have enough direct experience to say for sure. But they have an editorial team. They've been repeatedly cited by other highly reliable sources. I would say they're reliable, and if someone wanted to carve out some exception or limit (e.g.: after the Enthusiast Gaming buy-out), I would be open to that. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable but replace when able They definitely feel second tier in quality. Their articles are usually short, just like "this exists", like sharing a developer tweet or YouTube video, or they are regurgitating stuff on Japanese gaming news sites for a Western audience, with little original thought. If you do a little searching, you can usually get longer, more well written articles from other English sites discussing the same topic. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 16:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• I've used it many times before, so i consider it Reliable. Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Gamers' Republic

Find video game sources: "Gamers' Republic" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Gamers' Republic was a short-lived (1998–2001; 36 issues) monthly gaming magazine released by Millennium Publications with Rider Circulation Services (1998–1999) and Hearst Distribution Group (Hearst Communications; 1999–2001). It was published by Dave Halverson, who was previously the publisher/EiC for GameFan and later for Play. Both of these already appear on our list as reliable. The EiC for Gamers' Republic was David S. J. Hodgson, who had been the senior writer for GameFan and the deputy EiC for Official Nintendo Magazine before that. I cannot find an editorial policy outlined in the actual magazines (which is not uncommon) but there is a mission statement in the first issue on page 4. The magazine also had a website, gamersrepublic.com, which has unfortunately become unusable after the shutdown of Adobe Flash. Some articles are backed up in the Wayback Machine and on Xtreme Video Games. IceWelder [✉] 15:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm unfamiliar with it (unsurprising given I didn't speak English in 2001), but based on your description I would easily consider it an RS.--Alexandra^IDV 19:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• This seems like a reliable source to me. It would also help fill in some of the gaps from that early internet era, where reliable sources are scarce or shuttered. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable per what was mentioned above.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable They published some good developer interviews. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 15:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable - They also covered import titles. Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Reliable and HQ. If it's published by Heart Communications, it's more high-quality than a 4k TV. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Reconsidering Nintendo Enthusiast

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

I wanted to inquire more about this site and whether or not it still counts as unreliable. The last discussion I found which mentioned Nintendo Enthusiast as an unreliable source was from 2016, which didn't discuss the website too much besides it being “another enthusiast blog.” While I’m unsure if it could still be considered that 5 years later, I did see that Enthusiast Gaming apparently owns the website, so it’s in the same group alongside Destructoid and Siliconera. Their articles, while not entirely spectacular, do have a decent amount of accuracy from what I’ve seen - it’s not clickbait or deliberately false information. I don’t think it deserves to be considered truly reliable, but I also see some potential in the source, enough for it to be considered situationally reliable for basic Nintendo gaming info. What do you guys think? PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Game Rant

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There are no responses below that advocate for treating Game Rant as a regular reliable source so the only question is discerning whether there is agreement that there are some allowable uses of the source. Despite the generally dichotomous responses of "unreliable" versus "situationally reliable" (with a preponderance of the latter), assessing this is not merely about counting noses. Reading the responses more closely shows a fairly high level of agreement that Game Rant is a source that is not high quality and should be treated with caution. Topics of low potential for controversy such as general pop culture topics or game information were discussed as allowable areas for citation but any potentially-controversial topics such as BLP's should not be cited to this source. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Was wondering about Game Rant? There have been three discussions but they are all over a half-decade old at this point (2010, 2015, 2016).

I almost want to disregard the 2010 discussion, just because of how dated it is, particularly in the contexts of the Internet and video game journalism. The 2015 discussion was brief but actually leaned in support of GR somewhat, and the 2016 discussion was similarly brief to the 2015 one, with a lean against GR this time.

However, despite GR being listed as unreliable, I've found it on an incredibly high amount of VG articles, including some high profile ones (see: Pokémon, Capcom, Esports)—and also good articles (see: Tomb Raider, Nier: Automata, Batman: Arkham Origins) and even a featured article (Final Fantasy XIII).

I checked out how the sourcing was used and it seemed to be varying; there were times it was used to cite awards results (Tomb Raider), release dates (FF XIII) or release version details (Nier), gameplay details (Arkham Origins), commercial sales results (Capcom), etc.

I figure if we're using it on high-profile articles, and particularly on higher-quality ones, we should either list it under the reliable list, or have a discussion and reconfirm it as unreliable and change out the sourcing on the articles that use it.

As far as I can see, it's a solid source and I would be in support of having it under the reliable listing. Soulbust (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

note/correction, the 2016 discussion isn't quite over a half-decade old yet but it's damn near it. Soulbust (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Game Rant...I haven't formed a view either way on whether it's reliable or unreliable at the present time. But I'll go through the facts about this site and its related sister sites operated by Valnet:

• Consensus from discussions between 2010 and 2016 firmly established it as unreliable as you have noted.
• Acquired by Valnet in mid-2019.
• Presently listed on their About page are a fact checking policy, corrections policy, ethics policy and advertising policy. Not sure about the actual credentials of their editorial staff, I have not heard of any of them.
• A recent RfC determined that a sister site also owned by Valnet, ScreenRant is considered to be marginally or situationally reliable. The closer determined that it is good enough for entertainment or pop culture topics, but inappropriate for BLP's where sourcing standards are meant to be higher due to the potential for defamation.
• Another sister site, TheGamer has shown that they have some access to developers willing to talk to them, which can be interpreted as a sign of trust, and most of the non-filler material or original reporting they have written are not bad and have been quoted for use by reliable sources like IGN. Their About page is very similar to GameRant's in terms of content and layout. However, their editorial team seems to be bigger and they actually have people labelled as "staff writers".

An argument can be made that Gamerant's quality has improved since Valnet's acquisition, and there is precedent where consensus determines that a websites reliability may differ depending on the time period when it was under different management. Certainly, some of the stuff from pre-2019 like this article is downright embarassing. On the other hand, certain editors are of the view that quality of another sister site CBR has declined since they were acquired by Valnet in 2016, while others still consider it reliable or useful enough as a source as long as the subject article isn't a BLP. Disregarding any concerns about quality or reliability prior to Valnet's acquisition, I guess the most compelling reason for use of Gamerant as a source post-July 2019 is its use by other editors? Haleth (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm positive I've used GameRant in an article at some point, but I'd be wary of relying on them for anything unique or controversial. Interested if other editors have any experience with them. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• I've waffled on enforcing the fact that WP:VG/S lists them as unreliable and giving in to the absolute flood of usage, as noted by Haleth. It's all over the place and it's a losing battle trying to keep it out unless we have a very strong determination of unreliability. None of the discussions I feel have had heavy participation or a strong consensus, so removing the source always feels meh when I know the content is not really wrong. No opinion at the moment, though Haleth has dug in deep already, I just want to back the "We need to make a strong decision" so enforcement can be meaningful. The last two discussions, the only additional comments were from Maple... who changed positions between the two discussions. -- ferret (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • After much consideration, I would place it at the very margin or edge of situationally reliable at best, only because they have been acquired by Valnet and their editorial policies have been implemented from mid-2019 onwards. I haven't seen enough from their actual output in the last 2 years to argue in favor of reliability, and anything their writers have to say is often echoed by other sites but presented with better quality. I personally wouldn't cite Gamerant because I still consider it the bottom of the barrel among the Valnet-owned sites, but echoing your opinion as well as others, I suppose there's no point removing or challenging it if what they say isn't objectively or factually incorrect. Haleth (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. I appreciate the fact that they have a masthead/about page, ethics page, etc. It looks like a professional site, probably thanks to Valnet. But I none of the editors or writers appear to have backgrounds in journalism. Some of their bios say how long they've been writing but they don't name any publications and a cursory search didn't turn anything up. To me, that seems sketchy, if not outright deceitful. I searched for "gamerant" or "game rant" in Google News and got 77,500 results, which seems like a lot. But after excluding results from Valnet properties (Game Rant, Screen Rant, The Gamer, CBR, and Valnet Inc), that dropped to 309 results. It's an absolute walled garden. And even looking through those 309 results, I didn't see any that I'd consider particularly reputable. The fact that nobody involved has a background in games journalism and that legitimate games journalists don't widely cite them says to me that they don't meet WP:REPUTABLE. Woodroar (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not disputing your analysis, it's on point, but I did want to say if someone had been writing for Gamerant for say, 5-8 years, i.e. their entire writing career, that IS experience/background as a game journalist. Everyone starts somewhere. The question then is how much we trust Gamerant's editorial process? -- ferret (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  I see your point, but I'm looking for degrees/certifications in journalism or a related field and/or working at a reputable publisher for a reasonable amount of time. I would tend to agree that 5-8 years could give an equivalent background, but it could also be years learning bad habits. There are plenty of hack journalists out there, you know? As for trusting their editorial process, the best way is to look at if and how reputable publishers cite them, if they've won any major journalism awards, if they've been praised or criticized for their past work. But I'm not finding anything like that, which says to me that they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Woodroar (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• FYI, the Featured Article that uses Game Rant did not have it there when it was promoted, and it appears to have been added as one of those "first link someone could find" cites for a release date. I'm replacing it now. --PresN 04:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• I would agree it should be cataloged as situational following Screenrant as a whole. WP:VG should not encourage it, but I would not reject, say, an RSOPINION that seems appropriate to include from it. --Masem (t) 16:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Situationally reliable I've cited GR before and seen other people cite it as well. My sense from reading their website is that it's definitely not, say, an outlet for personal blog posts or rank speculation. The authors may not be professional journalists but they write decent articles that often seem in line with content from other reliable sources. And I believe that sometimes they cover games that didn't get a ton of mainstream media attention. So, I favor allowing their citation and I would very much oppose a blanket ban on relying on them as I don't think that's warranted at all. DocFreeman24 (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Situationally reliable, they don't appear to have the strongest editorial team, but they do have an editorial team at the very least so their reviews are not just the thoughts of some random guy, and I have not seen any evidence of them actually getting stuff wrong. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Situationally reliable I started with a more neutral comment, but I want to support a consensus and the other editors, whom I respect. My read of it is that we shouldn't outright ban or remove their usage, but that we shouldn't rely on them for facts of any importance, including notability or BLPs. Otherwise there would be a basis for articles about this sort of stupidity, or this, or this. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable, still. Just way too much of their content is sheer clickbait, which leads me not to trust their editorial process. More generally, I'm not even sold that it's good for "softer" info - what do we get from that, memes & listicles? It's possible that the website has changed a lot in the past two years, but I am highly skeptical. I'm pretty sure it was GR that featured a listicle that strongly read as if it was content mill'd out from someone checking Internet speculations but who hadn't actually played the relevant games, for example. If there's anything reliable to keep from GR, it should be from specific contributors who are judged as reliable and who happen to publish through GR for whatever reason. SnowFire (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Situationally reliable. As noted, GameRant has a tendency towards being clickbait. For that reason, I think it should be considered reliable unless it’s to support an opinion that is otherwise a fringe one. It shouldn't be used as a major source for development; it cannot be trusted to provide sales figures (unless it’s supporting it with a company's self-produced primary sources). The criteria for FA is going to be higher: I don't think it should be in use at FA-level articles. For GA, though, a little more leeway is appropriate, and reviewers should exercise best judgement about how controversial what GameRant is saying is. As always, if they do an interview with someone, it should be permissible. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable per SnowFire. Too many clickbait articles, and the quality of most of the articles is pretty bad. OceanHok (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weakly reliable. I wouldn't call them high quality, but I think their articles should be treated on a case by case basis. If they appear promotional or based on routine coverage reports or press release, ditch them. But at least some of what they produce seems of passable quality. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. There is no such thing as "situational" reliability. Either the publisher has a reputation or pedigree for editorial reliability or it doesn't. If someone wants to cite a specific author without regard to the publication's general reliability, we already have a policy for that (WP:EXPERT). Per Woodroar, I can appreciate that they have dedicated pages for their policies, but that doesn't excuse the low-quality churnalism of their content. We already have such a glut of source material—anything mentioned in this second tier source will already have been necessarily covered in an existing, higher quality source. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  WP:EXPERT is in fact an essay that is about something else entirely, and anyway it certainly is not policy or even a vetted guideline. As for your opinion that there is no such thing as "situational" reliability, there is an entire section under WikiProject Video games/Sources covering at least 2 dozen sources, vetted per consensus by other editors on this Wikiproject. Haleth (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Broadly treat it the same as RSP, in the recent RfC. Though we should be removing/replacing it when we have other reliable sources covering the content in general. Not sure about its reviews. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Anecdote So I was scrolling my Google news feed on my phone last night and Game Rant kept coming up. And every single article was pointless click bait. "New secret found in Skyrim after so long!" and it's about a Reddit thread where a player says he played for 7 years without finding a location that has a marker and is well known. Or "Overwatch's Route 66 has a dark disturbing secret!" and it's about again, Social media stuff, where someone goes "In the diner, the walls look like gums and teeth". Or someone excited they realized in Skyrim you can wield and attack with a pickaxe to mine "Players find new way to skip mining animation!"... no. I need to remember to long press and "Remove site from results" next time. I'm leaning Unreliable (i.e. status quo), overall. Anything Game Rant says, if usable, we can find a better source for. "Situational source" muddies the water and allows indiscriminate use to sneak in. -- ferret (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Funny story - same thing happened to me with that same story, and I remember thinking "Are we really debating on whether or not it's reliable at WP:VG?" They do really seem to churn out a lot of crap like this... Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable per SnowFire. Most of the content is just low quality clickbait, often copied from sister sites. Especially for controversial statements, but even for other topics I've often noticed simple mistakes that could have easily been found with a quick Google search. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I voted unreliable above, but let's say that while it's accepted that GR has some unreliable clickbait, maybe it has good stuff as well that's hiding, and it's not fair to judge off the bad. Fine. Presumably, the "good" parts would be disproportionately likely to be cited as sources in existing usage, right? Here's two pieces of worthless puffery I removed before noticing this conversation ([21] [22]), and one maybe reasonable claim that probably requires a better source than Gamerant because I don't trust GR to be right about it [23]. Going through a search of existing uses of gamerant.com [24] and just checking some random usages, no cherry picking...
  • Jeffrey Yohalem - Harmless, actually, but a bit trivial - just using an interview to source that he was an intern at the Daily Show. Interviews are maybe the one area GR can be okay in just because "XYZ said ABC" is a fairly safe claim, I don't think they're so unreliable as to invent quotes.
  • Daisuke Tsuji - Unneeded verification that he's an actor, easily gotten from any other reference, to "Ghost of Tsushima Actor Reacts to Seeing His Own Butt in the Game". Uh huh.
  • Kate Higgins - Verifies she was a voice actress in Sonic Colors. Harmless and true, although surely sourceable from elsewhere I'd hope.
  • Pokémon UNITE - This one is interesting. On one hand, its reporting seems largely accurate about exactly GR's wheelhouse - online mobs angry about something. (Can be verified by other random stories like https://www.thegamer.com/pokemon-unite-trailer-removing-dislikes/ ). On the other hand, GR's reputation as clickbait on this precise topic inherently makes it a suspect source, even when it's correct. Because GR has a habit of posting nothingburger stories where somebody's mad about something, it makes even its accurate claims look potentially shady and requiring backup. I guess keeping this here is fine precisely because there's other sources that agree and it can be considered a supporting source, but why do we even need it if we can't trust GR alone?
  • Licker - Just referencing praise from a listicle, https://gamerant.com/resident-evil-scariest-moments/ . Again, same as above - the problem is so many of these 10 scariest moments, 10 strongest characters, etc. lists is that there's too many that can prove anything you want at all.
  • There's some stuff that's maybe okay here buried in the clickbait, but nothing essential. I'd still say "unreliable" and let people source the occasional interview or proof of a non-controversial fact on a case-by-case basis for non-controversial cases like "did this person voice act this part" or "did someone in an interview explain their job history", replacing the sources if anything better can be found. SnowFire (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Listed at WP:CR.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pocket Gamer

Pocket Gamer was listed as a defunct print publication by Imagine. It has been moved back to platform specific as an active source as the website is (and has been) still alive.

However, I'm confident these are two completely separate things. The discussions linked appear to be about the website, owned by Steele Media. This should be cleared up. Are we trusting the defunct (one time?) print by Imagine, or the Steel Media website? I see nothing that indicates they are related, but they are combined currently. -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ferret: So I was able to find some information regarding the defunct Imagine Media magazine. It had an extremely limited publication from 2000-2001, and shut down with Daily Radar after the infamous Nintendo lawsuit. Despite the short run, it was a magazine created by a very well known game review publisher with multiple other respected magazines (Next Generation, PC Gamer, etc). The reviews are of the time and would therefore have a unique value that can not be replaced by modern review aggregate sites. I would say we should keep both in the list, but go through some effort to disambiguate the two. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

According to Retromags, there was just a single issue of Imagine Media's Pocket Gamer. The two discussion about a "Pocket Gamer" that are cited on the list entry appear to talk about a then-active website, rather than a one-off magazine from a decade before that. I wouldn't mind keeping both in the list, though it might be redundant for a single-issue magazine to be included explicitly. IceWelder [✉] 19:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I've no view on whether both are reliable or not. I'm cool on that really, just that we're currently conflating them. The original defunct entry for the Imagine Media publication was correct, but linked to discussions that weren't about it. It's movement to platform specific is correct for the discussions, but essentially details the wrong publication. The entries need split. Additionally, if {{Video game reviews}} has a Pocket Gamer parameter, it should probably be documented to be specific to the Steele Media property. -- ferret (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ferret: That was my mistake, I should have swapped out Imagine Media for Steel Media immediately. Elephanthunter appears to have fixed the issue in both the sources list and the {{Video game reviews}} template documentation. IceWelder [✉] 07:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@IceWelder: I found two issues of the magazine online [25] [26] So it appears maybe there was at least one more issue? It was certainly a blip of a magazine run, and I am having extreme difficulty finding references to the magazine itself. Interestingly, it appears to have the same "Hard Core Gamer" tag as the Pokemon guide [27] that was at the center of the Nintendo lawsuit. But given the room for confusion, I agree with Ferret's suggestion that we make an effort to be more specific about which Pocket Gamer is referenced. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter: Interesting to see this supposed November 2000 issue only on eBay and nowhere else. Should we just exchange "single-issue" with "short-lived" in this case? IceWelder [✉] 07:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@IceWelder: Sure, I think that works. Updated. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I feel strongly about the online website version staying reliable - I've used it extensively over the years without issue - but I wasn't even aware there was a different version of the same name, so I'd have to look into it further before commenting on the other one. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Critical Hit

Find video game sources: "critical hit" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This source sparked some discussion at FA, so I went ahead and removed it to be safe. That said, some of their coverage is genuinely helpful. Their editorial policy isn't clearly stated, but I believe the editor is also a writer at GameSpot and IGN. I'm wondering if people have any other experience with this source and its overall quality. Tagging Soulbust as he raised this for discussion previously, and received no replies. I hope we get a clearer answer this time. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: The editor-in-chief is Geoffrey Tim, who appears to have no journalistic experience outside of this site. The site was recently sold to a private person called Kevin Macpherson. Since I raised the issue at FAC, I will not vote on the matter here. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 21:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Spieletipps.de

Find video game sources: "spieletipps.de" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I've just used this site as a source for an article, but there appears to have been zero discussion as to whether it's reliable. A cursory glance shows they have a team of 30, with a mix of editors, interns, freelancers and "free authors" (freelance writers?). There does seem to be some clickbait-style quizzes, and their articles seem to end with clickbait-style "related articles" listicle articles. So is it reliable? CiphriusKane (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• The site is owned by Ströer and the editor-in-chief Claudio Müller does have good journalistic experience with Chip (a large German tech magazine). However, the actual news coverage is mostly written by interns. The four editors that are engaged in that section are mostly inexperienced as well, most being hired only two/three years ago straight out of university (from non-journalism fields) or an intermediate freelance job. The content is often clickbait-y and the site often runs articles on random YouTube videos with no added thought. Since the site more known for game cheats (which we wouldn't want to cite anyways), I would say that the source should be avoided. IceWelder [✉] 14:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Gaming Boulevard

Hello, wondering if I can get some thoughts on the reliability of Gaming Boulevard. It's used on a few articles but isn't listed at WP:VGRS one way or another. I'm neither pushing for it nor against it but figured I'd get the ball rolling.

• Points in favor: longevity (site has existed since 2011), homepage has a staff listing and articles are bylined, appear to have enough clout to get review codes for AAA games (see [28]), Specials section appears to contain journalism that isn't just "got a review code, write a review".
• Points against: low audience impact (all their social media sites have less than 10k followers), unclear if fully professional or hobbyist, freelancer section on website solicits user-submitted contributions (although ironically I didn't see any in my quick perusal of the latest reviews).

Thanks for having a look guys. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• The founder doesn't appear to have any journalistic (or other professional) background. The only other two staffers with LinkedIn profiles have backgrounds in biology and retail. Looking through recent articles, the author of this piece does not appear in the staff list. If it is a freelance contribution, it is not clearly marked, which I think is a problem.

On a related note, consider moving this discussion to WT:VG/RS. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 21:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Oops, done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Major League Gaming

Major League Gaming is currently listed as a situational source. However, both discussions on the topic claim that it should be situational as it should not be used to demonstrate notability. In general, a source may be completely reliable without the capability to be used to establish notability. Perhaps this source should be moved to "Primary/affiliate sources"? — Pbrks (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Console Obsession

Find video game sources: "Console Obsession" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Console Obsession has been regarded as an unreliable source about 10 years ago. However, many time has passed since, and only one user was against its use. Should we still disregard this site or not? --Marcodpat (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Quick review: Only 3 staff members at this time (Only 1 that isn't the two brothers previously mentioned), no staff bios or credentials listed, no editorial policy, no description of staff responsibilities, no one clearly designated as EiC. -- ferret (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Looks unreliable to me. No editorial policy, three authors with no apparent professional background, and effectively a personal blog. Also appears to be defunct since April. IceWelder [✉] 14:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Pinging user @Odie5533, who participated in the 2011 discussion. IceWelder [✉] 14:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Upcomer

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

Anecdotally, I've seen only high-quality articles from this source. Solid management team: Sean Morrison (former ESPN associate editor), Tyler Erzberger (former ESPN senior writer), and Colin McNeil (former CBS contributing writer). Editorial/ethics policy can be found in the Letter from the Editor. IMO should be considered reliable. — Pbrks (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Appears reliable based on the information provided. Checking the site, I found nothing that points to the contrary. IceWelder [✉] 17:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Sportskeeda

Sportskeeda is a news agency founded more than a decade ago. This website provides sports news, alongwith Esports and video game news. It seems pretty reliable to me.

I propose it to be added as a reliable source for video games. Aaditya.abh (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Sportskeeda has been deemed generally unreliable at WP:RSN. See [1]. IceWelder [✉] 09:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable - per recent 2021 RSN consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 18:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Dexerto (part 2 - electric boogaloo)

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

This is another thing I’ve been meaning to get off my chest for a while now. Besides a two-response discussion which merely dismissed the source as "click-bait" and a mildly substantial Request for Comment, it still seems a bit unclear to me why Dexerto is considered an unreliable source. I'll abstain from expressing my position, but I wanted to generate a more thorough discussion and a proper analysis of the source. So I'll just ask a few basic questions for now.

1. Do you consider Dexerto to be reliable or not, and why?
2. What would it take for Dexerto to be considered a usable source?
3. Could it be okay to use for topics relating to Internet culture à la The Daily Dot, such as YouTubers, Twitch streamers and online personalities?
4. Should "click-bait" titles really be a factor for determining the reliability of a source? (ex. Huffington Post is considered reliable despite its usage of "click-bait" headlines).

PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't consider it a reliable source, it often sensationalizes not just in it's titles (the "click-bait" your referring to) but also its articles, often relying exclusively on tweets and then adding sensationalized commentary.

The comparison to Huffington Post isn't legitimate as Huffington Post is far more reliable in it's article content and is even less sensationalized in its titles.

Corinal (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• They are generally unreliable. They will post just about anything and almost never fact check their sources before publishing an article. Here are a couple of Reddit threads pointing out false Dexterto reports (as its easier than writing a summary of what they did wrong myself): [29], [30]. IMO, they are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to esports "journalism". — Pbrks (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• I had similar experiences with the site to what Corinal and Pbrks are describing: Sensationalized articles about non-news, often with poor fact-checking. Whenever the site covers something actually relevant, other (reliable) sites will have already posted similar articles, which we should use instead. IceWelder [✉] 14:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Unreliable - I'm not aware of them particularly having writers with professional credentials or much of an editorial policy. Beyond that, there a difference between "clickbaity headlines" which virtually all websites do to some capacity, even around in-depth, well-written articles, and "clickbait articles about nothing", where they title an article "Massive developments about Breath of the Wild 2 release date" and write 5 rambling paragraphs about GameStop changed their retail listing from "TBA 2022" to "2022". It's the latter where it's a problem, and Dexerto is pretty heavily in that camp. Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Corinal, Pbrks, IceWelder, and Sergecross73: Yeah, after reading these responses and researching Dexerto a bit more, I can definitely see now why people consider it unreliable. At first I did think it could work as a situationally reliable source for gaming and Internet news, but after checking out the evidence of them getting such info wrong, and how they sensationalize articles, I'm admittedly swaying towards the "unreliable" side of the spectrum.

Another thing I wanted to note was their "About Us" section along with this page detailing "Dexerto Media." I didn't check the credentials of the four founders of the site, so if anyone wants to delve deeper into their background or anything, be my guest. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

AFK Gaming

AFK Gaming provides news regarding various eSports events and news. It seems pretty reliable to me. It provides latest coverage on Esports tournaments and events and also does interviews of various Esports personalities. I propose it to be added as a reliable source. Aaditya.abh (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Does not seem reliable from a first glance. A gamers-for-gamers site; while it has a basic editorial policy, none of the writers (including both head staff)[31][32] have any professional credits. Very low impact and very limited current usage on here. IceWelder [✉] 09:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• I recognise the fact it has low impact but the website The Esports Observer(which is a reliable source for video games) has recognised AFK Gaming's journalist Shounak Sengupta. Does this mean anything?

Proof URL: https://archive.esportsobserver.com/author/shounak/

• Also, it having limited current usage, can I use it as a source on WP? Aaditya.abh (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

If AFK Gaming as a whole is recognized as lacking credibility or editorial standards, but Shounak Sengupta has received recognition as a journalist, I suppose it could be treated as a situational source, as in only AFK-published articles authored by Sengupta may be suitable for citation. I don't know if other experienced editors will agree to the use of his articles for any use other then WP:RSOPINION, for example to demonstrate notability of a subject. Haleth (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Also it's founders have also been recognised.

Nishant Patel: https://archive.esportsobserver.com/author/nishant/ Vignesh Raghuram: https://archive.esportsobserver.com/author/vignesh_raghuram/

• Apart from other many other journalists of AFK Gaming have been given recognition. Aaditya.abh (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Being a guest writer for a different outlet is not "recognition", nor does not lend any qualification to that writer's primary publication. Wholly different editorial standards apply for sites like Esports Observer, which is part of a large network of sites known for professional journalism. IceWelder [✉] 14:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

So is there no way for AFK Gaming to be a reliable source for video games (Esports)?

I need to use AFK Gaming as a source for my edits. So is there any way iy could happen. Aaditya.abh (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I recommend finding alternate sources. If a source is not reliable, you should not be dependent on that source. IceWelder [✉] 16:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable per Icewelder's argument. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Noting that the nominator edited this source into the project page as reliable against consensus. Icewelder reverted, I warned. -- ferret (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I warned them too, but they simply deleted it without acknowledging. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I completely missed that, since it was removed. Semi-apologies to them for double warning but.... Don't Do That... :) -- ferret (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

GAMINGbible as a situational source

Was curious if GAMINGbible could be considered source? They take some submitted content which they upload monthly and are affiliated with LADbible which has had reliability issues in the past, but their core editorial staff have some notable prior credits. Their head of content Mike Diver has credits working at Vice Gamimg, the BBC Gaming show and some published books on video game history, and other staff members on their editorial team include Imogen Calypso Mellor who acted as the official host for GDC this year and worked prior as a staff writer at PCGamesN, Julian Benson who acted as deputy editor at PCGamesN and a news editor at Kotaku UK. They're definitely still an up-and-coming site but maybe enough reputable editorial staff to be reliable for editorial content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c6:8281:a501:c560:1e3b:5013:4656 (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Although I have never thoroughly checked the site's credentials, I have never seen anything close to professional come from it either. I opened the site just now only to stumble over this "article" prominently displayed on the front page. It covers an embarrassing moment for a child allegedly recorded during a Fortnite match. While this coverage is already questionable, the video and information were lifted straight from a post on "r/Cringetopia" on Reddit without any sort of research. One of the highest-voted comments there even shows that the original clip is actually older than Fortnite. This wasn't some user-submitted content either: Author Ewan Moore is a "Senior Journalist" for the site and has previously written for LADbible for five years. This kind of un-researched churnalism strings itself through most articles I checked. The clickbaity, often misleading, titles do not help either. There appears to be no editorial process, nor does the site list any policies. I'd argue that the site (and any LADbible Group property) should be considered unreliable. Giving the site a "situational" tag would make it appear to be a "reliable unless contested" kind of situation. Articles from big names like Mike Diver should be discussed on a case-by-case basis if they really cannot be replaced by a better source. IceWelder [✉] 13:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll fully admit that their reliability came to my attention due to their greatest games of all time list being excluded from the List of video games considered the best. Certainly as a news source their reliability is unproven and as an interest source they're often very low quality but for situations of criticism (especially those from big names like Mike Diver, including the linked article) I feel as though there is no reason to exclude them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c6:8281:a501:c560:1e3b:5013:4656 (talk) 22 September 2021, at 13:57 (UTC)
    • The strength of a "top video games ever" list rests on the reputation of the publication to provide solid reliable critical reviews. With no such reputation, their list carries none either. About 10% of the entries on that particular list are by Diver. There's no reason to believe that Gamingbible holds any significant weight as a video game critic. -- ferret (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

TheGamer

Isn't TheGamer should be also listed as a reliable source in Wikipedia:VG/Sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.149.105.32 (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, why? What's your stance? You should at least put forth a reason if you're going to suggest it like that. Sergecross73 msg me 03:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Because they're The Gamer. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking of starting a conversation about this source eventually, but since an editor got the ball rolling and the discussion over GameRant is closed, here we are. TheGamer has the same corrections, ethics, fact checking and privacy policy as the other Valnet-owed media sites. Unlike the other sister sites however, TheGamer appears to be a fairly recent outfit built from scratch by Valnet, and it is not an acquisition from pre-established sites i.e. CBR or Screenrant.

As I have noted before, TheGamer's editorial team seems to be bigger then the other sister sites, and they actually have people labelled as "staff writers": at least two of their editors have good credentials. Cian Maher is the lead features editor and has bylines with The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Verge, Vice, and Wired. Stacey Henley previously did freelance writing for the who's who of video game media like IGN, Polygon, Eurogamer, GamesRadar, VG24/7; she now appears to have taken a full time editor position with this site. Both regularly write feature articles and opinion pieces which the site calls "TheGamer Originals", and most of them are fairly solid analytical content if a tad casual in tone ala Kotaku. While they do use clickbait headlines and churn out a large volume of content such as listicles on a very frequent basis, I find that much of the non-filler material or original reporting is not bad and have been cited for use by reliable sources like IGN and Eurogamer.

Per the recent RfC for Screenrant, where the closer determined that it is reliable enough for entertainment or pop culture topics, but inappropriate for BLP's where sourcing standards are meant to be higher because of concerns raised by participants in the discussion about their past track record. I have no reason to believe that TheGamer is less objectively reliable. The fact that they do have direct access to numerous developers and industry professionals who are willing to talk to them, I interpret that as a sign of trust and that perhaps they are reliable enough to cite non-controversial claims for BLP articles, unless proven otherwise. Haleth (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This was also my conclusion when I was looking into them for my tabletop RPG article projects.--Alexandra^IDV 08:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that, since Kirk McKeand (former staffer at VG247 and PCGamesN, freelance at about a dozen reliable sites) took over as Editor-in-Chief in August 2020, the editorial policy and reputation of the site has improved significantly (and intentionally). As Haleth mentioned, there are some genuinely great interviews and analyses under "TheGamer Originals" that I could see being beneficial here. That being said, the site used to be pretty disgusting, so I would definitely support a cut-off date for its use on here (à la Escapist Magazine, About.com). – Rhain ☔ 08:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I've always been put off by their clickbait headlines and "articles about nothing". (All signs point to the next Zelda game coming out within the next decade, etc). But if they're getting better with credentials, then I'm less opposed... Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This seems like at least some of their coverage is reliable, though I'm open to drawing some kind of line to avoid any of the lower quality articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

In that case, how about August 2020 as the cut-off point (we have a disclaimer like that for Kotaku), which was when Kirk McKeand took over the site's editorial leadership as noted by Rhain? Embarrassing articles like the awful listicle from the site's early days linked by Rhain also no longer exists and could only be accessed via Internet Archive, so it does look like they made good on their efforts to clean up lower quality content from the past besides maintaining a reasonable standard going forward. Haleth (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Late response, but I'd support using it as a situational source under these conditions. – Rhain ☔ 22:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like a good source for limited applications. Gamers rise up - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

TheGamer have just changed their EiC, it's Stacey Henley, who also wrote a substantial article hyping her colleagues' exploits. Kirk McKeand is leaving for a different job and is confirmed to be handling games coverage for USA Today. Does anyone have any further comments? Haleth (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Comptiq

It seems Comptiq.com is offline and the wayback archive has not archived it since 2013. Does anyone know if the print magazine is still available, if not, we can probably just remove it from the list or move it to the defunct section. Kidburla (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

IndieGames (plus)

indiegames.com now redirects to indiegamesplus.com. Is it the same website and can be cited as a reliable source, or is it now a totally new website in which case has to go through review again? Kidburla (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• It's still the same site, only no longer owned by UBM/Informa.--Alexandra^IDV 11:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

LoL Esports

There have been two prior threads mentioning LoL Esports (1, 2), and its current status is that it is considered unreliable. The website owned by Riot Games, the owner of LoL, so I don't know why the reliability would be in question. I believe it should be under "Primary/affiliate sources". Am I correct in this assessment or am I missing something here? – Pbrks ^{(t • c)} 21:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Wince I hate to especially denote primary sources. That said, in neither of the past two discussions did anyone even comment on Lol Esports, so I don't think it should be listed under Unreliable either. It is, in essence, undiscussed and has zero direct commenting thus far. -- ferret (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I hesitate to even include it under primary/affiliate sources just in the sense that obvious LoL is going to write about their own stuff, and when it comes to the problem of a lot of esports stuff not being notable per Wikipedia's thresholds, you don't need another confusing source being tried to use as a buttress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This all makes sense, and I agree that it should be clear and obvious that any reference coming from here could most likely not be used to demonstrate notability. Is the reasonable action here to just remove it from the page altogether? – Pbrks ^{(t • c)} 14:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Use of Pocket Gamer and TouchArcade for Nintendo Switch games

Hi, Pocket Gamer and TouchArcade are listed for use with "Handheld games" and "Mobile game news" respectively. Does this scope of use include the Nintendo Switch? Loosely speaking, the Switch could be considered a handheld gaming platform or mobile gaming platform, but I'm not convinced that this is what the WikiProject article is trying to say. Both Pocket Gamer and TouchArcade do cover the Nintendo Switch, but I'm not sure if it's acceptable to use their coverage as reliable sources. Kidburla (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Totally fine to use for Switch. There's no real reason why they couldn't be used for PS4 games either, other than that they generally don't write about them to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

HLTV.org (again)

Find video game sources: "HLTV.org" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Was discussed back in 2016. The two discussions in 2021 got no comments. I agree with most things said in the seconds discussion, here (even though the editor is blocked :p), apart from "HLTV's event listings are reproduced in CS:GO's Main Menu". The link is broken and I haven't been able to re-create it in any way. Perhaps we should take a look at this site again? ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 13:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is the link you are looking for: Introducing CS:GO Events: players can now see an HLTV-provided schedule of professional LAN events in the Watch tab. I was actually planning on bringing this site up. I'm not so sure about their written content, but I think it is a fine resource for match results. – Pbrks ^{(t • c)} 15:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Game World Observer and App2Top.ru

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

I am frequently seeing Game World Observer requested as a news source. It is the English-language sister site to the Russian-language App2Top.ru. They were founded in 2018 and 2011, respectively, and are part of WN Media Group since 2019. Game World Observer is presently used in 15 articles, App2Top.ru in in 8. I couldn't immediately find any editorial policy or even a staff page on any of the three involved entities. IceWelder [✉] 10:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

At first blush the stories have tons of very elementary grammar mistakes (it seems clear the primary writers don't speak English natively), there's lots of content that's unattributed to "guest authors" and as you mention there's no masthead or editorial policy to look at. I would definitely say it's unreliable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Nintendo Life restriction

Hi, can we discuss updating/clarifying the restriction on the use of Nintendo Life? The current restriction that "for editorial content, author reliability is needed" has been there since the entry was first added to the table in 2011. I'm not sure it is justified by the talk page discussions (at least, not those which took place prior to that date). I don't find any evidence from the talk page discussions that anyone proposed that author reliability is needed or defined what that meant.

I have seen some people basically regarding this restriction as talking about article reliability (in other words, if it's backed by a good primary source then it's okay), but I disagree because the restriction is specifically about author reliability. It goes on to say that Damien McFerran has written for various publications and therefore we assume articles written by him are supported by his credentials, but what about the other authors who write for Nintendo Life? It's often not clear and very much open to interpretation about whether particular authors are "reliable". For example, Ryan Craddock is a common author of Nintendo Life articles, but I couldn't find evidence he has written for other publications. Having said that, the articles which he writes are, in my experience, generally accurate. If we are really going to keep this restriction based on "author reliability", I would hope to see some consensus on exactly which authors we consider to be reliable, otherwise we are going to have inconsistency across Wikipedia on what Nintendo Life sources are okay or not okay for the purpose of verifiability and especially for notability.

I would also note that neither Push Square or Pure Xbox have the same restriction on them. These two websites are run by the same people as Nintendo Life and it would make sense that the editorial reliability would be pretty much the same across all three websites. Kidburla (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

To aid the discussion, here are a few options of how we could resolve this. Feel free to propose your own.

1. Remove the restriction, on the basis that this is not based on any actual talk page discussions and there is no similar restriction for the two sister sites
2. Change the restriction to that only editorial articles by Damien McFerran can be accepted as reliable (this is the de facto status quo position IMO)
3. Keep the current restriction and maintain a list of reliable authors at wikiproject level established by consensus. (This should be based on historical accuracy rather than credentials otherwise we are back to option 2 above.)
4. Replace the current restriction with a restriction on factual reliability rather than author reliability for editorial articles. The key facts of the editorial article (e.g. existence of a game on a platform, or plans to release) must be backed by primary sources or reliable secondary sources
5. Replace the current restriction with a restriction that, for editorial articles, this source can only be used for already-released games and not future games

Kidburla (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'll take the first option. No actual talk page discussions have come to a consensus that there are serious issues about the site's reliability and that we need to judge articles from Nintendo Life on a case by case basis with specific authors. The last discussion in 2017, several experienced editors identified that their only issue is that they were a bit too quick at jumping to conclusions about upcoming Nintendo games. Haleth (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Just remove the restriction, especially if no particular discussion actually backs it. It's not adhered to anyways. I think a lot of us are wary of NintendoLife, but of the numerous NintendoNoun bloggy sites, they're probably the most commonly used and most popular. Generally the issue is less that they published something wrong and more just a little weakness in quality/writing. -- ferret (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Agreed with Haleth and Ferret. There were some concerns voiced, but the concerns werent really part of the consensus, and realistically, aren't being enforced anyways. Just remove the restrictions. Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• It doesn't seem like there was ever a consensus to have the restrictions and I'm fine removing them. At most, maybe we add a cautionary note about unreleased games... if someone thought that was necessary. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the crux of the issue is that everyone on the Wikiproject just need to be reminded from time to time, not to be too hasty with creating articles about freshly announced or heavily rumored upcoming games in general. Haleth (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

As this topic has been here over a week and we seem to have reached a consensus to remove the restriction, with no dissent, I've gone ahead and removed the restriction from the page. Kidburla (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Nerd Reactor

I've opened a deletion discussion about video game voice actor Quinton Flynn, a keep voter has cited a 2016 article in Nerd Reactor as contributing in their notability. I've only found a single person discussing it in the archives Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_10#A_few_sites_for_Freedom_Planet,_a_future_GAN, which seems pretty mixed. The other sources cited include Niche Gamer, which has been judged to be generally unreliable here, as well as Bounding into Comics, a reactionary pro-comicsgate publication that got a mixed-negative reception at RSN Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_293#The_Reliability_of_"Bounding_into_Comics". Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Nerd Reactor seem to have ample access to high profile individuals within the entertainment industry with regards to the amount of interviews they have scored, so I see no issue on that front when it comes to sourcing them for content. Interviews however, are a grey area when it comes to whether it is sufficient to contribute notability, especially if it's essentially a verbatim transcript of the interview without any original analysis or critique by the author, where the only real insight consists of the interviewees talking about themselves. In this case it's a mix of both, but it is nowhere near the lengthy "expose" style insights more reputable publishers like CNN are known for. The website itself however, does not articulate its editorial policies to its readers. John Nguyen, whom I presume to be the site owner/director/editor-in-chief, does not appear to have any noteworthy credentials either. Haleth (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)