Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Find video game sources: "Strategy Informer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Proposing this be a situational source. Seems to have been around since 2000, and the quality of writing seems up to snuff. Here is the "About Us" page. I'd say given the quality of writing and the years under its belt that I'd at least throw this into a situational, if not reliable status. It's independent of any media network, but I don't think that comes into play. I'm mostly interested in their reviews, as they review the occasional indie game and/or DLC, and frankly sources for these games are hard to come by. I just feel like it's time to apply WP:SOURCES in the best way we can for indie games. We can't always rely on the IGNs and GameSpots of this world. Frankly indie games often receive more coverage at indie sites. Reviews, interviews, and often some previews don't make it to the "big sites". I'm not saying that an article can stay afloat merely by a handful of situational indie sources - it has to have some mainstream coverage. What I am saying is that in order to properly write some of these articles additional sources which cover the subject matter in-depth art needed.

Yeah - long post for a short request. I just want to be sure we don't pull the old "they don't belong to a media company, so they aren't reliable" stand-by we sometimes use. I'll be nominating other indie sites in the future, so I want us to broaden our mindset while still staying in policy. --Teancum (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Not part of a major media outlet, so no. Just kidding. I do agree with your sentiment about indie sites. Is there an editorial policy listed anywhere on the site that you know of? I can't seem to find any. Xxpreaditorxx (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't found anything as of yet, so I'm going by years of experience over processes. That means they're probably out of reach as a 100% reliable source, but like Kotaku, Destructoid, and Joystiq can still be a situational source. --Teancum (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Some editors are wanting to use http://gamehall.uol.com.br/site/a-historia-do-mega-drive/ at Mega Drive, History of video game consoles (fourth generation), Console wars, and List of best-selling game consoles as a source for sales of the Mega Drive by TecToy and Majesco. It seems to me like a fansite or blog site that got together some bloggers/gamers and dubbed them "editors".

Note a discussion of the larger issue of whether what they're doing with that source is or is not WP:SYN has been started at WP:ORN#Mega Drive/Genesis sales, feel free to comment there too. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 16:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Also got figures from http://www.team-aaa.com/news-15016-0-1-flashback_la_megadrive.html saying the sales were 2.5 million for the Majesco. Is that a reliable site? Someone who speaks Spanish can perhaps look through it easier than I can with Google translator. Dream Focus 18:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I would venture to say it's a reliable source. It's not a Sega fansite first of all, and it doesn't come off as a blog to me (I went to the home page)--SexyKick 21:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

They've got a list of staff, but they appear to primarily be a gaming team and a news source second, which doesn't speak to their reliability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

They may not be a fansite, but unless we can show some Brazilian or Portuesege (as I doubt there are many, if any English RSes) citing them we can't just assume they meet SPS.陣内_Jinnai 23:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

[1] this also has the 2.5 million number for Masjesco. Again no mention of TecToy though.--SexyKick 02:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Coming Soon Magazine" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo

I thought I would ping the project on the suitability of "Coming Soon Magazine" as a reliable source. I was thinking of using one of their reviews in a Wikipedia article but noticed they have not yet been rated.

On the CSM website it says CSM started in 1993-1994 distributing over BBSes and incorporated in Vermont in 1996. Based on the content of the site it looks like they stopped writing reviews sometime in 1997, although there are a few "2000" dates on their site too.

CSM is used as a reference in several Wikipedia articles, including Master_of_Magic, Warcraft:_Orcs_&_Humans, and Age_of_Empires_(video_game). They have been used as links or references in a few places on the net, such as MobyGames and StarWarsLinks.com, but I'm not sure those are terribly reputable. According to google they have also been used as a reference in a few books (see google books link above) It doesn't look like CSM was ever distributed in print.

The quality of reviews seems to vary with the author - some reviews are concise and well-written; others have poor grammar and drone on without saying much.

Anyway, I am not looking to undermine existing articles, but to see what everyone thinks. Cheers. --Culix (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I couldn't find any editorial info, nor anything on the staff. As you said, reviews are hit and miss as far as quality goes. --Teancum (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "The Electric Playground" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Find video game sources: "Reviews on the Run" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

The Electric Playground and Reviews on the Run are related broadcast television programs airing in Canada, with the former also becoming available in United States and Australia. Aired episodes are accessible on their website. No viewer or reader generated content is apparently available on the web sites. It may be similar to X-Play. A user has suggested that Reviews on the Run is a not a reliable source. Where should these shows go on the list of sources? I can't find many third party references to them. Shawnc (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - especially ElecPlay, as it's been around a looooooong time. --Teancum (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Both sites are run by respected video game journalists that have been around a while. It's basically in the same respect as GameTrailers or X-Play, just not as recognizable. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Question - Would the fact that clips from the later ,AKA Judgement Day, being featured on the G4 website add to their credibility? Sarujo (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support for Electric Playground. I can't believe it isn't already considered a reliable source—it's been on the air for over a decade. I don't know enough about the other one to give an opinion on it, however. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

It seems affiliated with N4G, but am not exactly sure how. One feature article I was reading uses a pseudonym for its author. SharkD  Talk  03:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - after reading additional articles and considering the network family this comes from, I'm supporting this. --Teancum (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I can't find out anything about staff, and all their reviews that I randomly sampled have no byline and "Review copy provided by publisher" at the bottom. If they're just republishing flack copy, that's hardly a reliable source. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We have several reputable sources which don't contain the "Review copy provided by publisher". I don't see how that's relevant. --Teancum (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, staff can be found here. Info on Ken McKnown (editor-in-chief) can be found on LinkedIn. --Teancum (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

A site focusing on XBLA/PSN/WiiWare/iOS games primarily. Run by Chris Buffa and Robert Workman of GameDaily (a reliable source). Buffa also writes for Joystiq and has an education in corporate communication, which helps his journalistic background. Workman's LinkedIn profile notes he went to college for journalism and writes for multiple sites. A third writer, John Artest, also contributes to the site. I couldn't find any information on him, but given the other two's background and the fact that they write for reliable sources I'm willing to weight in his favor. Although it's simply a blog they do get some exclusive interviews with indie developers, which helps immensely when doing articles for XBLA/PSN/WiiWare/iOS games. Requesting this be a reliable source; if not that then a situational one. The same ruleset would apply to any other reliable/situational blog in that it needs to pass WP:DUCK. --Teancum (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can give a pass on John Artest except perhaps if he's doing an interview. If its a blog, then there is no editorial oversight and if we're seen as being too lax on what we allow as RS, people will begin to heavily scrutinize all of our GA/FA/FLC articles.陣内_Jinnai 19:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So what is your opinion? Are you supporting it as a situational source based on author? --Teancum (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much that陣内_Jinnai 23:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with situational. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

[22] Since the search engine uses this page in addition, I am wondering if we should do so here.陣内_Jinnai 23:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand from your link what this does. It automatically breaks links in Wikipedia to unreliable sources? --Teancum (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

instead of Wikipedia it is "Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org)"陣内_Jinnai 04:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "576 Konzol" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Established as a magazine in 1997, is was the largest magazine of its kind in the country and a few surrounding ones, and the byword for video game magazines in the country, and it is the first console only magazine in Hungary. It was published by 576 "Comgame" Kft which previously publish 576 KByte from 1990 to 2003. This corporation runs the 576 KByte shops too. It's defunct after the October 2008 issue, and transform into 576 KByte, which last only 20 issue and then it's became an online magazine. It has some interviews (with Bungie, SCEE, FASA Interactive, Epic Games, Mithis Entertainment, and so on), but some of them are translated from unreliable (?) sites (from Mayhem UK C64 fansite). They not only cover videogames (from SNES to the PS3/X360/Wii era) and hardwares (videogame consoloes and accesories), but animes, mangas, retro games, films, books, music, webpages, and even videogame magazines. After it's defunct some of it's editors are (Martin the editor-in-chief, Dzson, Miklós Veres, antaru, Petúnia) are estabilish the PlayStation.Community - The Hungarian PlayStation Insiders webpage. Some of it's editors are (Grath and Sasa) from PC Guru and one of them (Oldern) write for Mondo magazine too. The magazine was the partner of Mangafan, a manga publisher, and Mondo magazine. Martin the editor-in-chief for 576 Konzol, and for the PSC is currently writes in Konzol magazine too. So what do I need to do to get it formally approved? Sillent DX (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If 576 "Comgame" Kft was an actual publishing company with the expected editors, lawyers, etc on staff, then we can presume reliability. Do you have access to actual copies? That would be preferable to fansite translations. Marasmusine (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Comgame only published these two magazines (as far as I know), and currently running 576 KByte shops. I have 576 Konzol from February 2000 (#25) to July-August 2008 (#118). "Fansite translations" [...] then I have to find someone who actually know English or someone who can translate "my English" to proper English. PS: Forgot to mention that Martin ran a program (Szegasztok) on m1 sometimes in 1993. Sillent DX (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC) edit: Comgame also distribute games under the Ezt vedd meg! (EVM) label. Sillent DX (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help if you can provide a rough english translation. As long as it's selected sections, and not whole magazines! I recently helped with a German magazine translation for Space Tanks... Yahoo! Babel Fish is a useful tool for this. The fansite may facilitate if you can vouch for it. Marasmusine (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a rough translation of an interview with the now closed Mithis Interactive's (thanks Squenix) creative director (Zsolt Nyulászi) about Battlestation: Midway (just to learn that are you guys can understand my english). And back to the first question, are they reliable? Sillent DX (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's really the top Hungarian gaming site then I'd say it's OK. SharkD  Talk  02:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

They were the top of the top offline console gaming magazine in Hungary, altough they does not really have any rivals as they defunct, thanks to the 576 Kozol's success ("PS Guru" is defunct arund in 2005, "Play Zone" is lived from 2004 to 2005, "Game Masters" from 2007 to 2010 and "Play!" stands less than a year, so 576 Konzol is Hungary's longest ran console only gaming magazine) Sillent DX (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this, but is it a problem if Comgame publishes the magazine and is also a video game distributor? SharkD  Talk  10:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why would it be a problem. They only release budget price PC games (and rerelease full priced games in budget price) so they not reviewed them in the magazine. Just noticed this, but two of it's contributors are work in Digital Reality, one of them (Theodore Reiker) will be the designer of Sine Mora (the game with Suda51 and Akira Yamaoka) and the other one (Ferenc Nagy-Szakáll aka Vega) will be the level designer of the same game.[23] Sillent DX (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My reason being that maybe they give their own products preferential treatment? SharkD  Talk  10:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

To summarize all: 576 Konzol was Hungary's first and longest ran console only magazine. It's published by Comgame "576" Kft, which published Hungary's "most prestigious gaming magazine" (according to one of Hungary's largest IT website, HWSW) the 576 KByte, which ran from 1990 to 2002. Most of 576 Konzol's editor had written in another gaming or non-gaming magazine (576 KByte: Martin, Dae, Reiker, hzx, liquid, Stilleto, Grath, wilson; PC Guru: Grath; PS Guru: Vega, Dzson; Play Zone: Vega; Konzol: Martin, Krisz, krugman, Petúnia; Mondo: Oldern). Martin Vajdics the magazine's editor-in-chief start his journal carrer in the first issue of 576 KByte as a regular editor and later became the deputy editor. He host a TV show (SzEGAsztok) in 1993 at m1. He start Hungary's first anime/manga column (in 576 KByte). He's currently the editor-in-chief of PlayStation.Community (previously PlayStation.LIVE) which is Hungary's "biggest PlayStation webpage" (according to GameStar), and writes articles in Konzol magazine. The magazine had some interviews, but some of them are translated. They went to the E3, TGS, AOU, Games Convention, PlayStation Experience and ECTS (and some others). Where they articles usable? Like Japanese games' articles have Famitsu score Hungarian games' (Battlestation series, Ecco the Dolphin series...) articles should have Hungarian review(s). Sillent DX (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

New beta is up for those interested, http://waybackmachine.org/ « ₣M₣ » 22:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just curious - has anyone noticed whether the new beta does any better which archiving sites with dynamic queries? What I mean by that is that things like drop-down lists and such are sometimes dynamically generated, and archive.org sometimes had problems with it. --Teancum (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Game Chronicles - Previously the site was deemed unreliable, however since then improvements have been made, including publishing of their review process. The staff page is here. No bias one way or another, just pinging the community one this. --Teancum (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Factual Background:

There is a disagreement on the OnLive Discussion page about whether 2 related articles from Eurogamer's Digital Foundry by the same author are acceptable or preferable as sources for the OnLive article. Currently, they dominate the OnLive article as a source, providing the support for over 500 words out of about 2,500 words in the body of the article. In earlier revisions, they have represented an even larger proportion.

The first article was published shortly after OnLive was announced in March of 2009:

"GDC: Why OnLive Can't Possibly Work"[24] The second article was published shortly after OnLive was released to the public in July of 2010:

“OnLive Latency: The Reckoning”[25]

Since the first article was cited in the OnLive article, several editors have strongly objected to use of the first, and later, the second, article, as sources, while other editors have just as strongly supported using the articles as sources, resulting in many deletions and restorations of content sourced from the articles. Currently, Eurogamer is listed as a reliable source in the Videogames Wikiproject, and in the most recent discussion, one of the editors has stated that as the reason why the articles are appropriate sources for the OnLive article.

My view of why these articles are not appropriate sources:

While Eurogamer may be a reliable source generally, these particular two articles are in violation of several Wikipedia source guidelines, including WP:SOURCES, WP:PRIMARY, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NPOV, WP:IRS.

The articles are WP:PRIMARY articles based on original “research”. The articles cite no identifiable sources to back up their claims. To the extent the first article cites an “expert” source, it identifies an anonymous foul-mouthed video compression expert who supposedly developed YouTube’s HD video technology. The supposed expert’s information is not only acknowledged as false by the second article, but, as referenced in the Wikipedia article on YouTube (with reliable sources), YouTube’s HD video technology is based on Adobe Flash (which in turn, was based on H.264 compression), and was not developed by YouTube. Thus, not only were the statements by the “expert” highly defamatory to OnLive, were laced with foul language, and were acknowledged in the second article to be false, but no such “YouTube HD video” expert exists and was clearly fabricated to create the appearance of a famous expert to back up the article’s exceptional claims.

The WP:REDFLAG “exceptional claims” made by the articles start with the title of the first article “Why OnLive Can’t Possibly Work”, using pseudo-scientific arguments backed by supposed experts (at least one who was fabricated), which were debunked by the fact that OnLive does, in fact, work. The second article grudgingly acknowledges that the first article’s assertions were false, or at best grossly exaggerated. Nonetheless, it continues to make further “exceptional claims”, again citing anonymous supposed experts who supposedly conducted more pseudo-scientific testing, which of course, conclude that despite the fact OnLive does work, it does not work well. Since the second article was published, no other source has reproduced the pseudo-scientific tests, and further, credible mass-market sources have endorsed OnLive, as major game publishers have released games on OnLive and the largest North American TV manufacture, Vizio, announced it would build OnLive into TVs, blu-ray players and Android devices. With so many of the “exceptional claims” not only contradicted by the prevailing view, but grudgingly by one of the articles itself, these are articles violate WP:REDFLAG policy.

The articles take a strongly negative view in violation of WP:NPOV, they are extremely critical and at best damn with faint praise, they make personal attacks on OnLive principals, stating their claims are false, even after the second article admitted the first article’s personal attacks were unfounded, by characterizing OnLive as a hoax and its principals as making false claims, they seek to undermine the reputation of individuals and the organization.

Because these articles attack living persons, and are self-admittedly false, they violate WP:IRS and should be taken down. “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” Further, the articles clearly are in violation of many of the WP:IRS scholarship guidelines: “Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research” (these “studies” are not only isolated, but self-contradictory). These articles cite pseudo-science research as if it is real academic research, but there is no reputable peer review, no identifiable sources, and have not been accepted by the academic community. Further, these articles qualify as “Questionable sources” under WP:IRS: these articles did not check facts, lack editorial oversight and express views that are extremist in nature, making them particularly unsuitable for citing contentious claims against institutions or living persons.

Lastly, setting aside all of the deficiencies of these articles, there is no justification for having content sourced from these articles dominate the OnLive article. A Google search of “onlive” produces over 2 million web results, 193,000 blog results, and 285 News results for 2011, 2,200 News results for 2010, and 1,220 News results for 2009. Amongst all of these articles, surely we can find reliable sources that are balanced and do not resort to foul language and personal attacks.

So, even if Eurogamer is to be deemed a reliable source in general by this Wikiproject, Eurogamer’s articles about OnLive should not be deemed either reliable or appropriate sources for Wikipedia.

Createk (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place for this discussion - I'd say bring it up at WT:VG. I myself think Digital Foundry is reliable, regardless of individual articles. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Additionally as with all reliable sources some things are editorials by the authors. Such sources should be taken in context, and if such sources are used, it's generally a good idea to see if counterpoint sources can be provided as well. As far as Eurogamer's opinion other sites have been equally as critical as this is new technology ([26], [27]) so having sources that question it is perfectly viable. If it's a neutrality issue re-balance it with positive sources. --Teancum (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Simple answer: Eurogamer is reliable, the person sourced is an expert giving their opinion, and thus as it is not fact, has to be in balance per Undue weight. It is fair to note the author's concerns, but dedicating 20% of the article to his comments is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Propose Co-Optimus as reliable source. Editorial staff overview displayed at [28], articles have bylines, article quality looks pretty decent and I see no evidence of copypasta reposting of flack materials. Looks adequate to me. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - been meaning to propose this for a while, but never got around to it. --Teancum (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing anything that makes them reliable... they have a staff, but none of those people are notable, the editor is also the owner (SPS...), and no one else seems to value their opinions much (I saw a Lifehacker blog post on the site and that's about it.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • True - I see a couple of hits at Kotaku and a six at Joystiq, haven't checked other sites, but I'll have to take a deeper look. --Teancum (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, a heavily filtered reliable sources search (removed all forums/comments) yields quite a few decent results. This may be worth looking deeper into. I followed a handful of links and saw some decent coverage. Doesn't help the SPS issue per say, but there seems to be plenty of mention. --Teancum (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just dropping a bunch of links in succession that would be of interest as far as other sites valuing their opinion: IGN, Joystiq (direct coverage of the site itself), 1UP (covers actions by Co-Optumus), Joystiq (cites Co-Optimus), ARS Technica (more coverage of the site in a Co-op article), GameDaily (cites Co-Optimus as a source), Game, Set, Watch (in an article about useful gaming links), Game Informer (cites it as a source), Gamasutra (mentioned in an interview), Game, Set, Watch (another mention) -- there's more, but those prove the point,

While I can't speak for the SPS issue, several sites have given mention, cited, or covered Co-Optimus directly. I don't think it's a matter of enough folks valuing their opinion. --Teancum (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

But whether or not they are worth salt in the related field is not the question; it's whether they meet RS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see some reasons why this wouldn't work, but if you could lay out the specifics of where this fails that could help with the site itself. I often pass on information to these sorts of sites as they'd like to pass WP:RS and so are willing to make changes accordingly. The only thing I see are the lack of experienced staff. I just want to see if there are other specific things that cause this to fail. --Teancum (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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

• Proposed Reliable Source

Gamesauce (website) is both an online and print-based magazine based in Seattle, WA; it has an industry-based 25,000 circulation, with about 1/3 of that being outside of the US. See their about us page for more information. Some of the staff have backgrounds as game developers, others are more journalism-based. The magazine typically has interviews with indie studios and contributors from those studios who write articles on game design, as well as other content. I'm looking mostly to approve this on the basis of the interviews/highlights of game studios such as their article on RedLynx, which would be a huge asset to the RedLynx article. I'd say articles by contributors should generally be avoided but can be considered on a case-by-case basis - such a case could be the possibility of a major video game designer such as Ron Gilbert or Tim Schafer contributing a retrospective article on their past games. Some realistic examples would be their interviews with Thatgamecompany's Kellee Santiago and Robin Hunicke along with bigger companies such as Gearbox Software's Steve Gibson and Bethesda Softworks's Pete Hines. --Teancum (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The contributions are published under a unified "Contributions" author account - perhaps I'm wrong here but to me that suggests a stronger editorial oversight, comparatively. These are also all industry insiders. I'd actually be happy calling this a reliable source. Marasmusine (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't they have a TV show on GSN a few years ago? Sarujo (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you're thinking of Game Sauce, which is a different entity. I had to look it up to be sure. --Teancum (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd actually say a website that doesn't disclose the main contributors to a story looks less reliable, actually. Also interviews aren't really a good example of suggesting reliability; at FAC there have been plenty of decent interviews that have been removed as the site itself doesn't meet RS criteria, and interviews don't grant exceptions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Contributions are disclosed in the article itself (I.E. this contributor article indicates Noah Falstein wrote the article). Contributions are merely separated as they are not written by staff, but by industry experts in their respective fields, or developers who do reflections on specific topics. I see no reason why this is any different than Gamasutra's take on things. Some articles are written by staff, others by contributors. The only difference is that the contributor's name is listed in a blockquote in the article. I just don't see how looking into the source itself doesn't verify it's reliability. The staff is made up of journalists and developers with experience, clearly in looking at the writing style there's an strong editorial process. The contributors are listed in the prose of the article, but in a clear manner, and are experts in their fields. Unless there's a specific other qualm about the site I really don't see a reason not to make this a reliable source. --Teancum (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "ElectronicTheatere" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo

I just found this, I thinking it might no be reliable but I'm not sure. What do you think? Sarujo (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the about page. The site is self-published and the staff seem to want to be anonymous, so, well, meh. Marasmusine (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've always wondered: shouldn't we include web sites that don't deal with video games? IE CNN, Fox News, Yahoo!, etc.? Like with Wired, while they don't focus on video games, they clearly are verifiable, and with them added, the Google search for video game sources would be a lot more varied. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

They should definitely be included in the custom search; I don't think we should place them in the list however. Maybe just include a note that in general publications considered reliable for general topics, such as newspapers, et al, are also perfectly fine. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dave. Simply stating that any source considered generally reliable would also be considered reliable within our scope. The only minor rejection I might see to that is that Fox News on occasion might leave that realm, as they have been accused several times for being biased against video games, or getting facts completely wrong (and those are only two sources). Still in that case a little common sense would do us good. In those situations WP:NPOV comes into play, so while we would cite Fox, we'd also cite a reliable source which has a rebuttal. --Teancum (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah so I just got a new magazine called Gamer in the mail. And I mean new as in its the 6th issue. Its called the offical magazine of Best Buy and I wanna know how reliable it is. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the press release, the editorial team is strong and ostensiably acting independently of Best Buy. On the other hand, it is designed to provide store offers - and I bet all the reviews will be exceptionally light on criticism. Since you have the magazine there, perhaps you can describe the content for us? Marasmusine (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that when searching, the search engine will never go past more than 10 pages. Is there any way to fix this? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Report it to the creator.陣内_Jinnai 20:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have come across N-Sider as a source for many Nintendo-related details on Wikipedia, but despite their former partnership with IGN (resulting in these texts: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]), I think their articles and features are to be considered unreliable as they are littered with severe mistakes, flat-out speculation and intentionally falsified information to make aforementioned speculation seem legit.

• Staff members use online translators as a basis for their articles. at the Wayback Machine (archived 2011-09-28)
• Games are misattributed to specific development studios by means of guesses on the people involved, the information of which has since been contradicted by primary sources (for example Super Mario Advance, attributed to R&D2 by N-Sider – [47], [48]) – but confirmed by Nintendo to be the work of EAD).
• Credit lists for old games spell out acronyms in full, based on guesses without any hard evidence on the respective developers' involvement with the game (N-Sider lists credits and claims specific names to be "identified" where acronyms fit full names "well enough", they leave acronyms for the rest).
• Developer profiles are based on some of this speculation, and frequently use decorative details never mentioned in other sources, which N-Sider just couldn't know unless they had direct contacts to the Japanese Nintendo employees.
• "transcribed" N-Sider version of this Japanese interview: the most blatant example of forgery on N-Sider's part. N-Sider heavily modified the original text to include quotes that were never part of the interview. For example, they claim the interviewees to be part of Research & Development 2/R&D2 and frequently refer to the studio by this name throughout their text, though the original Japanese text never actually mentions it once. Same goes with "Super Mario Bros. DX", mentioned several times in N-Sider's version to prove their speculation on the studio, yet only mentioned once in the Japanese interview. There are many such paragraphs with false information.
• Developer profiles use names never confirmed by official sources (all primary sources use "Isshin Shimizu", "Kazunobu Shimizu" was never used by that particular person).
• Erroneous studio information: R&D2 claimed to be merged into EAD, but confirmed by Nintendo to be merged into SPD. N-Sider articles and features also claim R&D4 to be the former name of EAD, but this name or its Japanese counterpart (開発四部) is never mentioned in any interviews, and the preceding department was confirmed by Nintendo to be the Creative Department.

N-Sider staff writer Anthony JC seems to be the worst offender, having created the most speculative articles that pass themselves off as fact. But as the information in features is shared between items in N-Sider's database, I think it is hard to take anything from them for granted. Same goes for the articles they provided to IGN, which contain some of the mistakes and speculation shown above. Therefore, I'd limit N-Sider's reliable content to developer interviews they actually conducted themselves (in which I could not find any factual errors). I am not sure on allowing the site's game reviews since most of N-Sider's staff seems to be composed of volunteers rather than journalists (Jeffrey Van Camp is one, though I don't know if he wrote for any video game sites in a reviewing capacity). Prime Blue (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it from WP:VG/RS, Kotaku "News posts after 2010 are considered reliable. For posts before 2010, only those (significant) opinion posts that are written by established writers are allowed." What about posts during 2010? There's a lot of pieces I'd like to add to articles, but I want to clarify this before I start adding them. The wording seems a bit ambiguous in this regard. Nomader ^(Talk) 10:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Even though I don't agree with the "prior to 2010" rule, there are a few editors which would pass as reliable regardless of date. Brian Crecente, Stephen Tolito, Michael McWhertor and Brian Ashcraft all have extensive professional backgrounds, and the first three have been referenced by USA newscasts and newspapers. That being said Kotaku has had a strong editorial process all along, I'm not sure what the reasoning is (though I've read the archived discussion) for putting some sort of date modifier. --Teancum (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think for this site, it might be best to list all the experts considering its unusual ruling. Another would be AJ Glasser whose written for PCWorld and a few reviews for other names.陣内_Jinnai 20:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure at all of its notability; merely wondering if it can be used in any way for indie articles. [49] - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been several months now when I was on arguing for a discussion of the reliability of gamrFeed and gamrReview as reliable sources. They are both part of the VGChartz Network and VGChartz has been dismissed an unreliable. I'm not asking for a re-evaluation of that. I am the editor-in-chief of the editorial sites (not the sales analysis side) and we have successfully taken the sales articles off the gamrfeed.vgchartz.com URL. They still appear on gamrFeed, but clicking them will redirect to the sales site, vgchartz.com. gamrFeed is a blog-style site with a mix of experienced and inexperienced writers, so I'm hoping for some conditional approval there. gamrReview is used on GameRankings.com and is sourced by EEDAR as well. I can also tell you the staff behind the numbers do not write any editorial content for gamrFeed or gamrReview. Thank your for your fair-minded discussion and consideration. --Havokclix (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Game Rankings' criteria for inclusion is weaker than Wikipedia's. The staff still suffers from being comprised of almost entirely inexperienced editors, with only one single exception. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to get some further discussion of AtariAge's usability as a situational source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This link is being disputed by editor Ryulong in this article to verify the number of Pokémon in the games; Ryulong argues that it is a bad source because the source comes from either Japanese hackers (assumed) or Serebii (assumed). However, neither assertion can be shown by the user, so I am attempting to argue that it is in violation of WP:V's rule of focusing on verifiability rather than the truth of the statement to assume that an otherwise reliable source is not reliable without evidence of this. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is indisputably true (that is, if the number is indeed right) and it is also backed up by reliable sources, then I see no problem whatsoever with adding the information. If it is just speculation that made its way into reliable sources, I would not add it. I usually think of reliable sources as a means of backing up facts, not as an instrument to show what information is fact. That said, it looks like this matter will be resolved anyway some time down the road if it is true. Prime Blue (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

But the thing is, it won’t be truly solved until the events happen, which could be another two years. A large part of this discussion took place here, to decide whether or not to list the 3 event Pokemon in the list. IGN has now listed them in their Pokedex here, here, and here. Ryulong still questions whether or not to list them. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about the number, but this seems to be about the actual data (names etc.). Again, if it's not just a hoax but genuine data that is also reported by reliable sources, there are no grounds to object it. Ideally, though, it should be mentioned that they have not been officially revealed/introduced/whatever yet, of course citing a reliable source. Prime Blue (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I know you were talking about the number. I was just letting you know that there was a second side to the discussion. We won't be able to say much about them, but they should be listed nonetheless since they do exist, and the IGN sources I gave confirm that. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to get some further discussion of Nintendo Life's usability as a situational source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen them cited by any reliable sources and they appear to be a blog site. I would say no unless you can find which ones work in the industry and then situational for them.陣内_Jinnai 02:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There's an earlier discussion wherein Guyinblack25 felt that it was borderline acceptable due to some mention in some reliable sources such as IGN, as well as its owner being reliable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Being mentioned ins't enough. They'd have to do more than just be mentioned.陣内_Jinnai 14:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

[50] - Eric Caoili is a regular contributor to both Gamasutra and Game Set Watch. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it his own blog? Unless the individual is particularly well known I don't think SPS covers this aspect. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so; JC Fletcher from Joystiq does some work on here. Perhaps situational for more obscure games? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think we can use it as situational for an obscure game; it's either acceptable or not. As it is it's self described as "random guys on a video game blog". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If it covers the same material he posts on gamasutra then it should be fine. It only would be an issue if he posted mostly about rpgs at gamasutra and fps at tiny cartridge (ie someone could claim he's not an expert in fps games, just rpgs).陣内_Jinnai 00:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's contributed by more than just Eric, with JC Fletcher, who also contributes to GameSpot from time to time that I've seen. It is also cited at 1UP.com, Kotaku several times, Game Set Watch (not by Caoili of course), and GameDaily (the latter which actually references an interview conducted by Caoili). Tiny Cartridge features content by fairly reliable individuals that is typically not available on the sites that they also work on; its work is also focused on Japanese subjects and more obscure games like downloadable titles or indie games, making them useful for games that aren't covered as often in the more mainstream sources. Additionally, the description of "random guys on a video game blog" sounds to me like self-deprecating humour - they're obviously not random people, and not all of their news stories are random. Kotaku, for instance, may do some random blogs that really shouldn't be covered here, but we do cover what they do that's reasonable. To cite a similar source, Andriasang, has fairly similar purposes - to give coverage to the Japanese industry, which is not the focus of more mainstream web sites - it's a blog-type web site - and it's effectively a person web site for Anoop Gantayat's coverage of video games, yet is considered one of the fully reliable sources. As such, since it provides coverage that most reliable sources overlook, is written by reliable individuals, and is cited in several reliable sources, I think it qualifies as a reliable source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, " since it provides coverage that most reliable sources overlook" is not a valid reasoning. We don't try and find sources to fill gaps in coverage and make due with what's there. Reliability is not bounded or shaped by how much coverage or lack thereof a subject receives. I think you may be trying to pound a round source into a square hole here. I'm not convinced that we can extrapolate that just because someone works for another site, personal projects or blogs should be a-ok, considering our main metric is editorial oversight (in other words, it's not the writer so much as the support to them.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, we already feature a reliable source that is basically the same thing in the form of Andriasang, which passed on the grounds of being cited in numerous reliable sources, and was effectively decided to be used as a "self-published source" due to Anoop's expertise in the field. I am not asking for it to be used solely because of the limited coverage of specific subjects that it provides, I am suggesting it because Eric is a regular author of articles on more obscure subjects such as indie and retro-style games, which I think constitutes a self-published source that we can use due to being a primary contributor to Game Set Watch. He also has some experience outside of video games, including as a press release writer and album reviewer for AOL. I think that his experience is sufficient enough to match Anoop. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The pedigree sounds pretty good, even if the professionalism isn't apparent. An about page or list of editors would be good though. Do we know all the contributors to the site? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC))

From what I can surmise, it seems to be only JC Fletcher and Eric Caoili. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's just those two, I don't see a problem with listing it in "Platform-specific" table. They're established editors from sources we already consider reliable.

However, I think David brings up a valid concern. We might have been applying WP:SPS too loosely. This might require broader evaluation of all of our reliable sources. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC))

That's been an underlying concern of mine here, especially for the ones that give more general approval.陣内_Jinnai 00:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Can iFixit be used as a source? What about if they're citing a reference like Chipworks? Example. « ₣M₣ » 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, they're a blog arm of a repair/tech source. But considering that it appears part of it works as a wiki, I'd say no. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

about page. I'm wondering if they would be acceptable as a WP:NEWSORG (as opposed to general SPS). They definatly seem to have some editorial oversight and are not just a "typical blog".

I ask specifically because I'd like to use this article on destructoid by one of their editors.陣内_Jinnai 02:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Being an incorporated organization with headquarters and regional offices is usually a good sign - assuming the locations given are actual offices and not just the domestic addresses of the volunteer staff. I've had a real quick look through the editorials and their work seems accurate and articulate enough. Marasmusine (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just started a discussion here regarding the usability of Atari HQ as a reliable source. As this is a video game related topic, a member of WPVG has asked me to post a note here as well. If you are interesting in participating, please post at the above-linked subsection rather than here so that we can keep the discussion centralized. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this site considered unreliable? From what I've read, it produces signed, fairly objective reviews, and it's about the only secondary source about Ryzom, so I'd like to use it. Ketil (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I consider the site subpar at best. The editorial staff is listed but it's unclear how many articles they actually write since their reviews are by freelance authors. They also engage in affiliate marketing which makes them less than independent. As for their articles, I find them fairly amateurish and lacking polish (like blatantly marked "edit" reviews [51][52] with dull writing and poor grammar). Though the authors are credited—at the bottom of each article, by the way—they're (again) freelancers paid per article, not professional game journalists who are part of the staff. The site also tends inflate their article count with press releases ([53][54][55]) and "Reader's Choice" awards ([56]), fluff pieces that, as far as I'm concerned, only serve to reduce its reliability as a source. Plus, holy hell is that site spammy. Advertisements everywhere. The specific articles above could just be those about Ryzom, but from what I've seen of them elsewhere on Wikipedia, I wouldn't consider the site reliable at all. Maybe something written by an actual staff member, but I haven't seen such an article yet. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(Oh, hi, Wyatt!) OK, MMORPG is out, and I need to find sites with reviews written by staff. Sorry about the ads, I block them so I didn't know. For press releases it's a bit of a catch-22, I can't cite them directly since that would be primary sources, and republishing press releases makes a site unreliable... Ketil (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The site is self-published, so use WP:SPS: Check the publishing history for Adam Tingle, Donna Desborough or Reed Hubbard. Marasmusine (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked at e.g http://claimid.com/kostika , but I guess I don't quite understand. So she's written a handful of game reviews. Is that supposed to disqualify or qualify her? Ketil (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, anyone (you, me, anybody) can write articles and submit them to these sites. That's why we don't accept self-published sources. What we're looking for are articles written by (for example) journalists on the staff of game publications, or authors of books published by reputable publishing houses. Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That's actually not quite correct, we do accept self published sources just not by anybody. A self published source by a notable expert is often acceptable. Also it is not really helpful to focus on staff journalists, snce more and more professional journalists work part time and as freelancers and there are "reputable" publications (journals & magazines) working with freelancers. So what you have to look for here, is reputation of an author and where he has published in general, but not so much where his particular piece being used as a source was published.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Having spent a bit of time going over the various WP: policy pages, I have a feeling this project is having a much stricter and more pedantic standard for citation. For instance, Wikipedia:When_to_cite only insists on high-quality reliable sources for exceptional claims, and stuff like plot of the subject of e.g. a book may be unreferenced. Stuff like game world and skill system should be fairly non-contentious, and is easy to check for anybody who can spend ten minutes to install the game - it falls not only under the plot clause, but also under common knowledge, IMO. Yet I have to cite everything, and reviewers who work free lance are considered on par with anonymous tweets.

Okay, for whatever reason, perhaps a more rigid approach is warranted for video games than for other topics. But do we agree that the standards are more rigid here? And what is the reason for it? Aren't we in danger of Wikipedia:Citation overkill? Ketil (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No we don't. The application of those various guidelines & policies is contextual and they are written for a goal not their own sake. If anything various standards need to somewhat be less rigid with regard to games, as obviously it doesn't really make much sense to require academic peer reviewed publication and textbooks as sources for much of the game related content. However this refers to nature of the sources used rather than what content needs to be sourced.

Now regarding what actually needs to be sourced, there it is important to distinguish between 2 different kinds of sourcing.

• a) Content which mandatory to be sourced by the general policies & guidelines
• b) Content which people generally source anyhow (for completeness' sake and to avoid potential discussions about a))

imho b) is usually not a bad thing, because then readers see where any information comes from (might it be likely to be challegend or a extraordinary claim or not). In short more citations or citations for everything may not be required but usually don't harm. However b) has also lead indeed to a Wikipedia:Citation overkill in some cases moreover some editors (imho unfortunately) have developed a tendency to expect inline citations for everything even if it is obviously true and non-contentious. In addition many of them just formally check for the existence of inline citations and whether they're formally reliable rather than actually reading the content and the sources themselves to form a sound judgement on a particular case (moreover to really check/validate the content that way). A particularly bad example of this unfortunate development are editors, who are performing FARs on some subject they are mostly clueless about and then base their judgement on purely formal arguments (i.e. checking whether an article has "enough" inline citations, rather than actually reading the sources and proof reading the article's content).--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

See this edit. I don't think the inclusion of GameRankings/Metacritic stats are inappropriate but user:Indrian does. Ideas? SharkD  Talk  20:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that either at first glance, the comment in the version history could be added in a footnote, but i see no reason to suppress the information.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

During an AfD I tried to evaluate this review at Inside Social Games, and wondered if the site could be considered reliable. About page: The founder is Justin Smith and the editor Eric Eldon. The site is part of Smith's Inside Network. Seems to have more of an industry background than the usual self-published games site. Marasmusine (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - Seems to have a strong editorial process in place. The writing is strong and devoid of so many issues a typical WordPress blog has. From that standpoint I'll give it thumbs up. --Teancum (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Staff looks good, but is there more evidence that the site can be considered reliable? For example, has their content been picked up by our general reliable sources? Prime Blue (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• The writing might be stronger than average, but I'm not seeing them meeting criteria. I see they were recently purchased[82] but the same article also points out their actual staff is tiny. There are mentions--aside from the purchase news--by a few publications ([83][84][85], but none of these is the equivalent of an IGN or GameSpot approval or something similar.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So I saw this source being used in Elaine Marley, and I was wondering exactly how reliable it was. If it is reliable, which parts (e.g. are the articles notable? If so, what about the blogs?) If at least some of it is reliable, then great, as we can add it to a bunch of other articles for reception and help booster notability. Harry Blue5 (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Does the site have a "reputation for accuracy and fact checking"? As a self-published source, are the authors "established experts in the field."? Here is some more information on the author, Dr. Gonzo.[86] Marasmusine (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. TGWTG's network spans a lot of internet reviewers and while a few like NC, Linkara, and Spoony have gotten some reputation, the rest are mostly equivalent to average players. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose – To expand on that Masem said, TGWTG and others specialize more in entertainment than in actual video game journalism. While there may be reason to occasionally include them for some objective claims (which is still far in between), I certainly would not use them to verify any subjective claims. –MuZemike 07:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

[87] - I'm reviewing Neutopia for GA, and that source is currently the only issue. It has some editorial oversight - listing expectations of quality from their contributors - but none of the contributors seems especially reliable. And it's a damn shame to lose the source, since it seems like a good one for obscure consoles like the TurboGrafx. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Making sure that this doesn't drop off; very important that I get some other comments on this. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: As with Inside Network above, is there something that would help identify the site as reliable? Notable staff members, content picked up by other reliable sources, etc. Prime Blue (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "NowGamer" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo

Example links. NowGamer is a site that does reviews, previews, news, features and other stuff. According to their review section "All the reviews on NowGamer.com are written by experienced professional games experts who live, sleep and breathe games for every format and for the last 25 years". Examples of some writers include Adam Barnes and Dave Cook, just in case those names mean anything to anybody. Is this site reliable? Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, as much as they call themselves professionals... that's not really confidence-inspiring. Their parent company is Imagine Publishing, and we do count some of their print refs as reliable, but I can't find much that references them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just revitalizing discussion on whether jayisgames.com can be used as a reliable source. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

For references, here are the previous discussions:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_1#Browser.2Fflash.2FMMOG_games
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_2#JayIsGames
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_4#Jay_Is_Games

I can't find an "about" summary at the website. One thing to check is the professional history of Jay and JohnB as editors, and find out a bit more about the writers. There are two hits on Google Books: "The Video Game Explosion" describes it as a "prominent" independent gaming site; "The New Digital Storytelling" calls it "widely read" - I'm not sure if this helps determine the site's reliability. Marasmusine (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

[88] - Site has several notable gaming industry personalities, as well as an editor-in-chief who has contributed to other notable websites, including The New York Times. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The staff list is pretty strong. I think this came up in an AfD and I agreed that it is a usable site. Marasmusine (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. Looks very strong to me. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per Teancum. I hadn't noticed the rampant copyediting failure; missing a bar that low does call the entire editorial process into serious question. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Check for status as non-self-published source – is there something that would help identify the site as reliable? Notable staff members, content picked up by other reliable sources, etc. Prime Blue (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - As pointed out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backyard Monsters there are multiple articles with very basic spelling and grammar issues. That suggest an extremely poor editorial oversight. It's one thing if there are errors right after publishing, it's another if they remain more than a day or so. --Teancum (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, in that Backyard Monsters review, the site's managing editor uses the word "explicitedly". Marasmusine (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, that actually argues back in the direction of reliability, since if the managing editor actually just has a somewhat deranged vocabulary and poor spelling, then the presence of these things in articles does not mean that editorial oversight isn't happening, it just means the editor isn't capable of correcting them, and the editorial functions that are actually important for reliability, like fact-checking, may still be in place. (Just because somebody can't spell doesn't mean they aren't conversant with their industry or that they can't ensure accuracy.) —chaos5023 (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, appearances do matter. If they can't take care of even simple errors quickly, are they really likely to check their facts after publication? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. I'm not saying that appearances don't matter, just that if the editor can't spell, then spelling errors aren't evidence against editorial oversight being in place. This contradicts our prejudices as educated English speakers, but an editor incapable of copyediting for spelling and grammar may be capable of correcting errors of fact. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, if the "managing editor" both can't spell and has no editorial staff under him who can compensate for this deficiency, then this argues against the robustness of the overall editorial process. Which would be a reason I haven't re-switched my opinion on this one. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I highlighted one typo. Everyone makes mistakes. Are there any further examples? I'm trying to determine the regularity of editorial failure. (You should've seen the "reliable publication" Sinclair User back in the day - typos and formatting errors on every page.) Marasmusine (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Cunard identified a lot of other errors in the Backyard Monsters article; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backyard Monsters. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Just posting this link. Good to see that they constantly review their sources, and are on the look out for anything dodgy. Link - X201 (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

For PC games, what sources are favored in citing those games' system requirements? This information is typically included on the packaging of games sold at retail, and for those types of games, this is one situation where I believe the game itself could serve as a reliable source. For games that are distributed digitally, the requirements are usually listed on the distributor's site. However, many online games receive ongoing updates that change the system requirements over time. Would the developer's web site, even though it is self published, be the most reliable source in these cases? --Jt12852 07:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jt12852 (talk • contribs)

The system requirements specified by the developer (either on their website or on the game's packaging) qualify as a primary source, so you can use these. Prime Blue (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Developers and publishers are usually the only reliable sources on the subject. There are other sources, but they hold about as much weight as blogs. A lot of editors use game-debate.com and I'm of the opinion that such references should be removed wholesale. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bringing up Original Sound Version as reliable, because it is a very useful source for video game music-related topics. They provide interviews, news reports and reviews. Don't let the blog-like format scare you off – founder Jayson Napolitano was a staff writer for the reliable Music4Games, and conducted interviews for the site.

Content from Original Sound Version has been cited by:

• GameSpot: [89]
• 1UP.com: [90], [91], [92]
• ComputerAndVideoGames.com: [93]
• GamePro: [94]
• Kotaku: [95], [96], [97], [98], [99]
• Nintendo World Report: [100]
• Wired GameLife: [101], [102]
• Our semi-reliable sites, such as RPGFan and Joystiq (just some examples)

Prime Blue (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Given its pedigree I'm okay with calling it reliable. Too bad about music4games, maybe this one will take up the slack? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

They seem to be, especially in the last few months. I use their interviews and reviews extensively nowadays. I !vote reliable. --PresN 19:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Can this site I just found today be reliable? Sarujo (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The interviews can be used as a WP:PRIMARY source. Otherwise, I can't see any reason to cite this self-published site. Marasmusine (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I recently used the VG Google Search and it kicked out a TopTenReviews page: [103] - an editorial review. The site is currently listed as "unreliable" with the comment "Site was deemed to be unreliable as only usage of them is from forum posts and the like and there is no clear strong editorial oversight." and prior discussion here only addresses their use as a aggregate site. Since this review is neither a forum post or an aggregate score, and our custom search picked up on it, perhaps we should clarify? Marasmusine (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that they have multiple "Buy Now" links on almost every item they review (and referral links on products they don't sell) unnerves me. - X201 (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Me too. These aren't independent banner ads. This is "You've read our review, now BUY IT." I find this questionable. Marasmusine (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And to be clear, the site selling the software in the example is owned by TTR's parent company, something you wouldn't know just by looking at it. But the business model looks even dodgier than the marriage of reviews and sales. Techmedianetwork, the parent company, advertises a service of "Custom Editorial and Video creation". They don't go into detail, but I've looked around and "custom editorial" is exactly what it sounds like: you pay them money, they put out an article. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Upon doing research for an article, I happened upon this site. I not familiar with staff, so what's the verdict? Sarujo (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you look on the staff page, every single person is listed as an editor. I take it that by editor they mean anyone with publishing privileges on their WordPress set up. The articles themselves are bloggy (sometimes very bloggy) and sources are almost never cited. The advertising is shady as well. I wouldn't bring it up except that their advertising partner prompted me to download a file on one page. This was almost surely malware. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is upsetting, as I need something to verify the news of character creator and customizer mode in the upcoming Dragon Ball game, and in depth coverage on this has only extended to the fansites and forums. Sarujo (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)