Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 6

To save some space and to broaden RS coverage, I propose that we should merge all of the alternate names for sources in the checklist (e.g. "Game Captain" and "Gamecaptain") to retain only the official name. If problems arise with editors repeatedly adding in a misspelled or alternative name then a commented out note could be added to inform editors that the entry already exists under a different name. This issue might also be remedied simply by switching from the current largely computer-style numerical sort (where spaces and special/accented characters count as pre-"A" characters) to a true alphabetical sort (ignoring spaces) so that "Game Pro" would be followed by "GamePro" instead of being separated by "Game Quest", "Game Racer", "Game Stop", and "GameBrothers", etc. (hypothetical source names).

Secondly, I think it would be a good idea to merge the different language editions of most if not all sources. So, for example, rather than listing "GamesTM", "GamesTM (Belgium)", "GamesTM (Germany)" , "GamesTM (Netherlands)", and "GamesTM (UK)" all one after the other in the checklist, we would create a merged listing like so: "GameTM (Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, UK, USA)". This should save on space and it seems like this is what we see in most cases already. There is a slight danger in making the presumption of equal reliability across different language editions of the same source, however I think the danger is slight and later discussions should provide a more nuanced view if it is warranted. Any cases where specific language editions meet a different standard of reliability can be easily dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Would there be any objections to the proposed switch to true alphabetization? Would there be any objection to the proposed bloat-reducing merges? -Thibbs (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

OK I've just merged the duplicate (alternate) titles for sources and properly alphabetized the list according to the normal non-numerical-sort scheme. I've also made some minor adjustments in the interest of inter-entry consistency. Specifically I've placed the word "Magazine" in parentheses in all cases where it was used as a medium descriptor rather than as the title since it interfered with proper alphabetizing in some cases and because it creates the potential for redundancy as well as confusion when a source is a print magazine as well as an online source. I have also made the foreign source tags more consistent, so instead of seeing "DE", "GER", and "Germany" I've used the full name wherever possible.

While going about making these changes, I had a few further ideas for possible changes.

• First of all I was wondering whether or not it sounds like a good idea to use the {{flagicon}} template instead of the country names for sources that currently use names. On the one hand it might reduce the lengths of the entries, but on the other hand it might make it look kind of gaudy with little images everywhere. Any thoughts on this?
• Secondly, I'm wondering if it seems like a good idea to modify the url-style entries ending in .com, .co.uk, .net, .de, etc. and instead to create a link to the source's url in those cases. It seems like a consistent style would be worth developing, and it seems like a link to the source in question would help, but I don't know if a wikilink or an external link or some combination of both would be best. Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Should we transclude the polish version of WP:VG/S? They mirror en.wiki's policies down to the page layout and subsection headers so presumably their RS determinations should be just as good as en.wiki's (if not better for Polish language sources). The only difference is that the number of sources they have listed is much fewer and they emphasize Polish sources. Currently the number of sources they list include:

• RS Magazines - 14
• RS Books - 3
• RS Websites - 7
• RS English Websites - 8 (a who's who of en.wiki's most frequently used VG RSes)
• Situational Websites - 5
• Non-RS Websites - 10
• Non-RS English Websites - 4 (matches en.wiki's Non-RS VG sites)
• Checklist - 53

I'd say that their RS websites and RS Books/Magazines should be ok for our purposes. Similarly, their non-RS sources should be non-RS here too. The members of PL.WP:VG would be the best judges of these sources and since they have an essentially identical RS policy as en.wiki, I think their views regarding reliability should be adopted by en.wiki as sound ones. The one place I think we should differ from pl.wiki's RS determination is for situational sources. Because these sources require careful analysis for proper use, knowledge of polish would presumably be an important requirement and I think it's too much to expect WP:VG editors to navigate these sites in Polish. I'd say that these sources should all be non-RS for WP:VG's purposes.

So what this boils down to is the greenlighting of 13 sources we have listed in the checklist, the redflagging of 11 sources we have listed in the checklist, and the possible addition of 9 new RSes. By transcluding the Polish determinations we are basically saying that

1. Because pl.wiki uses the same RS policies and guidelines as en.wiki and WP:VG, and
2. Because the editors of pl.wiki have discussed these sources and have come to a consensus regarding their reliability, and
3. Because as native polish-speakers they are in the best position to judge reliability of Polish language sources,

we will accept their RS determinations and will redflag their non-RS and Situational determinations. To me this makes very good sense. Are there any objections? -Thibbs (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

 Y Seeing no opposition to this idea I've boldly made the relevant changes. On the whole this makes good sense to me but if any individual sources need to be revisited in the future then naturally these determinations can change. -Thibbs (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

While going through the sources in the checklist, I was rather zealous in linking related discussions which sometimes were discussions on other topics that only covered the source in question tangentially. Despite my zeal, there were a surprising number of sources that were listed for which I could not find the discussion leading to the consensus determination of reliability or non-reliability. These sources are marked as if a consensus has been reached, but I couldn't find any discussion in the normal places.

I suspect that these seemingly un-discussed sources have either actually been discussed in out-of-the-way places like individual article talk pages or even on user talk pages in the past, or that they have simply been used/excluded for ages and the reasons are so obvious that no specific discussion has actually taken place. For this reason I don't think it's necessary to start whole new discussions over these sources just to confirm what we already have listed in the checklist. Instead I'd like to apply WP:SILENCE to these and suggest that since there has been no objections to the current designations, then the current designations must be sound ones. We can link them all to this thread to show that the topic of their reliability was at least brought publicly up at one time, but unless there are any specific objections I say we should leave them as they are.

I am referring to the sources collapsed hereunder:

If there are any objections to leaving these designations in place as they have been for the last little while (several months or however long it's been) then please discuss them here. Otherwise by WP:SILENCE I think we can consider them properly designated. -Thibbs (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I skimmed through the list briefly and I don't have any objections. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

So, I wanted to establish/find consensus on this blog/website being unreliable now, before things pick up with Wii U news. (Which will certainly happen around E3, and then again around it's Q4 2012 launch.

This website post blatantly false information (at least as far as public information goes.) The biggest source of trouble is articles like this: http://wiiudaily.com/2012/03/grand-theft-auto-5-coming-to-wii-u-in-2013/ where they claim, as a fact, that GTA V is coming to the Wii U. This has not in fact, been confirmed, and if it did, we would know it, as it would set the internet on fire. It's just a rumor, and despite the fact that they do have a "rumor" tag they put on rumor articles, they didn't put it here.

Beyond that, it seemed like there was much information in some of their FAQs that seemed to confirm information about they system in general that really hadn't been confirmed yet. So anyways, right now it's just used here and there, but I wanted to establish it as unusable before it gets the chance to be used in a more widespread manner.

• Unreliable Source - Newly established bloggy site that clearly has fact checking issues/no realy editorial oversight. Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• Unreliable - No information on editorial policies, contact address leads to an apartment complex, couldn't find anything that demonstrates reliability of individual authors, rumors are not always clear, and they do not source other sites properly/at all. --Teancum (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
• Note - I'll play devil's advocate here. The reliability of the specific authors (if it exists) can be found here. Their credentials aren't particularly strong, but it does seem that they are cited by some other reliable sources. And they have apparently broken some important (not sure how important really) stories. I'm not voting either way though yet. -Thibbs (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • From their Bio's:
    • John Kinsley - Biggest accomplishment seems to be starting the blog itself, and vague generalization of "writing about Nintendo for years".
    • Allison Wallace - A UCLA college student who frequently writes in video game forums.
    • Marcus Baker and Kyo Sasaki are the two who have been quoted in various publications...but it's only for their "breaking news" in rumors. The only concrete example they gave is this spec sheet that, while is often quoted, still hasn't been verified as true to any degree. Very little of the Wii U specs are actually known.
  • My main problem is that they only seem to be known/quoted as a source of unfounded, unproven rumors. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    • That's a good point. There may not be enough of a clear line between "rumor" and "breaking news" here. It may be much easier to point out true rumors in retrospect than it is to judge them as they "break". -Thibbs (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.cadred.org/News/Article/176464/

Saw this one pop up as a new ref for CS:GO's release day. A search suggested it's in quite wide use on Wiki but mainly in regards to eSports. Looking for opinions on reliability as I have not encountered this before for general video game referencing. -- ferret (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The group appear to be currently owned by Heaven Media, and their "about page" (here) suggests that they employ "the world’s best editorial talent" in their mission to "offer the most comprehensive editorial articles," to provide "pertinent news and reviews," and to "be the number one support hub for the enthusiast and gaming community." They also mention that they are annually involved with several live consumer events. Apart from the clearly self-promotional claims, there is evidence from other RSes that Cadred does have some extensive involvement in various gaming events. It's more difficult to establish the reliability of their staff though. The head directors are listed here and so far I've located little info on them apart from press releases. I haven't yet found their editorial policy page. I'll see if I can dig in a little more soon. -Thibbs (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable on the basis that I could not find any background information on any of the authors. There isn't a staff page that I could find, so you have to go into a post, find the author, Google them, etc. I couldn't find a page on editorial policies either. Clearly a big eSports site, but big != reliable. --Teancum (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed I've been receiving the up-to-date issues for the past two years or so and haven't bothered to read them much. If you need anything in the recent issues to reference, lemme know. :) Salvidrim! 08:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind offer. If you're interested, you might want to add your name to the Nintendo Power section of WP:VG's Reference Library. I know from experience that creating a full (detailed) entry on each magazine can be a pain, but you could just add the issue numbers you have access to and your name if you wish. If transcribing/scanning is a problem, though, then it might not be worth it. Either way, thanks for the offer. -Thibbs (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict - beaten to the punch) You should list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Nintendo Power. Just list the issues you have at the top if you can't be bothered with the table. I think the table should be reformatted to get rid of whitespace like I've done at gamesTM and Edge. We really should promote the reference library more. - hahnchen 12:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I'm currently just adding the issue numbers; I'm just thinking more people watch here than there, so while it is good for future reference, those who are looking for the source right now... :) Salvidrim! 16:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no mention of this site both in the reliable and unreliable sections, nor in the archives. So, I'm curious as to whether The Tanooki is considered an RS. To be honest, it looks pretty decent, but I'm not so sure... CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT! Its SUPER effective!)} 07:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The website seems well written, but unfortunately they seem to include very little in the way of editorial policy or traditional credentials. Both the "about" page and the "staff" page are blank. After a little digging I learned that the site is owned, directed, and co-founded by Christian Ponte, but I find little information about his experience or expertise online. Of the other editors, Jason Leavey seems to be a 1up blogger [1], and I couldn't find any info after a quick search on Will Thompson or Ryan Shotwell. At this point I'm leaning toward non-reliable. Not because the site seems unreliable, but because there's little in the way of evidence that it's specifically reliable. This is just my initial impression, though. -Thibbs (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to have come up on Wikipedia in the past in this GA-class assessment, where it was classified as "unreliable" and in this AfD discussion, where it is perhaps considered reliable. No explanation for either designation is given, but I suspect that any biases would relate to the respective fora of discussion. -Thibbs (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm trying to use a Destructoid review (by associate editor Jonathan Holmes) in my FAC for Cave Story. I was asked what Destructoid's editorial review process was. Does anyone happen to know? Right now, it's listed as a situational source. Also, quick second question, are interviews generally considered to be reliable? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe interviews are generally considered reliable primary sources, except when the interviewer's honesty is in doubt or when the interviewee is being contradicted by another primary source. Salvidrim! 19:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't found much that discusses Destructoid's editorial process after a quick search, but certainly some of the references to Destructoid are usable. Taking a look at the article I can see several cases in the text where Destructoid is cited as a reference for its own opinions on the game (both in the review table as well as in the article's body). Destructoid is a notable game blog and I'm almost certain that they would be considered a reliable source for their own opinions. The article includes appropriate attribution for these refs ("Jonathan Holmes of Destructoid called Cave Story...", etc.) so I'd imagine that those refs (i.e. the ones covering the reception section) are fine. Reliability is more of a concern when a source refs facts rather than opinions. The Destructoid interview may be fine as a primary source as well. So the only sentence I see as potentially problematic is the claim made in the gameplay section (i.e. "The player progresses by jumping and navigating platform game puzzles and shooting enemies with the equipped weapon."). -Thibbs (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

So, to sum up, can we say that opinions expressed in reviews from Destructoid's editorial staff are considered reliable? Also, it appears that interviews are considered primary sources and thus reliable. Is that a fair conclusion? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think that's right regarding reported opinions. For factual material the sourced website or the individual interviewee must be reliable, and of course the same rules regarding interpretation (as outlined at WP:PRIMARY) apply to any primary source, so some care should be taken. -Thibbs (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been tinkering with the idea of updating the text of this page a little. First of all, the English word-choice isn't particularly wonderful (e.g. "None of the below is applicable to every single instance of it" wouldn't pass FA in my books). Secondly there seem to be several non sequiturs in the lede such as the discussion of the WP:VG Reference Library, the Google Custom Search Engines, and the tools like "LinkSearch" and "Crosswiki search" (the second of which is incidentally a deadlink). I think it would make things clearer and tidier if we were to include subsections on "Print Sources" (which would also cover the Reference Library) and "How to Locate Reliable Sources" (which could include the material on the GCSEs and the wikitools). Beyond this, I think some basic explanations for the current system would be very helpful to make the guideline more user-friendly and less alienating for new contributors who are referred here in the course of a content dispute.

Another subsection I think would be very helpful is a set of considerations for improving the score of coverage beyond the typical recently published web-based sources that make up the bulk of Wikipedia's video game coverage. Specifically, I think we should emphasize that a range of sources (diverse in content, date, nationality, and methodology) are beneficial to reduce POV.

I've crafted a proposal in my userspace, and I'm interested in some constructive criticism.

• A copy of the original page can be found here.
• A copy of the proposed modification can be found here.
• And a diff that shows which exact changes I'm proposing can be found here.

Please let me know which of these ideas sound good and which ones need work, and also let me know how they could be improved if at all. Thanks in advance, -Thibbs (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Support - everything added helps, not hinders. I'm not crazy about how much longer its become as even experienced Wikipedians tend to glance over things, but I can't argue that it's not necessary. --Teancum (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Support - looks good. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, sounds good then. It's been 2 weeks and there have been no objections. The proposal is really just a modification to an existing guideline and it's essentially a clarificatory rather than a substantive change, so under WP:PGCHANGE I don't see any need to start an RfC. I've implemented the change now, but if there are any problems remaining with it we can still edit and tweak as necessary. Thanks for the feedback. -Thibbs (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliable? Not? Any precedent here? I come across it here and there, but as far as I could see, I didn't see it categorized as anything here at WP:VG/D... Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a games-specific source, which is why it's not listed at WP:VG/S, but I've used it often as a reliable source without problems. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I didn't realize that; I've only read video game articles there, usually for source-hunting for articles. Good to know. Thanks Masem. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This section relates to the Diablo III Metacritic RS section above. In an effort to be fair, I'd like review for this source, http://www.ae-infinite.com/

It appears to be a blog, declares itself a fan site, and admits to having no formal staff structure, and no information on the staff beyond names. Ignoring the Metacritic address in the separate section, the source appears to be unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable - deemed so three times previously under it's original name, simply Armchair Empire. Requesting speedy close on this one per 1, 2, 3 --Teancum (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I'll try to remember to look through those in the future as well. I consider this one done deal based on those. Unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This section relates to the Diablo III Metacritic RS section above. In an effort to be fair, I'd like review for this source, http://www.cpugamer.com/

The site has a few bits of information. There is a list of staff, and also an explaination of their review scoring system. The mission statement is a generic "we aim to be the best at our niche of news". There is a blog post detailing the history of the site, which indicates it's formed around members of a TFC clan. The history is interesting but provides no details on review process or editorial structure. It expresses the owner's desire to basically be like IGN.

Slightly on the fence for this one but would appear to be unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Weak" Unreliable - They have a few of the necessary boxes ticked: a staff page and a review criteria page, but the staff have no independent notability and the site is not tied to a large, well established network. --Teancum (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. I see the same thing as Teancum. -Thibbs (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have access to all the latest versions of these magazines from the library (could easily borrow some) and I'm just wondering if it classifies as reliable (it does have '"Official" in its name). The content is not biased at all if that helps. They do contain quite a lot of information... (Iadded some info to Pandora's Tower from this source and it seems fine) CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 05:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well The USA and UK editions of this magazine are listed as reliable so I'd say that the Australian edition is probably reliable too. Can you tell if they share any staff? -Thibbs (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have access to the USA or UK versions so I don't know that. ^^' CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 23:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that, in order to have the same name legally, they'd need to be affiliated, and if they are affiliated, then they'd be reliable as well. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone have an opinion on DotMMO.com? It appears to be a relatively new "review" site (light on reviews, heavy on advertisements), no mention of editorial structure, no author credits, etc. At least one editor is adding a number of their articles as references (and removing other references, which is another matter altogether). Opinions? Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The "about page" does seem to have some credentials for head editor, Edward Wong. They seem to list his previous involvement as a journalist for Asia Times Online as well as MMO Crunch (cited a handful of times at Wikipedia), China.org, and Marbridge Consulting. I'm not sure how much weight any of these should hold except Asia Times Online, and even that source has only been discussed by WP:RS/N once (in this discussion where it was used to bolster the reliability of another person). The deputy editor, Alex Lee, doesn't seem to have any credentials apart from those he has gained at DotMMO (he has interviewed a few interesting people like the dev team from gPotato). Apart from the authors' credentials, the site itself seems to be associated with the development of the social strategy game, Pirates: Tides of Fortune. So all in all I'd say that while the site is somewhat better than some I've seen, we should perhaps only be using material written by Wong for now and even that is open for discussion considering that his best reference (Asia Times Online) is a recently founded (1999) news source and hasn't really seen much discussion here at Wikipedia yet. -Thibbs (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• MY EYES! I'm blaming you, Wyatt Riot, for making me go blind by looking at that absolutely horrid website design. In all seriousness though I'm on the fence leaning towards unreliable. I don't know that we've ever greenlight a site as reliable/situational for only one author. --Teancum (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I recently removed two statements that had been added to Diablo 3, that I deem as coming from unreliable sources in addition to being used to introduce bias (By prominent positioning heavy criticism in the 2nd sentence/paragraph of Reception). One was a site that describes itself as a blog and had no other usage on Wikipedia. The other had four usages on Wikipedia and describes itself as a former TFC clan that wanted to create gaming news. It had 4 uses on WP, including D3, and I removed D3 and one of the others (The other was a link to the game's "official trailer", I replaced it with the actual official Dev trailer). Ignoring for the moment the bias issue, the statements were added back with [this diff] with the argument that Metacritic included them, and so they inherit reliable source status from Metacritic.

Looking for comments on this concept that a critic included in Metacritic becomes "Reliable". -- ferret (talk)

Inclusion of a source by MC does not make that source reliable at all. MC appears to create/modify a master list of critics to include [2] but the reasoning why is not explained. Ergo we can't assume implicit reliability because of that and have to look to the source as a respectable critical review site. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. Wikipedia and Metacrtic's standards for useable sources aren't the same. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The user posted his rationale for this at Talk:Diablo_III#My_latest_edit. I replied with my view that the section is introducing bias (A seperate issue) and a link to this section, indicating I would follow consensus established here. -- ferret (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I won't be around for a few days after this post, but can I ask what is the line between a RS for gaming and not a RS for gaming. When does an organization's opinion become worthy for wikipedia, I can't imagine there is an actual line, but I think that being linked to, having one's review noted by a third party would be a pretty good line to use. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The basic guidelines for video games are captured by the project page that belongs to this talk page, at WP:VG/S. If you have questions on an individual source, you can create a section on this talk page for opinions. -- ferret (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, opinions of editors are being used over the views of an RS, this is OR and is not acceptable. Only when there is no RS splitting the sources into non notable/notable is is kay for users to express opinions on the importance of sources. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you read Masem and Sergecross73 above, they explain it well. Metacritic (Or any RS), does not necessarily dictate what a Reliable Source is in the eyes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia decides who a reliable source is, as always, through it's guidelines and the opinion and consensus of it's editors. That is to say, opinions of editors (Wikipedia) trump opinions of Metacritic (Unknown review process that cannot be verified). Whether a source is reliable or not is not original research. It's a process that occurs across Wikipedia on a daily basis, performed by editors. Even the policies like WP:RS are written by editors, in the end. -- ferret (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

ferret is correct. I've had to explain this before; we are not "The Wikipedia of Metacritic". We do not have to, and many times don't, adhere to Metacritic's standards. And not only is your use of original research wrong, (It's applied to content in articles, not towards judgement in what is or is not a reliable source), but the thought process towards what sources are reliable for WP:VG is very detailed and thought out at WP:VG/S, moreso than many other Wikiprojects really.

If you want to discuss sources in particular, feel free to start up discussions here, but the "If Metacritic uses it, it's reliable" general thought process will not fly. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding to what ferret said, the specific project guidelines covering this issue can be found here where it states that "Data from [] aggregate review sites should be handled carefully. ... While these sites will typically include major English gaming review sources, they can (and do) also include less reliable sites." This means that we have a duty as editors to scrutinize the individual sources used by aggregators to make sure that they are individually reliable. Several factors go into determining whether a source is reliable or not, and its inclusion on a reliable website like Metacritic can help to make the argument in its favor, but it's by no means the only factor to consider, and it may often be only a minor factor. -Thibbs (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Back again, I'm not sure why I wrote RS, what I meant was a notable source as we don't source them for factual statements but for how important their ideas, reviews are. A good 90% of gaming sites I would descripe as non RS for redflag facts, but I would still deem some of those sites as being noteworthy for their reviews of games. Sure there are thousands of bloggers posting reviews of games and these should not be used by wikipedia, I only discovered these three critics because they were listed as critics by metacritic (a notable site of course). That they are linked to as critics by metacritic is ipso facto a sign the critics have at least some notability.

I also concede that these may not be the best sites but I think it would be appropriate for us to lower our standards due to the fact the most notable reviews are heavily in the positive side. This would be fine if the game was widely agreed upon as great, but those in the know of Diablo III must know that many users are highly disappointed with the game, just visit the forums of Diablo IIIs official site or metacritic, or even check the history of the Diablo III article and see all the edits being made to add in criticism of the game. For a balanced and fair reception section there needs to be some actual critical reviews allowed in, even if we must slightly lower the standard of notability. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right that inclusion on Metacritic can be used as an argument in favor of the usability of a review, but it is far from determinative of the issue. As Sergecross73 suggested, there is no affiliation between Wikipedia and Metacritic. What is acceptable for one has no conclusive effect on whether it is acceptable for the other. Certainly a balanced and fair reception for Diablo III is necessary for a good article on the topic. It seems hard to imagine that none of the major sources reviewing it would have mentioned any negatives, though. Are you sure that you can't find negative aspects of the critical reviews given in listed RSes? -Thibbs (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As per my discussion on the diablo 3 page I have several issues with even using MetaCritic or GameRankings at all. It has come to my attention that CPUgamer is not considered a reliable source. Yet GameRankings uses it to calculate it's average. How can we use MetaCrtic (which uses CPUgamer to create its average too) or GameRankings when the sources for the average are not considered reliable? The whole is being taken as fact when the components are rejected. How can this be that we allow the whole to be used when the components are deemed flawed. This means we have to either parse through MetaCritic's reviews and decide which ones are valid and which ones are not and produce our own average (which would be even higher in the case of Diablo 3) or we must reject them as a reliable source. How can we claim these are reliable when the components are not? All I wish to show on the diablo 3 article for instance is that a score below 80% does exist from a professional review yet I am told CPU gamer is not reliable. Then how can the average from MetaCritic be considered reliable? Also for GameRankings they create averages with sources that are not accepted so how can we blindly accept the average? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.156.206 (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Metareviews are useful inasmuch as they reduce systemic biases. This doesn't mean that the number they have come up with as a final score is the actual "quality value" of the game, though. Quality value is a fundamentally subjective concept. In averaging a large number of these scores metareview strive to approximate an objective score from the subjective impressions of a diverse pool of sources. Of course too much diversity in this area means that the quality of the source impressions also comes into play.

As you rightly point out, the inclusion of substandard source impressions effectively reduces the quality of the final average. In the end there is a balance that must be found. Too few sources averaging into the final score and we get a systemically biased result where the words of a few are taken to represent the whole. Too many sources averaging into the final score and the words of a vocal and unreliable minority may also skew the results.

The community at Wikipedia has decided that the usefulness of metareviews in providing a reduced-POV score can outweigh the negatives associated with taint from unreliable sources. And of the metareviews available, the community has decided that Metacritic and GameRankings use the best balance of source impressions. and thus provide the closest to a neutral (objective) quality value for the game. Whether or not Metacritic and GameRanking in fact are the best in this regard is certainly a view that could change, but I think that benefits gained from POV-reduced scoring (from metareviews generally) outweighs the problems caused by the averaging-in of a small number of unreliable sources. Whereas the score for Metacritic is generally deemed to be of sufficient quality to be reported at Wikipedia, and whereas the exact score must be reported to avoid original research, this does not mean that known (i.e. community-determined) unreliable sources can be whitewashed through the filter of Metacritic and reported as if they were reliable.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that no final word has yet been given on CPUgamer as a source. Evidence seems to be emerging that it is not sufficiently reliable according to our criteria but as yet there has been very little discussion of it as a source. The decision not to use it as a source at the Diablo 3 article may have more to do with the fact that it is not determined to be reliable than that it is determined to be unreliable. -Thibbs (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yay, a reasonable VG source discussion :) I'd echo Thibbs. As part of a whole these reviews are useful, but their individual weight is rightly marginal, and standard qualifiers for sourcing remain. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes but by this very same logic Thibbs, why can we not use user based score from metacritic. A sample of 6 500 registered users should be a large enough sample size to reduce bias and provide a somewhat accurate impression. We can conclude that some are probably to bash the game and some are probably overly cheery yet at the end of the day a sample size that large (larger than some sample sizes used to predict election outcomes in states even though it is a biased sample by virtue of having to register to create a score etc.) should provide a somewhat realistic impression of gamers view of the game. How can we use the critics average score with the logic that "some score are unreliable but as a whole the picture is accurate" yet when applied to user scores it is instantly dismissed as a "smear campaign" or some such nonsense. Why is are we allowed to eat our cake and have it too? We can use the whole but reject the parts it doesn't make any sense to me. Any academic paper or peer reviewed article can't just take samples or use bibliographical information if any of it is flawed at all. Why can't we use this same rigor for video games? If Pandora's box of unreliable sources has already been opened then it is completely dishonest to reject user scores especially based on such a large sample size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.156.206 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Thibbs, and disagree with your standpoint, but I'd like to point out, your line of reasoning is probably closer to ruling out the use of Metacritic than it would be to allowing the use of these unreliable sources. There's just no way that MC's use of sources could possibly justify ignoring policies like WP:RS or WP:SPS. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain why you disagree with my line of reasoning? It simply does not make logical sense to be able to use Metacritic with biased and unreliable sources on the critics section if that very same logic is the reason we disallow the use of user scores. It simply does not make sense and I do not think we should be able to include those scores at all if we think that in the end of the day it creates a "somewhat" accurate impression of the game but reject thousands of user scores for the very same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.156.206 (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Some published sources are reliable and others are unreliable, but when it comes to the unpublished man on the street everything is unreliable. Consider what makes something reliable. The average user who writes a user review presents an entirely subjective opinion. Metareview sites gather notable industry reviews of varying reliability and the best ones achieve a fine balance between too few reviews and reviews that are too unreliable. User reviews are inherently subjective and biased, but metareview sites accept all reviews at face value so they have a potentially infinite pool of reviews from an entirely unreliable pool of reviewers. Whereas industry publications review all games that come across their desks, the only limit for user reviews is who visits the site (many gamers don't frequent either metacritic or gamerankings) and who decides to respond (generally people are more likely to respond if they have a strong opinion). -Thibbs (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, nowhere in WP:RS does it say that it is okay to use a source when components of that source are deemed unreliable. I cannot publish a peer reviewed article with a data set from the Mad Hatter and then from StatsCan and say that because I used some from StatsCan and some from the Mad Hatter I still provide a "somewhat" accurate picture of the phenomenon. Ergo we should not use Metacritic or Gamerankings at all or we must move forward in getting CPUgamer deemed a reliable source which would make it eligible for inclusion in the Diablo 3 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.156.206 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There's also nothing that says that a reliable source is invalidated if it uses an unreliable source. Let's look at reporting in the news. When the BBC offers phone-based polls or interviews a man on the street as part of its analysis then it doesn't lose its credibility, but if you're using the user comments after the Opinion section of an online newspaper to source your claim then you have lost all credibility.

A large groundswell of negative opinions from the Diablo 3 userbase is a notable thing if it is verifiable, but why would there be no reporting of it in the known reliable sources that exist? Is this a vast conspiracy? -Thibbs (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

But what about this article http://ca.ign.com/articles/2012/07/05/blizzard-admits-diablo-iii-endgame-isnt-sustainable from a reliable source which points out that blizzard themselves are addressing just such a groundswell? Why is this not in the development section of the Diablo 3 article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.156.206 (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That article you just linked looks fine to me from a RS perspective. I'm not really up to speed on the Diablo 3 discussions, but if it's being excluded from the article then I'd guess it's either because the information in the source is undue or it could just be a content issue (i.e. a matter of editorial discretion) which would be best addressed at the Diablo 3 talk page (or by going through dispute resolution if there is still a conflict). -Thibbs (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really relevant to the Metacritic/Gameranking discussion. I replied on the diablo III talk page. -- ferret (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant in terms of how this article is not balanced to represent the views of people who are dissatisfied with the product. Metacritic user scores hint that there are issues with the game. Furthermore, blizzard themselves admit there are issues with the game. Yet everything on the diablo 3 article claims the game is flawless which is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.156.206 (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's productive to even continue replying, as you seem, like several other anon IPs and SPAs, to be ignoring large section of the Diablo III reception section that are clear negatives. The talk section Talk:Diablo III#NPOV dispute - Reception addresses much of this as well. Over half the reception prose deals with negative aspects of the game such as the DRM, always-on, network issues during launch, player backlash of 0/10 reviews, etc... You have an agenda to push for more negative and bias details to be included in the article. -- ferret (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

At this point I agree that I do not think the vested interests here on wikipedia will allow any negative comments for this game. Its a complete white washing which isn't right. Also your profile is suspiciously simple. 24.71.156.206 (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

....what? Again, another IP/SPA completely ignoring when negatives that already exist in the Reception section are pointed out. -- ferret (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This looks like an open and shut case to me, but it's used in about 12 articles so before I cleaned it out wanted to check here. Fairly new site, no staff or review process information that I could mind, and absolutely plastered in advertisements. Takes the form of a blog and appears to have a single editor. I see some evidence that it may just be copying articles from other sites as well. -- ferret (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable - I couldn't find any staff page or editorial policy page. I found grammar errors on the first two pages as well. Alexa rank was higher than I would have guessed, but that's neither here nor there. Additionally this story's title and prose contradict. --Teancum (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What about the author on his own? This Forbes link popped up while trying to research him directly, but it looks like it's more of a "staff blog" for Forbes... I see a lot of hits for a few videos the guy has created (If Skyrim were Crysis or something), which may be where the Alexa rank is coming from. The google results suggests to me that he has a heavy SEO campaign going on. -- ferret (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable sources can get sourced by reliable ones on occasion. I don't think that merits their inclusion. --Teancum (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me then. I'll begin removing it a bit later, once I look up replacement RS's (If they're even needed) -- ferret (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Finally got around to this cleanup, prompted by a new addition to Borderlands. Most of them I was able to replace with a different reference. -- ferret (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I see that Hardcore Gaming 101 (HG101) is listed here as situational, and looking back at the discussion leading to this determination it seems that Kung Fu Man discovered that the site is run by the established Gamasutra author, Kurt Kalata. For this reason the limitation justifying its situational use is that only HG101 articles by Kalata can be cited.

I am interested in using an article published at HG101 that was written by established gaming author, John Szczepaniak (previously published in Retro Gamer, Gamasutra, and The Escapist among others). Is it OK to assume that one can cite any HG101 article provided that it was authored by someone of similar caliber and credentials as Kalata? If so, I think we should tweak the limitation for the source under "Situational Sources" from this:

• "Only content by Hardcore Gaming 101 head editor and Gamasutra author Kurt Kalata is considered reliable."

to something like this:

• "Only content by established (reliable) gaming authors such as John Szczepaniak or Hardcore Gaming 101 head editor and Gamasutra author Kurt Kalata is considered reliable."

It's not a particularly elegant way to say what I mean, but I'm open to other suggestions. Is this a good idea? And what's the best way to express it? -Thibbs (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd support this. It's a great source to use for writing articles, especially for 90's games with their retrospectives, but it's been a pain having to check and see who wrote it, when, on a whole, majority of the articles I've read there are equally well written and seemingly reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 23:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This query seems to get at a deeper issue which was kicked around a while ago about identifying "reliable people". It seems both Kalata and Szczepaniak should be on this list, regardless of where they publish. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. What was the upshot of the previous discussion? Can you link the conversation? -Thibbs (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree in theory, but I don't know how practical it is to break it down too far. It's hard enough to get editors to accept and understand that certain sources as reliable or unreliable, let alone certain writers of certain sources. (I'm already always having to explain why things like Youtube or "Random Generic Novelty Game Blog" isn't reliable, something many struggle with. Getting too detailed kind of compounds it further. But I suppose it could be practical to outline on the higher end of things, with GA/FA nominations or whatnot. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It was a pretty short discussion with little in the way of consensus. There was a good point made about only including people who might publish outside traditionally listed RSes. To respond to Serge, I think WP:VG/S is mostly useful as a place we can point to in GAN/FAC as a quick way to resolve RS concerns. If we add a reliable people section, it would be used in a similar capacity. I've added a short subsection below listing some names. Please list anyone you can think of that we should add or discuss. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and I agree with you conceptually, I'm just saying more of a general "I hope things don't get too convoluted, where it's too much for a newbie to ever learn, or where even experienced editors can't/won't support it." Not even saying adding authors would necessarily do that, but its something I think we should keep in mind in general. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This list part of this page is supposed to make it easier to quickly identify reliable sources so I agree that it shouldn't become too complex, but this does seem like a matter of equal importance as the publisher of the work given that WP:RS covers work, author, and publisher in its definition of 'reliable source'. I'm not sure how much benefit can be derived from listing specific reliable works, but a list of authors would help for those situations where a video game notable posts in a forum or has his own blog on another site or something like that. I'm sure a good initial list might be taken from Category:People in the video game industry, although some deeper examination is due since people like the AVGN are essentially unusable (in my view) for Wikipedia's purposes. I'll have to go through my list of favorite vg writers later this week and determine which ones are actually reliable and which are just good writers. Perhaps we should cross-post this to WT:VG for more input? -Thibbs (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. More pairs of eyes never hurt a discussion like this. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've posted at main talk now. -Thibbs (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Back on the topic of Hardcore Gaming 101, that's great if there are other recognised experts besides Kalata. I still think the site should be kept as a situational source though. Its submissions process is a step up from user generated content, but not up to our standards IMO. And I don't think we can use stuff by authors going only by the names of "Cack" or "Dingo". Anonymous or pseudonymous articles are fine if its a respected site with a staff editor and staff -or at least full-time pro- writers IMO, but here pretty sure Kalata is both the owner and head editor, which disqualifies it from being an RS in itself, I'd say. Also, there are other pseudonymous editors besides Kalata. I think if one went through all the writers probably only Kalata and Szczepaniak (who's listed as the UK editor) would be permissible. Also, regarding "reliable people" in general, by which I assume is meant recognised experts under WP:SPS, I think it might be better just to look for known blogs they have or sites like HCG101 where they're known to publish. Listing journalists just in case they might be found posing on a forum somewhere seems to me a bit much; otherwise, have at it... bridies (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Add people who you think should be added or discussed as a "reliable" person. Journalists only; devs are inherently reliable about their own games. Also, only list people who publish in more than one place, especially if it's a source not already listed at VG/S.

Is this independent of where they publish? I don't want to get into a situation where we don't inherently consider a person reliable, yet where they work is, and thus have a conundrum. --Teancum (talk)

I would say that this should be independent of where they publish. It should be ok to hold that a person is not inherently reliable but that the place he works for is considering that non-reliability is curable by reliable peer oversight (e.g. a non-reliable writer's work can be considered reliable if it is reviewed and OKed by a reliable editor in chief or a team of factcheckers, etc.). I guess the point is that this isn't a determination of unreliability for writers not on the list. If anything, it could be considered a determination of non-reliability for those not on the list. (Here I'm drawing a distinction between active determinations of unreliability and the passive lack of determination leading to a nonreliable status). But really this list should only be the basis for a positive determination of reliability for those on the list. And that would be true regardless of where they publish. -Thibbs (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Brian Crecente Axem Titanium (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support --Teancum (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Stephen Totillo Axem Titanium (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support --Teancum (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Jeremy Parish Axem Titanium (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Anoop Gantayat Axem Titanium (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Jeff Gerstman Axem Titanium (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support --Teancum (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Dale North Axem Titanium (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Jim Sterling Axem Titanium (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sterling has, multiple times in the past, manipulated facts in his favor. If we took a "from this point out" reliability on him I'd probably change my mind on it, as he seems to have changed a bit in the past few years --Teancum (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think that's fair. I've read a fair number of well-written pieces by him in the past few months and I can generally count on him to be honest about a game's faults if they exist. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Tim Rogers Axem Titanium (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Jonathan Holmes Axem Titanium (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Kurt Kalata Axem Titanium (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• John Szczepaniak Axem Titanium (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Simon Carless Thibbs (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Chris Kohler Thibbs (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Daemon Hatfield --Teancum (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Justin McElroy --Teancum (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Griffon McElroy --Teancum (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Arthur Gies --Teancum (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - throwing him in the ring to take care of the situation. I'm more thinking of a single incident in which he criticized a game's load times while several other reviewers praised them, suggesting he either did not play the release version or possibly the game at all. Again there are other incidents here, and again most are from 2+ years ago. --Teancum (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Guy Cocker - X201 (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Info: Editor of Gamespot UK, also does work for BBC radio. - X201 (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

hello,

perhaps add Video Game Blogger to this list. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't quickly locate any information on the identity of the author(s)... Is there any indication that the author has some sort of expertise in the field? -Thibbs (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on the author(s) either, but it has a surprisingly (very) high Alexa rank -- very high. That alone wouldn't establish reliability, but if we can identify the author(s) and their reliability + ensure that there's an editorial process in place then I'd be swayed. --Teancum (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in some input on WP:VG's stance regarding "best evidence" (i.e. original publication sourcing). The specific circumstance that led to this question in the first place is video game related so I've cross-posted this here, but I'm really interested in a generalized view of this issue which could possibly lead to a tweak to the WP:VG/S guidelines to cover this situation. If you want to add to that conversation please post here. I'll post the conclusion here either way so we can discuss the potential guideline tweak. -Thibbs (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Having failed to get a clear answer on the question at WT:RS, I started an RfC on the topic and some opinions have started coming in. So far it looks like in general if one reliable source is paraphrasing another reliable source then Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a policy/guideline-based preference over them, but both would be acceptable and editors are encouraged to discuss which of the two sources to keep and which to discard if for some reason it's not appropriate to include both. This isn't spelled out anywhere either at WP:RS or at WP:VG/S. I'm thinking it might be a good idea to include something along these lines on our source guidelines, but as they are anyway broadly subsidiary to WP:RS, perhaps that would be the better guideline to modify. Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I'll leave it for now. The RfC didn't go through it's full duration as the thread was archived before the time was up. And only 2 people weighed in. But if anyone is curious, the result (found here) was basically as I had outlined above. There seems to be a common personal preference for the original source, but no policy preference for it. The folks there seemed confident that this would never become an issue. I hope they're right. -Thibbs (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Past discussions have brought nothing substantial about this, so here I go. Gaming Age is a video game-dedicated website that publishes news, reports and reviews of videogames. The website have been active since late-1990s and still is there. Reviews on the website are made by professional video game journalists, some of them who have moved to other websits lige 1Up.com, IGN and Gamespot. Additionaly, Metacritic includes the website when compiling their score of games. So, my question is, is Gaming Age reliable enough to be used on the Reception section? It could also be used on other sections of video game articles citing facts like release dates, previews, information about the development of games and such? Or is it completely unreliable? Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was accepted as reliable at FAC, but still would like to see any thoughts here. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There's an article on the birth of Gaming Age located here (from PC World which is currently not listed as an RS). From the sound of that article, the original website had a lot of talented writers, but most of them have moved on. Jim Cordeira still runs Gaming Age (and NeoGAF), but I wasn't able to find much info on the other staff and I was unable to locate an "about" page or any discussion of methodology. Do these exist? I'd be wary of fully OKing it without these, although I'd be open to the idea of saying situationally reliable for some of the more notable authors. Anyone else have any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, i'm mostly interested in using Gaming Age from 2002 backwards. You know, older games from the 1990s and early-2000s. Specially those who have scarce reviews. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it would probably still depend on the author's individual credentials because even the older material found on the Internet Archive doesn't show an "about" page or any methodology for Gaming Age. If the author has gone on to become a writer for an RS then I think I'd be open to accepting his work even if it came before he was associated with the RS. His work with the RS would still have a greater value of course, but his later association with the RS would demonstrate to me that even his earlier work probably had some value. Anyway that's how I see it. -Thibbs (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to come up with a way to cut down on the number of Spectrum refs in a few articles. Generally my feeling is that we should include all RS-based reception or as much as we can, but in these articles there seems to be overkill in terms of coverage of just this one version of the game. So I was wondering if anyone had any views about which Spectrum sources are the most industry-respected and notable. From the list of approved RSes, we find:

• CRASH
• Dragon
• Sinclair User
• Your Sinclair
• Computer and Video Games

In addition to these, some of the other sources include:

• ACE
• Computer Gamer
• The Games Machine
• Your Computer

Of these 9 sources above, are there 2 or 3 that really jump out as "must-include" sources if they are available? I've posted basically the same question at Thumperward's talk since he worked on the ZX Spectrum article quite a bit, but I'd appreciate any other thoughts if anyone is familiar with the system and its coverage. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Computer and Video Games, which was very long running. That's actually a multi-format magazine. I'd be tempted to exclude Dragon (magazine), as it's a Dungeons and Dragons, rather than a video game, magazine. bridies (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd call Dragon situational in the context of coverage for video games, which is all we would use it for anyway. It's either something we can use or it's not. --Teancum (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we can use it, especially for RPG video games. But if there was an over-abundance of sources, it's probably the first one I'd take out. bridies (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the video game reviews in Dragon were quite comprehensive, often multi-page articles. I'd tend to favor the depth of coverage in those over shorter reviews. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the help. -Thibbs (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

As said above, only YS, SU and Crash are Spectrum specific. Everything else is multiformat. I've never read Dragon, which is the most common link I see on here (I think it's an RPG mag?). And Computer and Video Games was the first ever games magazine in the world(!), and is again multiformat.

The C64, Megadrive, PlayStation and Amiga all had about 3 magazines as well, but the public following is not nearly as abundant, so the reviews are not as easy to add (I'm not aware of anybody scanning in a decade's worth of Amiga magazines page by page, as they have with the 3 Spectrum magazines, for example) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.34.86 (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah that's what I get for not looking deeply enough into it. I guess the situation could be cleared up at some of the articles I was looking at if the scores reported in the reception sections included a tag identifying which version (Spectrum, C64, MD, etc.) was being reviewed. I've seen this approach used at a good number of other articles (e.g. see Pilotwings#Reception and legacy). Anyway thanks for your help, 86.175.34.86. -Thibbs (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Amiga Magazine Rack? And yeah, if a game was ported to multiple systems, I think it's best to note the system beside the score, especially if there seems to be different scores for different versions. bridies (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Spectrum is reliable, especially for early Spectrum stuff. It was relaunched in 1986 as Your Sinclair. Another one that is reliable is Sinclair Programs. It is a sister magazine of Sinclair User, and whilst its primary focus was programs that you type in yourself, it did have news sections and the odd interview. - X201 (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to add CheatCodes.com to the Reliable Sources list? They have a dedicated reviews section, editorial guidelines, decent Alexa rank, and verifiable authors. Monicabgalvarez (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The presence of editorial guidelines is certainly a positive. And I do see that the authors are verifiable so that's definitely better than failing to list the authors, but I'm not sure if any of them have much of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... Do you know if the site or any of the authors have been cited by other RSes? -Thibbs (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Borderline IMO. It boasts: "We don’t let anything, including advertisers, cloud our objectivity when reviewing a game." But either way its advertising seems to be pretty much Google Ads. Maybe OK for reviews on lesser-known games, but I'd probably complain about it for anything else; certainly at FA. bridies (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that they'd be especially useful for lesser-known games; I notice they cover some DLC and independent titles that I don't see everywhere else. I think it's appropriate to add them to the "General" section, but perhaps with a limitation in the notes field stating that reliability extends only to their "/extra" section, which is where they publish editorial content. - Monicabgalvarez (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if the matter is as clear cut as you're assuming, and I think this may have been a bit premature. I still see little evidence that they are reliable, merely that they aren't definitely unreliable. Simply being a verified website author isn't really enough to describe yourself as reliable in my book. From the Extra staff page it looks like the authors include a guy with an English/Creative Writing degree from University of Washington, a guy who describes himself as a video games journalist with insider info on the industry, a graduate of Seattle University’s Creative Writing and Journalism programs, and a number of other people who mainly just really like video games. I'm not saying that they are unreliable per se, but is there actually any evidence that they are reliable? Have they been cited in other RSes, for instance, or do any of them write/have any of them written for a known RS? I haven't dug very deeply into this, but I think we're going to need more than just the fact that we know their names to declare them to be experts in the field. -Thibbs (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I was recently engaged in a series of conversations regarding whether or not the reception section of a video game article should only cover the original version of a game or whether it should cover later remakes as well. The result of these conversations was a community discussion at WT:VG where it was agreed that the reception section should cover remakes as well. I think this makes good sense and it seems to be directly in line with WP:VG/S's "Editorial discretion should promote broad coverage and reduce POV". As such I was thinking that it might be a good idea to expand that section by one bullet point so that this issue doesn't come up in the future again. Specifically, I was thinking of adding the following text:

• Reviews for multiple different platforms - When video games are released on more than one platform, reviews of all different versions allow readers to gain an insight on the differing perceptions of the game within different gaming subcultures. When games are rereleased or remade for later systems, reviews of all different versions allow readers to grasp the degree to which later ports and remakes were successful in evoking the original. Efforts to report reception in a due manner can often be enhanced by using a prose format to explain why scores on one platform are lower than those of another.

Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this will influence the decision one way or another, but I've noticed a trend with the meta-review sites toward encouraging (and in some cases requiring) reviews that cover multiple platforms. Personally, I don't like that trend, for some of the reasons Thibbs mentions above. There are plenty of examples where a title on one platform would (and should) receive very different critical reception than the same title on another plat. It seems the meta-review sites want their data to be easier to manage, rather than more useful for readers. Sorry if my opinion is off topic. :) Monicabgalvarez (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• I like it, Thibbs. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

OK well I'll wait a few days to see if anyone else has any objections, but if not then I think I'll add it. -Thibbs (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just added it in. -Thibbs (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

So, it looks like someone recently pointed out that there really wasn't as much of a consensus towards whether or not this website is reliable or not. So, I wanted to see if we could come to a more concrete agreement.

• Reliable - http://www.rpgfan.com/staff.html - They've been around since 1997, and have a large editorial staff. I've read it, and used it as a source, for years, and haven't had any reason to question what they say. They tend to go into more detailed explanations of game's backstory, and gameplay mechanics, than many more mainstream sources, so I've found them very useful in writing articles. Sergecross73 msg me 00:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've been trying to track down the original addition of the RS designation and I found that it was added by User:Axem Titanium in this edit. I've seen his edits before and he is definitely a reasonable editor so it's not like this was some fly-by-night addition. I've contacted him on his talk page to see if he can remember the rationale behind it. I haven't looked at the merits of the source myself yet, but if A.T. can't recall the rationale then we can just have a new discussion on the topic here. -Thibbs (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It's been a while since the original discussion so a new one may be justified regardless, but I'll try to recall the original reasoning. As I recall, the AFD determined that while the website was not notable in itself, it can still be reliable. Judging by the website's pedigree and its actual use as an RS in existing FAs (at the time), I figured it was de-facto reliable and added it. Thinking more critically about it, I find that they seem to have journalistic integrity and also fill a role that most other gaming websites do not, namely in-depth gameplay mechanics and reviews of game music albums. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Axem. Looking a bit at the source myself I can say that their age (from 1997 which is pretty old in internet time) indicates that they are stable and I can see that they have been cited by other RSes including RPGamer, NintendoWorldReport, VG247, as well as Joystiq and others. I haven't looked at the authors individually yet since the staff is so large, but this much is already a good sign. -Thibbs (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• I would say reliable. They don't have a page on their editorial policies, but then again there is no real reason to doubt them. Staff seems solid, they have been around for a while. Their one of first reviews is already up to par. (Also, site's WP notability != reliability, in case that comes up) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Two years ago, two people participated in a discussion that labeled it as not reliable. [3] I'd like to point out that they now get people in the game industry to do interviews with them, including some exclusive interviews. [4] Large funded game companies wouldn't give exclusive interviews to them if they weren't notable. Alexa says they get more than 13 million views a month. I suggest we change the list to show it as reliable. Dream Focus 14:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• • The fact they got interviews with big names in the industry doesn't make them reliable; lots of fan sites usually can secure that. And alexa ratings mean nothing. We need other reliable sources to show that the site is of note and reliable (eg, when they are typically cited as a source in other articles). --MASEM (t) 14:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
    • They are cited in 63 other articles as a reliable source. And what fansite would get "exclusive" interviews? Dream Focus 14:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
      • My high school newspaper regularly got to interview notable people, bands, etc. Doesn't make the newspaper reliable, however. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Exclusive meaning they agree to do an interview only with one source. Therefore, that source is notable. They wouldn't choose just one, while ignoring all others, for even a set time period, unless they considered the one chosen to be far superior than all others combined. Dream Focus 15:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
          • No, in decent fan communities (video games or otherwise), with the proliforation of the internet, creators, etc. can regularly interact with fans in non-notable ways, including doing phone or Skype-like interviews. "Exclusive" has come to mean that the fan site was the only other party on the end of the line, as opposed to interviews done at conventions where there's several grouped lined up to talk to said people. Additionally, and more importantly, there's no evidence of editorial control. This is not to throw doubt at MMOSite in terms of their reporting, but without any assurance of that (either through the site itself or the pedigree of the people involved), we simply cannot trust them as reliable, and ergo not an acceptable source. (use of the site as reference in other articles is not evidence of reliability, unless they have been put through the GA/FA wringers) --MASEM (t) 15:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'll steer clear of the current discussion. I'll just say that their About Us page doesn't bode well for having strong editorial oversight. --Teancum (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't specifically mention editoral oversight (besides , but the rest of the details don't seem fine? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Garbled English, hotmail email addresses, unprofessional sales-pitch tone; no mention of writers or who the "professional editor team" is; the only named individual is "Michelle" (no surname given), the dodgy PR person. Not reliable. bridies (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I also can't resist re-posting one of the testimonials it's got on that page: AAt first it attracted me because of gold to buy in game items, but later on I started to use news and write articles, I don't care about gold, MMOsite is unique and it will always stay on top and always be better then MMORPG.com. By AtomicDoom. bridies (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, I forgot I started this reply after I wrote my comment below; it's not quite was I was going to say. Anyway, this? looks like the Michelle person. Hotmail address is because that's an MSN address. I agree on casual promotional tone as well as some bad English and prose, not to mention not including full names and credentials. Yes, their "testimonials" are funny. I certainly wouldn't consider them reliable, but I can see how occasionally a credible individual could post an article for them that would be considered OK, even if the site's reliability is shady at best. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• The facts that Dream Focus has pointed to are not completely insignificant in my view, and he is right to raise them, but the main point to be made here is that they are only factors in determining reliability. Yes it is a point in favor of the source if they can get exclusive interviews, but as the others have suggested, not all sources that get exclusive interviews are reliable. The evidence of citation use within Wikipedia or a good Alexa ranking can be positive factors, but these are search engine tests and must be weighted accordingly. Non-circumstantial indications of reliability of the authors or evidence of industry background and strong editorial policies are probably more determinative of the issue. -Thibbs (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• Highly situational. [5] "Our sites include a combination of content that we create, that our partners create, and that our users create. [...] We do not guarantee the accuracy, the integrity, or the quality of the content on our sites, and you may not rely on any of this content. [...] Some contents on our sites, including but not limited to, articles, videos, images, pictures have been collected from the Internet or have been sent to us by our users." That quoted, [6] "[the site] has its own professional editor team". So I would say, only their staff editors and/or article authors with good credentials should be used as a source. If there's any doubt re content, I would label it unreliable. (As a side point, notable != reliable and search ranking, previous usage != direct indication of reliability.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• I'm a bit late to the conversation, but I think this is an important issue. The trend I've seen by other publications (IGN specifically iirc), is that they will reference interviews from otherwise unestablished websites, but won't reference investigative reporting or any other factual information from the site. So if MMOSite has an interview with someone, IGN might write, "RaiderZ's CBT is planned to occur sometime in 2012, according to recent a MMOSite interview with Tony Kim." or they might quote from the actual interview: "A specific release date for the RaiderZ CBT is not yet set, but Tony Kim said in a recent interview, 'I can’t reveal the exact date for CBT or OBT, however, both of these phases will be sometime in 2012.'" I think we can apply the same standard here, and use MMOSite for its interviews but perhaps not for factual content (good luck enforcing this though). IIRC, many of MMOSite's articles are really low quality advertising for otherwise unnotable video games. This is obviously my opinion, but I remember reading an MMOSite article and then realizing it was just a thinly edited copy of the publisher's recent press release with some pictures added. This may no longer be true. I'd actually like it if MMOSite became reliable, because they cover a lot of minor games that the bigger media outlets aren't covering. The very first article on the top of their website right now is DK Online Beta. MMOSite writes, "Aeria Games is running an avalanche of special events throughout the closed beta period." The Massively article writes, "Aeria Games is promising an "avalanche of special events" during closed beta. [...] [Source: Aeria Games press release]" --Odie5533 (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Noticed a user adding this site as a reference to multiple articles today and wanted to run it by here. Might just be a promotional/spam spree. I don't see any real usage prior to August, and the site is in use on 27 articles when I searched just now: mmo-play.com -- ferret (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Bit of an eyeball effort between search results and his contribution list, but I think User:Quitetheniceguy may have added the link to most if not all of the 27 results. -- ferret (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't see an about us page, staff page, or any indication of editorship. All posts I checked are by "Michael Jamias" with no credentials given, presumably he runs the site. So not reliable. Now, regarding the link additions. Here is an author page on guildwars2pc.com for author "Michael Jamias" and username "quitethenice". Applying WP:DUCK here, it would seem those additions are COI. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've cleaned all of this up, and given the user a warning or two. -- ferret (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Should PixlBit [7] be a considered reliable or situational source? Founded in 2009 and here is their history retrospect. They're about us page note that "Professional presentation and delivery is of paramount importance to both our writing and editing staff." They're policies page make put some good standards, especially in facts versus opinion. They're earliest reviews and (non press release) news seem to adhere to standards. There is not a lot of information on their staff, but founders used to write for Nintendo World Report and do PR work. The site isn't used a lot on Wikipedia, in fact only around 9 times in articles. I can't find any reliable sources quoting them, though n4g.com links to them a bunch of times. Neither Metacritic or Gamerankings use them. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I found NintendWorldReport using them as a source: [8], [9], [10]. But the site founders used to work for NWR. I kinda think we should let some independent news source use them first before Wikipedia starts using them. Pixlbit seems to do a lot of translation work, so someone should pick them up like they do AndriaSang or Gematsu. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• The connection to NWR is helpful since NWR is a listed RS here. I also see them referenced by GameStats quite a few times, and here's an article from 1UP that covers them. They seem at least situational (for ex-NWR employees) to me. -Thibbs (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Polygon has officially gone live; before it was a mix of video game stories among the rest of the coverage at The Verge (website), a general technology website, but they've now got their own site. [11]. The editing team includes a number of established vg journalists that left other sites to work on this. I think that this was discussed before when it was announced that the Verge was expanding VG coverage but now that Polygon's its own entity, it should be marked as reliable. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Easy Support - per previous discussions --Teancum (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Quite the editorial team and background. I would consider them reliable unless some serious issues arise in their reporting in the future or something... Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good to me. Solid staff, and I appreciate the details on their Ethics page. I don't see that much in the way of an editorial policy statement, but given the other plus factors I'd give it a pass. -Thibbs (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Appears to be reliable. Solid team and ethics statements. Their review pages are very flashy and tailored to casual reader, but seem to have enough substance. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The articles written by Polygon staff are in-depth/descriptive, and seem reliable to use as sources. - M0rphzone (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Two sources today: Aurcade.com and Arcade-history.com. Arcade History was previously brought here, but garnered only one response. I'd like to get a couple people on each to determine a full consensus. My opinion is that neither are reliable for any information. Aurcade doesn't even have a contact link or email, has no list of editors, and no clear oversight. Arcade-History has a contact link, but no list of editors, no reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and all of its entries are apparently user submitted. MobyGames has people look over the entries, but I see no reason to believe in either case that the person looking over them is fact checking everything, and I do not believe arcade-history has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Neither appear reliable in any way. Woodroar (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Aurcade.com is plugged by a few notable arcade game people including Richie Knucklez (record holder for Pleiads) here and Tim McVey (record holder for Nibbler) here. But that's really more to do with its use as a gathering site for record-seekers than with its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So I'd say the site is potentially notable, but I don't see any evidence that it's reliable. -Thibbs (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Arcade-history.com is cited several times at Gamasutra (e.g. 1, 2, 3, etc.) which could potentially lend them some credibilty as an RS. There doesn't seem to be any kind of editorial policy statement, however, and as Salvidrim pointed out earlier, the site seems to be mainly maintained by someone named Alexis Bousiges who doesn't list any credentials. The "articles" section is clearly usable, and some of the "timeline" material may be as well, but that would be due to the reliability of the material they've scanned, not Arcade-history.com's reliability. -Thibbs (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to update the sources page to merge the checklist with the tables, and get rid of all the sites which have not been discussed on the checklist. I'd also like to expand the tables to include a column for links to relevant discussions about the source. I'm asking here because I don't really know the history of why there is a checklist and tables. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I think the table was the original version and then a checklist was added for undiscussed sources and the original idea was to import the approved ones from the checklist up to the table. But clearly that's not what's going on now and the current setup only makes it look like there's some difference between the two kinds of RS. As far as I know there is no difference. I'd wait for a little input on this since it's such a dramatic move, but I can tell you it sounds good to me. -Thibbs (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sound good. I never quite got why there are 2 lists, tables and checkboxes. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the page, but I'll be doing the rest in my sandbox first. On the table is a column for quick links; I don't find them particularly useful. Is there any consensus to remove them? --Odie5533 (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about it a bit more, I'm not sure a table is really going to work the best, and having everything as a list may be better. For one, it's a lot easier to update a list than it is to update the table. I have a source reliability page at User:Odie5533/VG Source Reliability, and I tried tables here, but didn't like them. I removed all the sites from the checklist that had no discussion, and I changed the font on the main table a bit. At this point I'm not really sure what format would be best, and I'm open to suggestions. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the ideal format for the list kind of depends on the use to which it is being put. If you're coming to WP:VG/RS to look for a good source for info on a Mac game, for instance then you might use the "Platform-specific" table and use that as the starting point for your research. If you're coming to WP:VG/RS to verify whether or not a source you have is reliable or not, though, then you'd probably prefer a checklist-style format. In either case the content should be duplicated unless we want users having to check both to verify or to make a thorough research. From what I have seen it seems that the verification aspect of the page is used much more often than the research aspect, however this might be because I spend more time at AfD than at the Teahouse. I think merging them into a single list makes fine sense unless it would negatively impact one or the other function. I'm not really sure how people tend to use this page though. You might want to ask a broader audience by throwing the question open to WT:VG. -Thibbs (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Can this site be added to the list? It seems semi-official for the extended LucasArts family of companies, employees, and spin-offs. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The site, founded by Spaff, does not appear at all reliable. I could not find any evidence of a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The site has no editorial policy and is currently written by elTee and jp-30, with previous staffers including The Tingler, Lemonhead, and a man (or woman) known only as Tabacco. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it could possibly be used for LucasArts-related interviews. They seem to get recognition by some of our other listed RSes especially in regard to the interviews. Adventure Gamers pointed out an interview with Steve Purcell, and an interview with Ron Gilbert for example. Other RSes have also cited them. E.g. GamersHell mentions them here, and VE3D called it an "excellent site to read if you're into adventure games". -Thibbs (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, interviews would be fine. But not for facts. Small sites often get linked to by RSes when they get an interview, but I don't think this supports their reliability. The RS isn't relying on them for very much: only that they didn't completely fake the interview. The last two links are the best to support it, but the GamersHell one only recommends visiting their article and again doesn't rely on them for actual facts. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Another good source if you're in need of LucasArts material, Torchiest, is Adventurer Magazine. It's a print source entirely devoted to all things LucasArts. I think they are affiliated with LucasArts though, so it should be used a little cautiously. -Thibbs (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Games.com" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo
AOL recently relaunched Games.com. The site has an impressive staff page, and has received a lot of press. The Games.com website is a platform for publishing games, but their blog site is kept separate and has many news stories unrelated to their publishing platform, but with a focus on mobile gaming. The most recent article on the site, "The Simpsons spoofs Zynga once again with 'VillageVille' for 'MyPad'", doesn't appear to exhibit any signs of COI, and was written by Joe Osborne who has previously worked for PCMag.com. The site has some interesting editorials as well. The only thing I find unsavory is the "Play X on Facebook" buttons, but they aren't coded with affiliate tags or anything so I think they might just be evidence of a trend towards quick access to mobile gaming. Other authors Beau Hindman worked for AOL/Joystiq's Massively, some people from GameZone. I think it is reliable, and I'd like to add it to the sources list as there aren't many good, reliable sources for facebook/mobile gaming. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Good job with all of the surrounding evidence. I don't see a specific editorial policy but from the staff and surrounding press it looks good to me. And I agree with your assessment of the Facebook games (i.e. I think it's just their attempt to stay current). -Thibbs (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I found some less than desirable content: [12] is a blatant advertisement for their affiliate. [13] is a thinly disguised advertisement for an affiliate that sells an eBook. Their site focuses on facebook games, but they publish tips for Madden 13 just so they can advertise the eBook. These cases are at least separable; clearly they are advertisements as the author is "Madden School". What puts this site over the edge is this, which you would hope would be an objective review, and for the most part it is, but there is a large CheatHappens.com logo in the middle and at the end they recommend going to the website to download cheats. I've seen other sites invite guest authors to give each other a pat Maybe this is where journalism is headed, but maybe it would be unfair to other journalists to call Games.com a news site. Given these articles, sadly, I don't feel it should be considered reliable, but I'd be interested to hear other opinions. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure these negative marks are completely damning. If the site is to be used to provide refs for facebook/mobile gaming articles, and if some care is taken to only use articles free from COI then it seems like it could be a situational source until something better comes along. It has decent credentials even if it doesn't seem to maintain as rigid objectivity as we could wish for. But I'm open to other thoughts too. -Thibbs (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Is Jeux Video (in French) a reliable source? I was thinking of using this review in an article, but I'm not sure the site is reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks solid to me. A previous discussion here suggests that it should be used for games of French-origin, but over at fr.wiki their equivalent of WP:VG describes it as "extremely well-known," "an influential site," and "a notable website." Along with the French GameKult, it seems to be comparable to IGN and GameSpy, and it appears in over 1500 fr.wiki articles. Here at en.wiki it appears in over 50 articles. From the fr.wiki article on juexvideo.com it looks like the website is the online version of a print magazine, it's the biggest French website in terms of webtraffic, and they provide coverage for several France-based games events like Paris Games Week and the Cannes IDEF. The writing is done by a select team of editors (not user-generated content). So signs seem to point to RS. If for nothing else then for French-specific topics, but I'd suggest it could be used for anything. -Thibbs (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm convinced. Based on the impressive amount information you've gathered, I think it could certainly be used as reliable source even for articles with no ties to France or the French language. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oh hell yes. I've no idea how I didn't notice this discussion before, but yes. This is almost analoguous to IGN in terms of popularity... I'm a native French speaker and I can definitely vouch for them. Salvidrim! 14:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This and many of its articles are pretty decent. Should it be considered a reliable source? Thanks, Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 22:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As a general reader, I enjoy they're work. But as a reliable source, I'm not sure. Isn't it just a random group of guys? I have, and will continue to, fight for the notability of the respective article, but from a source standpoint, they seem no different than a random blog. I'd be happy to be proven wrong though, as many of their articles would be useful to the obscure jrpgs I tend to write about. Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... It's just that they're one of the only English sources with that much information on Japanese games, especially the ones exclusive to that area (SiliconEra's a good one, too). Their pages are written pretty nicely, and obviously they are not lying, so I see nothing wrong with citing the facts for VG articles. Maybe they should be placed in "situational sources" along with sites such as SiliconEra, Joystiq and Destructoid (most of their articles are great, but some (especially from the latter two) are dubious at best...) . Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 05:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• OperationRainfall doesn't appear reliable for anything but the OperationRainfall article, and it shouldn't be added to the situational sources. For reliable English sources on Japanese games, try Siliconera, Gematsu, Japandemonium on RPGamer, Andriasang (defunct), Anime News Network, or Japanator. Also, if you find a good article on Famtisu or Inside-Games, try using Google Translate for the basics, and then you could ask one of the Japanese translators to help clarify things. Two articles I expanded use machine translations: Monster Monpiece and Demon Gaze. For the first, most of the plot comes from Japanese articles. Which is really difficult to translate. For the latter, I found a listing of Japanese voice actors on the translation, then I highlighted the names and copied the Japanese versions into Google to see if you had a jawiki article. Using the sidebar I then found their enwiki article. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Is Gematsu useable? I'm largely unfamiliar with it, but I've seen it be used in a number of articles I aspire to clean up someday. It'd be good to know those sources don't need to be replaced/removed... Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It looks potentially borderline to me. The about page is rather unhelpful as is it's 3-person staff page, but the founding editor (Sal Romano) has written for GameZone and VG24/7 in the past. The site as a whole gets some coverage in other RSes. Much of it is credits for screenshots/videos/translations (e.g at RPGamer, NintendoLife, Edge, Eurogamer, etc. etc.), but some of it is also citation as a source (e.g. DigitalSpy, GameInformer, etc.). So I see some citation by RSes and the editor in chief appears to have some RS-writing credentials. Not the strongest case, but not hopeless. -Thibbs (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• I generally agree that the group doesn't have stellar credentials. They are mainly a well-organized collection of fans and amateurs. They do appear to be notable, though, and I think there may be room to cite them in a limited sense on localization issues surrounding The Last Story, Xenoblade Chronicles, and Pandora's Tower since this was their original purpose and since this has earned the attention of our other RSes like GameInformer, Kotaku, NintendoLife, etc. IGN also reports that Nintendo had recognized the group. Concerning broader localization issues, I'm not so sure, and even regarding localization of the 3 above games I'd think they would mainly only be reliable sources for their own positions in connection to the issue. If their reliability is only limited to the 3 games above, then it doesn't seem worth listing them in the situational section. -Thibbs (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I would agree that they should only be used regarding their own campaigns. If another game is localized and Operation Rainfall is credited with that decision then it could be mentioned in the organization's article and the game's article but only if reliable sources credit them first.--70.49.81.44 (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've mainly been using any source I find reliable in an article rather than clogging up this board, but I think it might be worth adding a few to the list:

• 148apps.com – Published by Steel Media Ventures. Listed on Metacritic. Appears to have helped create the O.A.T.S. standard of ethics: [14] – Referenced by EuroGamer, CNN 2 3, CNET, Computer World, The New York Times, SlideToPlay, named a "must-have mobile apps for job seekers" by The Washington Post, "excellent" says The Washington Post/TechCrunch, New Zealand Herald, The Guardian, "good review site" says Advertising Age
• Inside-Games.jp – They appear to deliver news to major portals like Yahoo! Japan and MSN. Inside-Games has been referenced by Kotaku 2, ArsTechnica, Joystiq 2, ComputerAndVideoGames, 1UP.com, IGN 2, NintendoLife, PocketGamer.co.uk, Siliconera, 2 3 4.
• PCGamesN.com – Founded by James Binns, publishing exec at Future Publishing. Referenced by MCVUK 2 3, VG247 2 3 4 5, ComputerAndVideoGames, PCGamer 2
• SlideToPlay.com – Some of the founders worked for GameSpot. Has a full editorial policy. Referenced by ComputerAndVideoGames.com, 1UP.com, CultOfMac.com, PocketGamer.biz, CasualGaming.biz

--Odie5533 (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support SlideToPlay as I've followed it for some time and have been very impressed with their policies and the quality of writing. Don't know anything about the others. --Teancum (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support 148apps, Inside-Games, SlideToPlay. I'm still not sure on PCGamesN.com, but its connection with Future Publishing is a promising sign. -Thibbs (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Slidetoplay seems to have the greatest case for declaration as reliable given its pedigree; the others are less strong, particularly PCgamesN (being owned by a media company with reliable publications does not in turn make them reliable.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support SlideToPlay - I already thought it was considered reliable, actually. Neutral/unfamiliar with the rest for now. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Could Gameranx be a possible reliable source? Thank you, Satellizer talk contribs 22:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Their "about" page describes them as paid professionals but fails to explain who pays them. There is also not much in the way of credentials except for publications with other sources not listed at WP:VG/RS. On the other hand, they seem to be cited by places like Kotaku, Gamasutra, and PC Gamer. And the two lead editors are cited by some of these RSes as well. Do you know if they have any sort of editorial policy posted? -Thibbs (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I *think* this site should be considered okay. They have a full editorial staff, and the key sentence of their "about us" page is "Though we hope to grow over time, we will always keep our ideals about transparency and proper fact-checking." Can we get consensus to include them? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - They've only been online since November 16 of last year, have an Alexa rank in the 1.5 million range, and I couldn't find anything particularly notable about their editors. Perhaps with time. --Teancum (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  Hm, that can't be right. The article I had in mind was posted in June 2012. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note on that article, the author, Crystal Steltenpohl, also seems to have been an editor at Diehard GameFAN which I consider to be a positive factor. -Thibbs (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That particular author's oldest piece is from May 2011. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it appears that I couldn't roll back far enough using "Older Entries" the other day when I initially checked. I was able to go back to earlier entries this time around. The earliest actually seems to be April 2011. The other concerns I have still stand, however. In regards to the editors working at GameFan I couldn't see any hard evidence that the online version here is actually related to the original. The only info I could find was that in the GameFAN article which states "The DieHard GameFan name was resurrected by Alex Lucard as a website, Diehard GameFAN, with Dave Halverson's blessings.[7] While there is plenty of coverage on the major releases, the site also prides itself on reviewing more "indie" games, much in the spirit of the original magazine." The reference leads here, a forum post with no way to verify the information. --Teancum (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the magazine's website had indeed been relaunched when the magazine was rebooted, but is a different URL than this site, making it no more than an unaffiliated fansite in my eyes. In regards to editorial staff, I see only Christopher Bowen and M. Ngai, the latter of which was only active until October 2012, which seems to be normal for a lot of the listed staff (everyone but Bowen stopped posting sometime in 2012, most were more than two months ago). It raises concerns over editorial strength. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - The editor in chief, Christopher Bowen, was the News Editor at Diehard GameFAN which is apparently the online continuation of the defunct GameFAN magazine and is listed as situational here. So there is something to work with, but per Teancum's suggestion they may not have been in existence for sufficient time to determine reliability yet. I couldn't see any references to Gaming Bus from the other listed RSes, for instance. -Thibbs (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Also relevant might be their review process as it relates to their editorial policy. Statements like "We would rather be accurate than first" are encouraging. -Thibbs (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Official console mags shortened this way: [15] so they stop f-up the aggregator lines like here: [16] --Niemti (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

How are the aggregator lines f-ed up? They look fine on my screen. Are you saying that they are too wide? -Thibbs (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am also confused about what is f-ed up. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

He's talking about this, I think. But a simple |width=30em or whatever appropriate number should fix it. That's what the width parameter is for. --Teancum (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, or he could use a "& nbsp ;" to achieve the same result, I believe. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Two more:

• Gaming Everything
• Nintendo Everything

I'm not that sure whether these two could be considered reliable, but proposing them here anyway. Thanks. :) ~ satellizer ~~ talk ~ 07:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Any indication who the authors are? Most of the posts seem to be attributed to "Valay", but who is that? I also don't see any "about" page or editorial policy. Both websites are cited by other RSes, though... If info on the authors isn't available then I'm leaning toward non-RS. -Thibbs (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• These sites have no indication of reliability. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• Agreed, I'd lean towards unreliable. The Alexa ranks are decent (but that's not really a factor), but there's no real way to verify authors or an editorial process. I'd go so far as to place them as totally unreliable for those two things. In my opinion if we can't even verify the author(s) then they should automatically be deemed unreliable. That's a huge strike in the reliable source process. --Teancum (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• Unreliable - I read the site frequently. It's good, but they don't really create any original content anyways, almost all their information comes from other sites. It's just a random Nintendo fan forwarding every little bit of Nintendo information along. A good read if you like all that info all put together at one place, but I don't think it fits the Wikipedia definition of a RS. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to look at adding Behind the Voice Actors as a usable source for voice acting in games in the guideline, at least under certain conditions. I contacted them directly, and they do not use user-submitted information like IMDb, they use the credits, sourced info like ourselves or directly contact the actor/their representative. Images with a green tick are confirmed, as explained in this e-mail conversation I had with them:

• • • • • Thanks for the inquiry! No our content is absolutely not user submitted. We rely on end credits or direct contact with the voice directors, voice actors or people involved with the production of the tv show, movie or game.
        • Now, that being said we have not completed the process of verifying ALL of the 80,000+ credits on the site because well to be honest that takes a lot of time. You can tell which ones we have publicly verified by noticing if the credit has a green check mark on the page like you see here:
        • http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/video-games/Batman-Arkham-Asylum/
        • The person in charge of the Arkham City game has apparently not uploaded the credit images/confirmation at this point but I will contact him so he gets that up so you will be able to see exactly where we got our information from.
        • Thanks, and please let us know if you have any other questions or need further explanation.
        • We also have no problem with you referencing/linking to our pages if you need to for citation reasons.
        • - BTVA Admin Team"

I think they're a reliable site and while I think a lot of the unticked information is solid and not contested and could be used for a regular or Good Article, the ticks are checked and often, as I've found with some games, this site is the only place to cover cast fully and without user editing being involved, so I'd like to officially enshrine it in the project references. And thanks to Axem Titanium for pointing me here, forgot about the topic and didn't notice his reply until it was in the archives.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

They don't seem to have much information posted about themselves. Their FAQ was the best I could find in the way of an editorial policy of any kind. I trust that the above message that you posted is really from them, but I wish they stated some of these things a bit more explicitly on their website. Anyway I did some digging here to see if the topic has come up in the past and it has several times. Here's the breakdown:

• February 2013 discussion at WT:VG - Brief discussion leading to this current thread.
• November 2012 discussion at RS/N - Brief discussion leaning toward non-RS.
• February 2012 discussion at RS/N - Briefly concludes in favor of case-by-case usage.
• February 2011 discussion at RS/N - Briefly concludes that user polls from BTVA are not reliable.
• January 2011 discussion at RS/N - Concludes that it's of borderline usability. Forum material is definitely non-RS and we should avoid using it for anything the least bit controversial.

To me the prior consensus looks like it supports very situational case-by-case usage but not for anything controversial and of course not for any of the user-created material (forums or polls). -Thibbs (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Weird, I did search before I posted this but nothing showed up. I'm not arguing for the use of forums or polls, I wouldn't imagine they'd be usable from any site no matter how reliable, just the actual on-site voice actors content. They do have an editorial policy in place since they will display actor/character images but only tick them as confirmed when they have actually confirmed it, either from credits that actually name them (F U BATMAN ARKHAM CITY), or contacting the actor involved. For the purpose I think green ticks should be OK to use and as you say, as long as it isn't controversial, non-ticks. I haven't noted anything wrong with them yet, but they do admit in the e-mail that they aren't physically able to confirm every game they host which is why htey use the tick system. Where it is clearly demonstrable that they are wrong and the game in question is not ticked, then it would be unsuitable to use them. For games however, it can be the only place on the web that isn't a forum/personal blog/fansite that carries the information and makes efforts to check the information.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Never heard of it before but it looks decent to me. Thoughts? It's already used as a source on some tech-related articles like Tizen, History of the Dreamcast, The Last Story, OS X Mountain Lion, and Network operations center. --Atlantima (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Their about page described them as "a team of professional writers" and the In the News page certainly seems to indicate that they have received favorable attention of the media. Is there a page that actually lists staff, though? It would be good to see what kind of credentials the writers have. Likewise it would be good to see editorial policy given that they seem to accept some user-submitted content. -Thibbs (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a list of writers, but you can click the name of any writer and get to a page about them. Here is a list of the ones I've found:

• Todd Haselton Linkedin
• Adriana Lee Intro article Linkedin
• Joey Davidson Into article
• Aaron Baker Intro post
• Mark Hearn Engadget
• Ron Duwell Monroviapost.com
• Sean P. Aune Intro post
• Roy Choi
• Eric Frederikson
• Jon Rettinger Linkedin
• Killian Bell CultofMac
• Logan Cooke
• Noah Kravitz
• Brandon Russell Intro article Website
• Emily Price Linkedin Mashable
• Jack McGrath
• Mike Perlman Intro article

I also found a post about their editorial process: http://www.technobuffalo.com/2012/04/13/behind-the-scenes-of-technobuffalo-how-we-handle-leaks/. "All posts on TechnoBuffalo follow a similar journalistic method as what is outlined here for leaked information." --Atlantima (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Some of the above listed authors do seem to be writers for other RSes like Ars Technica, Gamezone, Engadget, etc. The editorial process looks good. I'd give it the greenlight. It looks generally reliable to me. -Thibbs (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Esperino a possible reliable/situational source? ~ satellizer ~~ talk ~ 09:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

For reference: their about page and staff page. I find very little or no work of the authors or citations to the site as a whole in the other RSes. I didn't see any outline of editorial policy either. None of these factors is necessarily determinative, but considered together I think they most likely point toward non-RS. -Thibbs (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)