Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 2

I have to disagree with the exclusion of this as a reliable source for an aggregate score guys: in some cases it's the only aggregate score for a game (such as was the case with Alleyway, which relied solely on EGM) so I think it's exclusion and sole reliance instead on GR may give the wrong idea about the aggregate score a title has received.

Other than that it could be noted the source should still be usable for excerpts from the reviews they cite if a transcribed version needs to be linked to, as well as a source to link to game covers for text/imagery related to same covers, no? What I'm getting at is, instead of "Unreliable"...I think "Situational" may be better for it...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree labeling it as "unreliable" implies it can't be used for anything at all. Should it be moved to a "questionable" section? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC))

Well it's definitely a viable option. Something I thought of while typing this though, but I guess excluding MobyRank how does MobyGames differ from GameFAQs, which we have as a general source?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I split them off into a "Situational" section; "questionable" implies it is unreliable. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

After looking at the general list again, should Joysitq, Kotaku, and Escapist be moved down there too? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Was bold and moved them. Feel free to revert if necessary. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

This was discussed previously and there was considerable resistance against the idea. SharkD (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"MobyRanks are aggregate scores from other publications, and are too new to have developed a user base of other reliable sources, however they may be acceptable for some older games."

What does this mean, exactly? What is a "user base of reliable sources"? SharkD (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, for the late response. It means that MobyRanks are too new to have been widely used and cited by other reliable sources. That may change over time, and their aggregate scores could be used with less dispute in Wikipedia articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

There's a problem with the example given on when to link to a fansite, and this has nothing to do with the fansite reliability issue:

A notable exception to this rule exists. When a fansite is publishing third party information that is reliable, but is not available elsewhere, or only in video or audio format, it may be cited. For example, a transcript of the text of a cut scene may only be available on a fansite. In this case, cite the video game (see below), and include a link like "Transcript" to the fansite containing the transcript. Do not cite the fansite itself as source. An example from Characters of StarCraft  :

The text of a cut scene is a copyrighted work. Per Wikipedia:External links, we should avoid linking to pages hosting copyrighted material that is not licensed. In this example, we should cite the video game with no link to the text. Pagrashtak 21:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the example, as no one raised any opposition. Now I'd like to consider the remainder further:

When a fansite is publishing third party information that is reliable, but is not available elsewhere, or only in video or audio format, it may be cited.

If certain information is found on a fansite and is not available elsewhere, why should that make it OK to cite an unreliable source? If it's truly not found elsewhere, we have no means by which to determine the worthiness of that information—we're relying on the fansite completely. This is unacceptable. If a fansite has a transcription of a video or audio source at a reliable cite, why is citing the fansite over the original reliable source preferable? Pagrashtak 03:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to remove that too. In the scheme of things, primary sources are allowed for articles as long as they are only used to back up objective data (WP:PRIMARY). Scripts and instructions fall under that. Pointless to introduce a contentious burr ("you cited that fansite, why not this one?") in the guidelines, when we have something safe to go with. Jappalang (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand ZiffDavis backing it, but...

"GameTab relies on two methods to present the most accurate average score for a given game. First, we only include gaming reviews coming from well-established reviewers. Secondly, once a game has 8 or more valid reviews, we use the statistical measure of standard deviation to remove any highly offbase reviews.

In calculating the average score we ignore any reviews whose score is more than two standard deviations away from the mean. For example, if the standard deviation of all scores for a game is 7.5, and the mean of the scores is 80, we ignore those reviews with a score less than 65 and those with a score higher than 95. This is used to help prevent any one reviewer from having too much weight and poisoning the end score."

This factor of the site seems to make it a notch below the current aggregate score sources, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

MetaCritic also weights certain reviews/reviewers above others, although it uses a non-statistical (i.e human analysis) means of doing so. Not sure about GameRankings. SharkD (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, though might be best to summarize their policies then in the notes section for it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And, GameRankings disqualifies sites based on the number of reviews/articles they publish within a given timeframe. So, you have in effect three different methods of weeding out "undesirable" reviews. Personally, I don't think any of the three are superior in any way to the others. SharkD (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone here familiar with this site? I came across it recently, and was wondering what others think of it. I was surprised by the number of interviews with industry personalitites. SharkD (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really familiar, but from previous discussions, it is a blog-site whose authors are supposedly paid based on the number of hits their pages received. A few of their authors do get industry recognition, so it should be possible (like Kotaku and Joystiq) to cite those who are recognized as experts (WP:SPS). Jappalang (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about them: what's the policy for citing them through a reliable industry source for the purpose of reception info? For instance, Capcom cites them via their webpage an article Destructoid did revolving around one of their characters in terms of discussing it. Would the Capcom page be viable to cite even if Destructoid may not?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Capcom would be a primary source, which are not recommended as sources for subjective opinions. Jappalang (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not saying it's their opinion, I'm saying them pointing out someone else's opinion on a subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the article itself was not written by Capcom. However, the reason the article is linked to is because it is Capcom's appraisal that the article has merit. Since Capcom can only be used as a primary source, this appraisal cannot be considered by Wikipedia editors. I.e. Destructoid/the article is not notable [Ed. woops, reliable] just because Capcom links to it. SharkD (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that he is seeking notability for it but reliability (different concepts). However, the fact that Capcom is endorsing a review's opinion is no less than a subjective opinion (primary sources are not to be used as "workaround" to including a possible non-reliable source). Opinions are preferred to be rated by third-parties. Hence, it would be preferred for the opinion to be reported by a third-party and commented on. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So something like IGN covering it would be preferred to Capcom covering it if I understand correctly?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, supposing if IGN says, "Destructoid's Jojo reports this game was a blast to play with, and we totally agree. Click here to read his article.", then you could likely cite "Jojo"'s opinion with the caveat "IGN agreed with Destructoid's Jojo that ..." or something similar; probably you would have to cite both articles? Perhaps someone else can weigh in on this? Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, in this case I would just cite Destructoid without mentioning IGN. However, I remember a case where the BBC cited MMOGCharts.com in its review of Runescape, causing a lot of consternation. SharkD (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Woops! I meant 'reliable'. SharkD (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all familiar with Destructoid, having only visited it once. However, I was greatly impressed with the apparent professionalism and attention to detail (i.e. polish), so I would definitely support listing them in a similar capacity as Kotaku or Joystiq. SharkD (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd really like to see this mentioned as a reliable source, because there's some truly great stuff here. Any thoughts? Randomran (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it couldn't be listed as a situational source, as mentioned previously. Editors would have to defend the reliability of specific authors. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. If the author is considered a reliable source, then it shouldn't matter the forum they publish their views. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

The editor-in-chief is reliable IMO, as he has work on IGN (noticed some of it in the survival horror article). With regards to the site as a whole, I'm on the fence. It's an indie, basically self-published site. The publisher is listed on staff as the "webmaster/founder", though not editor in chief. There's a parent company, but it seems to have been born of Destructoid, not the other way around and doesn't seem to have anything else. Also there's no information about any of the staff that I can see. That said they do make pretty impressive claims about the size of their readership as well as being invited to industry events, so that would carry a lot of weight if verifiable. bridies (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Does someone want to boldly add it to the list, then, with some sort of caveat or comment? Randomran (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Added it to situational. I didn't mention the editor-in-chief though because I couldn't find mention of him/her on the website, just the founder, "Niero", here. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 08:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Looks good! Randomran (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I added all the mags from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines. SharkD (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we add Cleve Blakemore's site? www.vault-co.blogspot.com SharkD (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I presume we are talking about Cleve Blakemore, a programmer who has contributed many Commodore-64 programs to Ahoy! magazine since 1986?[1] He would qualify as a programming expert, but is this really his blog (Texas Arcane); there are thoughts that much of his online presence are by doppelgangers.[2] Jappalang (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Teehee. I was just kidding. ;) SharkD (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, that is his real site. SharkD (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Any objection to listing Insert Credit? They have a pretty big gun as their main editor, and contributions from people like Chris Kohler as seen here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm here, would [siliconera.com Siliconera] be fine as well, under the same provision as RPGamer?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Insertcredit.com — Although the editor Sheffield is part of the Gamasutra staff, it appears he is not imparting that editorial experience to this site.[3] All news posts, however, do reveal their sources. Despite this, they get no attention from the mainstream publications. Tentatively, one could accord Sheffield's postings on this site as coming from an expert (per WP:SPS), as well as Kohler's writings; the site as a whole, however, would be unreliable (similar to the Kotaku-Joystiq situation) unless the author has certain substantial recognition in the industry.

That sounds fair enough, and gives plenty to work with.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Siliconera — note that as pointed above, I am suspicious of RPGamer's reliability. Up to now, aside from their association with Crave Online, RPGamer has nothing substantial by means of publications,[4] or websites.[5] If proof does not turn up soon, I am going to start advocating their removal once I finished investigating what Crave Online truly is. Siliconera is accorded that doubt as well. Jappalang (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Should Rock, Paper Shotgun be moved to the "Situational" section? SharkD (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The thought was that the four bloggers were experts on "video game", thus the site should be accepted as an SPS. Is there any dispute on any of their expertise, or is there any posting that is not by them? Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I just thought it should automatically go with all the other blogs. SharkD (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Links: [6][7]. SharkD (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And this to support those two. It'd be a good idea to monitor the website and keep track of any structural changes that might affect 1UP regarding articles we have here that reference them, so they can be adjusted accordingly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The first thing that comes to mind is "G*d d@mm!t"; hopefully we won't have to do something like this again. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

Link Owned by Bestofmedia Group, which according to the page's citation of Nielsen NetRatings is one of "top three online publishers for technology in the world." I could dig deeper if need be. I do know the links from the author's names for the pages go directly to a feedback page on Bestofmedia, which seems to indicate a rather close watch on the staff by the part of their owners.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this have something to do with Tom's Hardware? I've heard a lot of people say they no longer find their results reliable. SharkD (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

First I'd heard of that. Their editorials such as this are particularly useful for articles as far as I know.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My own recollection (which is likely faulty without proper research) is that after Thomas Pabst had set up Tom's Hardware, the site earned quite a lot of accolades and was the "darling" of the IT industry then (Anand's site, which I forgot the exact name now, was a competant rival), who referred to its findings and reports frequently. Tom's Hardware is reliable by this project's rules. Pabst then started expanding ("sold out" according to his detractors) and brought in more aides, making his site a full-time business entity. I believe this is where "Tom's this-and-that" started spinning off from the main site. Anyway, it seemed Pabst was no longer a major editorial controller in the new company, and the business was sold to Bestofmedia. It is very likely "Tom's this-and-that" sites are spin-offs and share the same editorial policies Tom's Hardware had, and we could accord them the same gauge of reliability... not certain how this will hold with other "non-gamer or IT" editors, though... Jappalang (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that someone had added a quote from Thunderbolt (website) to one of my FAs. I didn't see it listed here, nor did I see a discussion excluding it, so I thought I'd bring it up before taking action. I'm really not familiar with the site. Pagrashtak 16:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look too reliable to me: they outright state they're a volunteer effort, and there is no sign of corporate backing. What exactly was quoted and how?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That was my initial reaction as well. From The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time: "On the other hand, some reviewers criticized the game's emphasis on self-enclosed dungeon levels; Thunderbolt Games' associate editor called Ocarina of Time "a boring dungeon crawl" that was "draining and onerous".[77]" It's also in the review chart (manually). Things can get heated when you're dealing with the reception section of very-well-known games such as OOT, so I wanted to get a second opinion before doing something about it. Pagrashtak 19:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thunderbolt's used as a reference in the reception section in Shadow of the Colossus and has been since before it was promoted to featured article status. Guest9999 (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems nobody brought it up as an issue during the FAC.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Also used in F-Zero GX (featured) and Crash: Mind over Mutant and Golden Sun: The Lost Age (both good articles). Might be benefit to a general discussion of whether the site can be considered reliable, it is sometimes being used as a source for general information about gameplay as well as for reception. Guest9999 (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a valid source. It has been used in numerous Wikipedia articles for years now (see System Shock 2, Golden Sun and many other prominent games -- and different people added these) They're in every major review aggregator, from Metacritic to TopTenReviews to GameRankings to MobyGames. It passes the Google test, with 1.4 million results. There's no evidence of score manipulation or invalid criticisms. In fact, I think that having all corporately-backed media companies as sources may not be a good thing because they're more prone to being bribed and influenced. Many large sites like IGN and Gamespot receive their games for free, along with advertising deals from the exact same game publishers. Wikipedian06 (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The criteria that review aggregators use to select publications does not match with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. You can look at some of the earlier discussions on this page for more opinions about that. I see anything about a "Google test" in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to show. Pagrashtak 16:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"It is in other FAs" does not show it as a reliable source, especially when those FACs were some time ago. Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches on how reliable sources are generally considered at FACs. Jappalang (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but the fact that the site's used as a source in articles which are meant to be among Wikipedia's best indicates that a discussion might be in order before quickly writing it off. Guest9999 (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what we're doing? Pagrashtak 16:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

How about these sites?

A popular RPG site before the staff moved to RPGWatch. SharkD (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't find any reliable sources that link to RPGDot or RPGWatch. None of the staff seem notable either.じんない 13:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The RPGDot staff moved here after a change in management in the above site. SharkD (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't find any reliable sources that link to RPGDot or RPGWatch. None of the staff seem notable either.じんない 13:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's cited/mentioned often enough by GameBanshee (which is part of UGO), see google here. They also occasionally have interviews with developers (which is, as far as I know/remember automatically notable), which are then picked up/linked to by other sites (including IGN and some other sites mentioned on this page, which also links to it's reviews in the various *vault subsites). Hope that helps. --VPeric (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just came across this site for the first time. SharkD (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Their qualifications look good (especially since a simple Google check can verify most of what they claim). This "we want to provide you with the tools and resources to help you be as successful as you can be in casual games." might be worrisome. Other than that, it seems a recent start-up and targeted for a niche market, thus it is understandable the site would have less impact that can be seen so far. A Webby makes it notable, not reliable. Its strong point now is the staff's expertise. Jappalang (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Er, what's a "Webby"? SharkD (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see what it is now. SharkD (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, that quote sounds like it's almost directly copied from the IGN: "Whether you want to create impact, generate buzz, raise awareness, build reach, promote products or sustain positive PR, we offer a wide array of creative ad solutions that will help you achieve your goals." or GameSpot: "Our brands feature a range of tools and applications to help users interact with your message and spread the word to others." They all sound kind of Orwellian when you think about it, and they all roughly translate to "We provide the tools for you to be successfull." It's just the language you have to expect from a company's PR department. SharkD (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The site has passed muster at several AfDs[8][9][10] as well as previous discussions[11]. I'm going to add it to the list. SharkD (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Gamezebo's staff bios really speak for themselves, Erin Bell is at the helm and she's a game journo, and when a prolific author and journalist who writes for USA Today regularly pops up to review games we're onto a winner. The main issue that may arise with Gamezebo is that it tends to be presented alongside hopeless sources due to it covering casual games, so it ends up tarred with the same brush. Someoneanother 06:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just came across this site today, too. SharkD (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Their about page is lengthy doesn't really say all that much in regard to what we look for. It does list the all their staff though. I didn't do any searches on the website or its staff, but this may be another case where it might be best to demonstrate the individual author's reliability rather than the whole site. Just my guess though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

Hmmm... this makes me wonder whether at one point we will need to keep track of individual authors as well as websites. SharkD (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a developer-oriented site. SharkD (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The website doesn't exactly look too professional. That itself doesn't make the site unreliable, but the articles are wikis and the user interfaces looks like everything is setup using a forum format.

Their legal page does mention much about editorial oversight. In fact, they state they are not responsible for any of the site's errors or inaccuracy, and that content from user submissions are the responsibility of the submitter. Even if a professional were to contribute, it would be hard to verify their identity. I'd say this is one to avoid. Let's see what others say though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Another one I've never heard of. SharkD (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't find a reliable source that quotes it. There is also no info on who their staff is except that it is "Team DarkZero".じんない 13:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems like an online database in the same vein as MobyGames. From personal experience its coverage of imports is more extensive than MobyGames'. SharkD (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they are covered only by personal blogs and directory listings. The staff page which uses aliases does not really bode well for independent neutral editorial oversight either.じんない 14:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A blog about art and video game development. The front page cites a comment by Tycho from Penny Arcade calling it "probably the most interesting article [he's] ever read". SharkD (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, since it's a blog, the author's credibility would need to be established for WP:SELFPUB. It looks like it's done by Daniel Cook, who is credited for mainly artwork in a few games. But most of his credits are special thanks. Has he been published in anything else?

Also, I'm a fan of Penny-Arcade, but I don't know if I'd call Tycho a video game "expert". He's certainly knowledgeable and insightful, but has he written for anything other than his blog and game?

Until more information is found, I'd say avoid the website to be on the safe side. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

It seems he's written several articles for Gamasutra, who mention his blog in his bio and several of the articles. SharkD (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the number of articles he's written for Gamasutra, I'd say that looks good enough to me. Just keep a few things in mind though.

1. WP:SELFPUB has some restrictions to what kind of information can be used and how.
2. Many of the regular FAC reviewers catch a lot of things we miss, so this may or may not fly at an FAC. It probably wouldn't hurt to find some content by Cook from other sources to strengthen the rationale. I remember thinking I had a good one for KLOV, but it got mostly torn apart by User:Ealdgyth at the Marble Madness FAC and I had to find more.

Let's see what some others say as well to get more of a consensus. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

I looked over the FAC review you linked to, and it didn't seem to me that User:Ealdgyth "tore apart" the site. He just requested further clarification, and you did a good job of providing it. Did he remove the cite from the article? SharkD (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth didn't tear apart the website, but kind of tore apart the rationale I had prepared. It worked out ok though, as I built a stronger rationale and the source was kept. My point is that FAC throws you some curve balls every now and then. I didn't anticipate the Marble Madness FAC being as difficult and lengthy as it was. :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

I'm having trouble just figuring out what the site is about. Is it an online database? There's no "About" page as far as I can tell. SharkD (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a crawler for anything game-related (well that it thinks is). Very bottom of the page it explains this. Since it doesn't seem to distinguish content, I'd say this can't be trusted.じんない 03:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's cited in ~40 articles. I can't find any "About" or "Staff" page, though. Also, it appears their parent company also owns a marketing company (which handles all marketing for the site). SharkD (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The site isn't cited by any reliable sources. Gamerankings.com heavily cites the parent company's link. However they are the only ones which makes me think they might have struck a deal...じんない 14:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Firing Squad has a page about them, and they've been cited by a book, Gamers Hell, N4G[12][13], Mobile Magazine, Joystiq, engadget and Sim Racing World. Their review scores are also counted toward the aggregate scores at GameTab, GameRankings and Metacritic. There's an article that describes their position in the marketplace at MCV SharkD (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 13:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional discussion of PSXExtreme has occurred here. Consensus seems to be against the site. SharkD (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Part of the Gamasutra network. Here's their "About" page. Looks pretty good to me. SharkD (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems there are several sites that are part of the network, such as WorldsInMotion, which concerns itself with the video game industry, and GameDevResearch, which is targeted toward the "video game research market" (that sounds like us!). SharkD (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

IndieGames is another site that's part of the network. SharkD (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

From the "About" page: "Editor: Simon Carless, who is currently the Publisher of both Game Developer and Gamasutra, as well as the Chairman of the Independent Games Festival and organizer of the Independent Games Summit at GDC." Carless has worked in the video game industry for companies like Eidos and Atari and has a written a book on gaming, published by O'Reilly Media (see here). Gamasutra and Game Developer are both considered reliable sources. Also, the "contact us" section indicates that submissions are screened before they are published, presumably by the aforementioned Carless. USA Today apparently feels that they are reliable as this link would suggest, and MSNBC has referred to the Independent Games Festival as "the equivalent of the Sundance Film Festival in the games world". MSNBC has also interviewed Carless. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For a Japanese site it looks pretty professional (they tend not to). I know zero else about it. SharkD (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it looks almost identical to how IGN looked a few months ago (minus the kanji and katakana). I went ahead and added it. SharkD (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Has appeared in two recent AfDs[14][15]. I know nothing else about it. SharkD (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It has an impressive number of links, but sadly 90% are blogs and I can't find anything except 1 Digg company profile.じんない 14:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a network of several gaming-related sites. SharkD (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor coverage by PC Zone, PCGamer. Lots of coverage from e3.じんない 14:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I could have sworn this site was discussed already. Maybe it was on the project page... SharkD (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I did a search and it hasn't been discussed. At all. Which is not a good sign. SharkD (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. It was brought up in the AfD (2nd) discussion for KDice. SharkD (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have been brought up several times in AfDs this week. SharkD (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts? A company profile is available here, and they do seem to have some notoriety, though a lot of it seems due to the browser-based game they offer.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Owned by CBS, useful for getting credit info for articles for voice actors and stuff?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Check WP:TV. They should be able to tell whether the site is reliable or not.じんない 05:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

After bringing it up there, despite the backing we can safely rule this as an unreliable source.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone think we should set up MiszaBot II here? This page is getting pretty active. Pagrashtak 14:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What kind of archiving time frame did you have in mind? 14-16 days? More? Less?

Also, should they be indexed? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

Actually, I was thinking 30 days would be good to start, but I'm fine with fewer if you think that's too long. I'm indifferent to the index. Pagrashtak 16:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

30 works. I only mentioned the index because it might benefit editors looking for answers on sources. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

A user is trying to add an award from Die Hard GameFAN ([16]) which appears to be a web-based continuation of a defunct magazine, GameFAN. Anyone have any experience with this? --MASEM 18:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of the website. The magazine rings a bell, but I think I may have seen it in a super market or comic book store; don't remember reading it though. They are owned by Inside Pulse, and their about us page states they are not the original magazine staff, but a "not-for-profit" organization. They picked up the trademark and domain name, after the magazine was already gone. Apparently they have the blessing of the former publisher, and many of them have worked on other gaming website and with gaming companies. Here's a link to their review standards.

They seem to be a review site working in earnest. However, this is first I'm heard of them, and I'm inclined to treat them like any other fan created review site until reliability has been established—whether that be by showing other reliable sources citing them or their separate authors. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Agree with Guy. Just because it used to be print does not convey RS from on high. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

GameFAN definitely sounds familiar, but I've never heard of the website. SharkD (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a doozy, but when writing an article (more specifically character articles), merchandise related to a subject won't always be covered by mainstream news sources or still have the company website up. What references do we have in these events to cite?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Collectibles generally need to age a while before they become highly desired (think Antiques Roadshow). Exceptions in the mainstream press might be when a Big Name is involved in their design and production, such as Todd McFarlane, LEGO or Kiss (band). That said, if it's console characters you're writing about then more then likely there are enthusiast magazines or manga published in Japan. (Enthusiast magazines and clubs are a big deal in Japan.) SharkD (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that given the scope of the discussions occurring here it might be warranted to add a permalink to the official noticeboard at the top of this page. What's the best and most visible way of accomplishing this? SharkD (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like this cleared up, along with some other people I'm sure. Chrono Trigger uses CC as one of it's major sources. However, it's been called into question because it contains original research and unverified claims about some statements. However, it also uses a lot of info from the game itself and could for that information be considered a lexicon on the Chrono franchise. Per our guideline for when to (not) cite games, it states that we should try to avoid citing the game because of the difficulty of referencing. However, Jappalang argues that citing the video is better because of mistakes. While I agree that we should not cite something CC lists if it contradicts the game, we can take that on an individual circumstance the same way we do when those situations arise. I think therefore CC could be listed as a "qualifiable" source.じんない 00:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it even necessary to cite CC when all they do is comment on events that happen in the game? SharkD (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

For controversial items like translations or specific examples it is. For general plot information, that depends really on who reviews it.じんない 03:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the site likely to be cited in relation to something other than Chrono Trigger? SharkD (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Any Chrono released title (I believe), possibly the staff's pages, possibly translator's staff pages, possibly the Square-Enix main article.じんない 04:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is platform specific, but I'm thinking they might be good to add after someone pointed them out to me. AMIGA Magazine Rack?じんない 06:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That's a big list! It may be too many for our little article. SharkD (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If it isn't copyright violation, then absolutely. Computer games are underrepresented among our FAs. This will certainly help change that. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

I dunno. Should I run it by I am running it by WP:COPYRIGHT?. The other site he listed was far more dubious since I saw links to games (unless AMIGA has released all it's games to public domain)?じんない 22:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it could be used but we'd not be able to link the site and have to use template:cite magazine per WT:Copyrights#Scanned journal. So the answer is probably list them under qualified sources maybe? Went ahead and added it, but with some instructions.じんない 05:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding onto this magazine archive, here are two other sites that have a good deal of magazine content as well.

• Atari Magazines.com
• Atari Archives.org

Both sites say "Atari", but their scopes are more than just Atari products. I was able to find a source for Williams' Robottron: 2084. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm curious. Not sure if it has peer review or editorial standards. But it looks like a strong authority on a lot of adventure game topics, which can be hard to come by. Randomran (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Another site in this mold is adventureclassicgaming.com. I'm curious what other folks think about the reliability of these two. Randomran (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've heard favorably of the sites and have seen them being cited in articles, but don't really follow the genre so I can't really say for sure. SharkD (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

justadventures.com - Randy Sluganski, the founder appears with a bio on mobygames as an authoratitve site and has been cited by at least one academic book mentioning his site as well.じんない 21:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Would someone feel bold enough to add it to our list of reliable sources?

I've had to defend JustAdventure several times at Myst-related FAC's and never really found strong evidence it was reliable, but on the other hand it's not unreliable either. I'd list it with caveats. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I can continue looking for staff members, but with the publication of the founder and the site in an academic book, I'd say it will almost certainly qualify as a SPS published by an expert, if not an outright peer-reviewed website. However, more than 1 source is best found.じんない 22:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What kind of caveats? I don't mind adding it myself, but I don't know what kind of limitations are appropriate. Randomran (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

this is what i found doing a conservative search on goodle. Justadventure.com has a history of award-winning experts and their opinions are taken seriously in the academic world as well.

• Randy Sluganski: [17], [18]
• Al Giovetti: [19], [20], [21]
• Scott Jelinek: [22]
• Agustín Cordes: interview

former:

• Dimitris Manos: [23]
• Steve Ince: nomination for a prestigous award, [24], [25], [26], [27]
• Adam Bormann: [28]
• Josh Mandel: [29]
• Tony Warriner: [30], [31], [32], award, interview

That's all well in good, but if it meets SPS it does so by the author, not the JustAdventure label, so there's no point in arguing for the reliability of the publication. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it qualifies under "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses." because multiple staff members have been quoted, not always the most notable either therefore I'd say that as a site, it would meet the criteria.じんない 01:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. SharkD (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this, guys. I guess I'll go ahead and start using it. Good information on adventure games is hard to come by (because the golden age of adventure games is long gone). Randomran (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There's an edit war going on over at Real-time tactics regarding whether blogs can be considered reliable sources. I'd appreciate some comments on the Talk page. SharkD (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, here's MobyGames' list of sites. The ones marked "Pending" probably aren't considered reliable. SharkD (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I started adding links to discussions as well as checkmarks to each item. Use {{Y&}} for approved sites and {{N&}} for rejected sites. SharkD (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved the list to the front page. Does anyone see any that should be immediately rejected? SharkD (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I dug through the Talk archives and listed all the other sites that have been discussed. If you come across a "bad" site, feel free to list it (and a link to the discussion) in that section. Just make sure to mark it with a red "X". SharkD (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to guess the regions of many of the non-English sites based on the domain, script, About pages and so forth. Please correct any mistakes. SharkD (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add Deaf Gamers, GameSlant and AudioGames.net to the "Situational" section (or maybe in their own section) in that they can be relied upon to report on issues that specifically affect disabled (mainly deaf) gamers. Good idea? SharkD (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to do it for that, I think that might be appropriate.じんない 19:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This site seems to have good editorial policies, are accurate and have relationships with Sony and game publishers. They have also been linked-to several times by Sony and Media Molecule. This site has already been used as a source in several articles with little argument. Can this be considered a reliable source? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 12:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Their 'About Us' page states that they "enjoy great publisher relations but our reviews are entirely unbiased and are as objective as any one person’s view of a game can be." and "We enjoy good relationships with all major European publishers." ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 12:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can say anything. I can say "I am a god", but that doesn't make it true. I haven't found any reliable source linking them and their editorial process is murky at best. I'd say no.じんない 19:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Gamernode reliable? Gary King (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think at the least it is qualified source for its interviews. The director I have seen mentioned as an expert, so maybe her as well. They seem to have some kind of peer review that mimics other more reliable sources, but I'm not sure if it's up to wikipedia's WP:RS standards.じんない 19:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the specific article that I am using. What do you think? Gary King (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Might need a wider discussion on this one.じんない 19:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...their "About Us" section is pretty ambiguous. Same for their corporate owner, PR Newswire. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 09:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi i was wondering if anyone knows if Cubed3 is a reliable site. I mainly need to use it for this interview, [33] so i can verify that Rune Factory Frontier is now independent of the harvest moon series but i cant chuck it on the List of Harvest Moon titles if its not reliable. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. Salavat (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note Cubed3 is used on Radical Dreamers: Nusumenai Hōseki which is a featured article but i couldnt see anything in the FAC about reliability of sources, so im still asking the question, any comments? Oh and both interviews are done by the same person. Salavat (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I found 2 cites for them...one of them just noting their style change. I'd say they're a notable review site, but I'm not sure if they are a reliable site. The other one was a Gamespot article on Tingle. It's possible there are more I missed though given that Gamespot cited one of their articles. However I'd check some more first.じんない 06:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The page i need is a review so hopefully it should be all good. So what id be looking for would be if reliable places like IGN or GameSpot cite Cubed3?? Salavat (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, cite quotes or publish their articles. More than 1 and by different people. If they are all from 1-2 people, then it's more likely that they consider those people reliable, not the site.じんない 06:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok i searched a little and found these sites, score them out if they arent any good:

• [34]
• [35] (written by James Temperton, Cubed3's Deputy Editor, Features Editor)
• [36]
• [37] (interview by Adam Riley, Cubed3's Deputy Editor, News Editor)
• [38] (Adam Riley quoted in article)

Salavat (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, I'd say Adam Riley is reliable source. I'm not sure about the sources from Gamespot since they come from various "union" pages, so I'm not sure if we give those the same kind of pass as the rest of Gamestop. If we do, then yes, Cubed3 seems to be reliable for Nintendo reviews.じんない 00:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So in summary i can use the above mentioned interview as a source on the featured list and not face any problems? Salavat (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to say yes, but I'd get a second opinion because of those Gamespot ones are "union" sections of Gamespot.じんない 22:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I see it has a checkmark next to it on the page, but I don't see any discussion about it. So, is it reliable? It has quite a lot of useful articles, so it would be nice to get a confirmation on this before adding these articles as references. Gary King (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are links to where the site is discussed. It was discussed previously here in Archive 1. SharkD (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I see Giant Bomb is ticked as reliable on the big checklist. I feel it should be clarified to a situational source, as a large amount of the site's database is user-generated content. If you just search the site for whatever game you're taken to a Wiki-esque page. It should be clarified that only features/reviews that are clearly marked as written by staff should be used. I know loads of other reliable sites have user-reviews mixed in, but they are much more clearly marked than Giant Bomb's database. bridies (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think the site used to be in that format? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 13:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought that the additional note I added was pretty clear. "Reliable for reviews and news content submitted in the site's blog by the site's own editorial staff. Do not use the user contributed content from the site's article/database section for citations."

- X201 (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that make it "situational"?

Didn't realise that I was the person who added Giant Bomb. I think it was as a result of a discussion in WP:VG. Move to situational, I should have put it there to start with. - X201 (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually didn't notice it was in the main table; I found it in the checklist at the bottom in which it just had a green tick (and in which there's no note or link to a discussion). But yeah, it should go in the situational sources table, just because the user-generated content is so extensive and using the site's search function will generally take you straight to a Wiki-style article. I think I'll link this discussion in the checklist also. bridies (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering what to do with the addition of a review by mmohut.com to the External Links of Wizard101. In this specific case, the source appears dubious but it's not cited in reference (the article is supported by enough RS in reference) but as an external link.

Beyond the specific case, could someone point me to some more general ways to handle non-RS reviews added as external links? I somehow get the gut feeling that it detracts from the article rather than helping it, on the other hand, links to fansites or wikias as externals aren't necessarily subject to a more stringent standart. Except that glowing reviews from unreliable / self-published source may be a way to break the NPOV. In short, I'm confused. Thanks. MLauba (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete it, citing WP:ELNO point 11. bridies (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Will do just that, thanks. MLauba (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the information from The Magic Box (the-magicbox.com) is taken from Famitsu, etc. and since the website tells where they got their information from, we can use those sources instead of the website to source our information. However, this page does not mention where the numbers come from; does anyone know what they are using for those numbers? Famitsu? Media Create? Gary King (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This would be a good case where emailing them would he helpful. It's limited to 1 page. Might also suggest they should add that info to the pages.じんない 04:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah okay, I emailed them. Gary King (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So from reading past discussions, I couldn't determine if e-mailing individual websites to determine their reliability was an acceptable practice. What's the verdict on this? I've sent out a couple of e-mails to File Factory/Gameworld.net and Gamestyle. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 09:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

E-mailing them if it is to ask if they have been featured in other articles or their press have been invited to major events like E3 and ifso where the articles can be indpendantly verified. If they say they can't be, then they probably aren't because most would be more than willing to show anything that pumps their ego if they are small and larger ones we can find ourselves. :pじんない 02:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have an "about us" section, the writers don't post their real names, and it looks like a blog. That being said, it looks as though at least some of the writers have been invited to video game industry events (which is specifically why I'm adding them to this list for consideration). They have a corporate owner, "FAD Media," whose website is currently down. Thoughts? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you verify that they have been invited or is it a claim on their part? If they don't have info about themselves or use aliases any claims they make become that much more dubious.じんない 02:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll keep on it. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 05:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to submit the following sources for evaluation regarding their admissible use covering indie games:

1. Game Tunnel, founded 2002, runs an annual independent game of the year award which has some recognition in the indie games milieu
2. Indiegames.com, part of the Think Services Game Group, owner of the Game Developer Magazine and Gamasutra.

Thanks. MLauba (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

GameTunnel looks good to me. The about page isn't particularly detailed about editorial policies, but the editor-in-chief, Russell Carroll, appears to be an employee of a game development company, Reflexive Entertainment. Gamasutra and GameSetWatch consider him an authority on indie games, as this interview or this interview would suggest. It also looks like he has his own column on Gamasutra. One potential problem for GameTunnel's reliability could be how it selects its staff. The selection process looks decent, but writers are not required to be involved in the game industry or have any formal education in programming or journalism.

The Think Services Game Group has a good-looking pedigree, but Indiegames.com has no page on their editorial policies, and Think Services doesn't even include them on their holdings list on its about page.

— Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed computer game journal. Editorial team includes university faculty, and their policies are pretty convincing. Their submission requirements appear to be in accordance with other academic journals. Its articles are included in the library of Georgetown University (see here) and it is listed by Edna, a joint initiative by several departments of education of the Commonwealth of Australia (see here). — Levi van Tine (t – c) 09:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Owned by Themis Media, itself owned by the Themis Group. Staff includes editorial director Alexander Macris, who is a published author and gives frequent presentations at marketing and game industry events. Also includes editor-in-chief Julianne Greer, an accomplished gaming journalist who was named one of Next Gen's Top 50 game journalists in 2006 and has served on a gaming panel for the Austin Chronicle. Warcry has interviewed members of the gaming industry (example). — Levi van Tine (t – c) 11:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Eludamus and Warcry both look OK to me. SharkD (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm really anxious for a check on Games Radar and Gaming Target. Both of them are going to be hugely helpful for getting two tough genre articles to GA status. I'm a little biased and think/hope they're reliable, so I'd appreciate an independent and fair assessment. Randomran (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Games Radar is the same network as CVG and PC Gamer isn't it? I've been using it for an article as well... It has a link to Computer and Video Games (formerly a print magazine, now web only) and this article [39] seems to come from PC Gamer. I believe PC Gamer content also crops up on the CVG site. bridies (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for GamesRadar. Good corporate pedigree, editors are experienced in the game industry. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've also just realised their logo is on the front of GamesMaster (magazine). bridies (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I added GamesRadar to the reliable sources list. I think it's essentially an online sister publication to GamesMaster. In any case the fact it's published by Future is enough, in my opinion. With regards to Gaming Target, I'm leaning towards not reliable. It's an indie publication and the publisher and head editor is one and the same; there's no information on him other than his name. There's also little information on the staff other than their names, though one claims to have been published in UGO. bridies (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Good. Games Radar = Future Publishing, the end. Someoneanother 16:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe we could reasonably expand coverage to anything on a game's data page as it appears from the evidence that not only release dates, but anything on the data page held to the same standards. This would allow for publisher/distributor verification as well as alternative titles and sometimes different format verification that is very easy.じんない 20:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. All game data submissions are held to the same standards as release dates. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I amended the retailer text because they have traditionally been used in FAs and FLs to verify information on release dates and product existence. However, those are for items that have already been released. The usage goes beyond games and a blanket statement that they are unreliable would be questioning some pretty fundimental aspects of what is a reliable source for Wikipedia.

However in the case that was recently brought up, I ammended the text to take care of situations like that, which is also covered by a high-level guideline.じんない 00:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Did we ever come to a conclusion on the reliability of Game Revolution? I remember it was discussed before but it doesn't look like any complete consensus came from it.

Hmm...those book references in the archived discussion are pretty convincing, but the site doesn't make any effort to explain itself. It's also part of a network with, as far as I can see, no other reliable sources. What about the corporation that owns it? — Levi van Tine (t – c) 14:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, moving for Green Pixels to be marked as reliable: it's part of IGN's network and has an editorial system run by inviduals with some experience with the industry.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. Googling the editors from the site's staff page backs up their claims. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 14:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I get the idea that most people contributing here are more aligned with fandom than strict journalistic standards, nonetheless I'd just like to ask whether we really care about conflicts of interest regarding video game media? In specific platform-specific media are usually associated with the companies who manufacture the platforms these magazines are dedicated to, either as direct subsidiaries or through dubious contract arrangements. Is it really acceptable to source reviews from magazines such as these which have such a low regard for basic journalistic standards? I honestly think even a randomly posted opinion on some backwater messageboard is more likely to pass as 'reputable' than most of this so called 'video game journalism.' Anyone working in the industry is at least cynically aware of this sorry state of affairs, but do we really have to turn a blind eye here on wikipedia? Is there some way we can clamp down on the use of these dubious corporate sources? Ebenheaven (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How about you give us some examples of biased reviews or such, in order to illustrate your point? bridies (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I do know that Nintendo Power gives generally more positive reviews and does not give negative ones, although it does sometimes give neutral ones. As an example I can cite their review of Quest64 which was neutral and really didn't say anything bad. However every other review at the time criticized it with only one review praising it's graphics.

I do know 1UP.com gives favorable reviews to "big name" games unless, like Fable 2 they royally screw things up to the point they can't justify it. Whereas a review on a less notable title might get commented upon for it's bad gameplay, spelling errors, or graphics (and rightfully so when it does comment on them), if it's a game like GTA or FF it will largely be given a pass on non-gamebreaking/non-major issues. Problem is while I have inside knowledge to this, it's much harder to show and trying to compare one review to another would be synthesis.じんない 02:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Having checked his contributions it seems he's pissed off about mentioning Official Xbox Magazine gave Mirror's Edge a positive review. His complaint is that platform-specific publications are biased because they are in the pockets of the companies behind said platforms. However, Official Playstation Magazine also gave it a 9/10 (Dec 2008; pp. 84-87). The Guardian and The Telegraph also gave it fairly positive reviews [40][41]. bridies (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

While his reasoning is bad and we shouldn't really change anything because of 1 person's reasoning, it is true their are biases out there. Of course he also makes it sound like outside the video game industry it's clean, which is also far from true. In certain aspects there might be more bias with games, such as megatitles getting passes though.じんない 04:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Stephan Totilo from MTV is leaving that gig to become Kotaku's managing editor in May 2009. Obviously will have no effect on articles pre-May 2009, but does this suggest that Kotaku may be no longer conditionally reliable post that point? Totilo is a respected games journalist (this would be like Jeff Gerstmann's departure from Gamespot to Giant Bomb). --MASEM (t) 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean that it'll be reliable full-stop once he's managing editor? Maybe, what is it that holds Kotaku back currently, no editorial process? Only author I've cited is Brian Ashcraft, who is reliable anyway. bridies (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That's my understanding - it's more a blog-house that's generally right but only a few names that are reputable to be used as sources. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this will really change much. Brian Crecente is a respected games journalist as well, and his role as managing editor didn't change how we cited Kotaku. I'd say it's business as usual. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

(ec) What Masem said; aside from a few (Crecente, Ashcraft) the other authors didn't meet WP:SPS. My guess is to wait until Totilo is instated then inquire about his editorial processes. It's too early to automatically give it approval. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Established as a magazine in 1992, has run as an annual or semi-annual publication since 1987, is the largest magazine of its kind in the country and a few surrounding ones, and the byword for video game magazines in the country. So what do I need to do to get it formally approved? --Kizor 20:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:SOURCES, if the magazine is published by a reputable publisher, then you don't really need to do anything. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Very well then, tagged it. Thanks. --Kizor 07:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been a subscriber of Beckett's MOG since its inception. I have noticed that it does not have an approval here. Many of the articles provide good editorial to the games in the MMO space. Specific ones that stand out recently include the article about Apocrypha for EVE online. In addition, the Wizard 101 article by Stephanie Morrow spent a considerable amount of time discussing the nature of "family gaming". Beckett's as a company started their magazines to discuss the price of secondary market baseball cards. Their entry into the video game space has been going for more than 4 years now. I checked and they have a distribution of 100,000 subscribers with an additional 50,000 on the newsstand. Given their reach, they seem to be generally accepted as an objective editorial for the specific MMO space. GREMan (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if someone did a good or very good job on the site. We need proof they meet WP:RS. How does the above site meet the criteria? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No information as to their editorial policies. However, their Terms of Service exclude any responsibility for content posted, making no distinction about user-generated content and self-published content. No indication whatsoever that this one could be considered reliable. MLauba (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I am not referring to their website. I am referring to their magazine. I have serious reservations about the content on their website given their Terms of Service. However, the magazine shows the typical editorial clauses found in magazines and should therefore be considered a reliable source for video games. In addition, why was the source removed from the page. It was placed without the check-mark and the discussion was started for it. If this is not the process, then it needs to be more clearly defined on the project page.GREMan (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to adding GamePolitics.com? It's a blog maintained by the Entertainment Consumers Association, and has a general content editing policy. (I would also consider GameCulture.com , also an ESA-run blog) --MASEM (t) 14:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like a discussion of these sites to occur here, just so I have something to link to. SharkD (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wikia and Wikipedia are expressly prohibited, as they are not known for fact checking or accuracy, and their content can wildly change at any time.
• Likewise Everything2 is created from user contributions. Unless you could point out specific contributions as meeting WP:SPS, there's no way the source would fly. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• I've been known to add E2 nodes as external links when their content complements or surpasses our articles. The site has no guarantee of accuracy, so it'd only be useful as a reference if a particular noder was somehow important to the article. ("Such-and-such, a world-renowned expert on foobar modulation[1], has stated on Everything2 that...") --Kizor 23:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[42] - This site reliable? If it is, we should not that webcite tool should be used as its rankings are updated - and not archived often.じんない 06:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking a bit deeper, looks like they have published annual reports on and data analysis. Any objections or can I go ahead and add the site?陣内_Jinnai 22:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the policy on using Google cache's images of web pages if the Wayback Machine doesn't work? G4's apparently decided to restructure their old reviews on their website, tossing out a lot of their old ones like Soulcalibur II's. Unfortunately Google's cache is the only one that seemed to document it. Is there an exact policy about this?

Beyond that, might do good to look through a lot of old GA's and FA's that use G4's X-Play reviews or similar from their website and make sure their references are still good.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Google cache is I recall very bad... here one day, gone the next. Is there perhaps a way to webcite the cache itself? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't seem to work, it gave an error saying the page couldn't be found. Is there a way to cite television programs? I would think with the ability to cite videos and other media we'd have some template for that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There's {{cite episode}}. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That did the trick in this case. Thanks David!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Are the following site reliable?

• The Gamers Temple
• Game Radar
• 3DJuegos
• GameZone
• Gamer2.0
• GamingXP
• Cheat Code Central
• MeriStation
• Gamer.nl

Plus what language are the foreign ones written in. Sarujo (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Next time link the sites so it is easier to check... Gamer.nl is a Netherlands web site, and probably doesn't meet our reliable source requirements. Ditto with the spanish 3Djuegos, Gamers Temple, Gamer2.0, GamingXP, Cheat Code Central, and MeriStation (also in spanish). Games Radar is owned by Future plc, has a site staff, and noted editorial policies; the staff-written sections are generally considered to meet reliable source standards. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Gamer.nl does have one book citation going for it, and is owned by Van der Have Media, a major corporation which has a little info here. I'll look through the rest later, but that does look like it has some reliability going for it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Meristation is cited in several literary publications as a source and online magazine.
• GamingXP is apparently also available in print, and there's this as well.
• Cheat Code Central doesn't look reliable, unless you can somehow confirm the reliability of the reviewer.

Does look like with some searching a few are reliable enough for wikipedia usage in this list at least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, this is still new to me. Anyway I have a list of the staff from Cheat Code Central here. But I don't know how much help this will be, since their bios are somewhat comical. Sarujo (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Although the site has user reviews, from what I've seen. It features gaming news that might could be used. Sarujo (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The news items are actually crosslinked to other sites though. They're generally not the ones doing the actual reporting.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This is, I'm guessing, the Portuguese version of Eurogamer. So does this one share the same crediblity as it's counterparts? Sarujo (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Any idea on the reliability of this as a source? I'm up in the air about it, so discussion one way or another would be good in this instance.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: While I'm at it, I could use some information on the reliability of Gamesarefun.com as well.

Can gamestats be used as reliable source for the verifiability of a game? Chiyo-Channokagi is listed along with a link to the publisher, but has no reviews. Currently it says only the aggregate scores and the press rating can be used.陣内_Jinnai 18:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Whilst part of the IGN network, I spy a "Contribute Game Info" button. If this is user-submitted data, then it probably can't be used. I might log in and see how good their editorial process is. Marasmusine (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a handful of MMO sites I'd like to discuss:

• http://www.massively.com/ - quite extensive, with some good writeups and interviews. Appears to be part of the GameDaily/AOL family, which has a tick on our list, but can't see any "about" or "staff list" page to check their editorial process.
• http://www.mmohub.org/ - akward layout: actually getting to the review means scrolling past the download link, overview, gallery and video - then spotting that the meat of the review is hidden behind a small "read more" link. However, they do cover some MMOs that have had attempts at articles here before - Last Chaos, for example - with reasonable write-ups. "About" page: Belongs to the "MMO Life BV" family of sites. No staff list, so unsure about editorial. They prompt publishers to let them "promote and/or advertise your game", which might be a problem - but isn't this the case with most game sites?
• http://www.mmohut.com/ - Every week I see anonymous users not just adding ELs to MMOHUT, but hijacking existing ELs to point to that site. The full reviews seem about on par with mmohub, but their attempts at spamming make me not trust this place. "About" page: Two admins (appear to be brothers?), four moderators.

Thoughts appreciated. Marasmusine (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Scratch Mmohut/hub articles, I don't see any way they can fly. Massively is apparently a sister site of Joystiq, etc, and appears to be a blog, which means it probably falls under the "don't use it unless the author meets WP:SPS" grey area along with Kotaku. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add Crispy Gamer to the list as a conditional site based on author. The makeup includes a number of notable VG journalists (among others, that's why conditional) from other reliable publications working under the name "Game Trust" to provide information. (see their about page and their game trust page). --MASEM (t) 13:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it can be added. Depending upon how its managed it could be a general source, but I suspect if you think its best as a situational, then that's best.陣内_Jinnai 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead then. I really want to color-code the listings or whatever so borderline/SPS exceptions that are common can be easily identified... I might get on that now, actually. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's another site that keeps cropping up in external links: Digital Something. From their About page: "Basically we are a bunch of gamers just like you who were fed up with other gaming sites. Instead of just dealing with it we decided to take action and start building our own community. We are gamers first and journalist second. So while our writing may not be top-notch, it will always be honest and fun."

Here's the staff list. Any recognizable "experts in their field"?

If I can be seconded, I'd like to cross this site off. Marasmusine (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I second that it's unreliable. Indie publication where the editor-in-chief, owner and publisher are the same guy. bridies (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Recently I've seen people using this as a rationalle to remove external links. Is this appropriate?

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c) 03:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

How about these:

• http://www.gameclassification.com/EN/ (also http://www.ludoscience.com/EN/)
• http://www.greatgamesexperiment.com/

One claims to be some sort of academic research project, the other seems like some sort of wiki. SharkD (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Should Gamespot be moved to situational source since a lot of the content is by non-staff member? The issue with it being a reliable source was brought up. IMO a site where one must check each article for whether its a staff member or not constitutes a situational source. Other wikiprojects treat them as such.陣内_Jinnai 01:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be more of a case where common sense should be applied in all honesty on the part of the editor. It's like how IGN has their official guides, but also has FAQs. I think the current provision of "make sure the author's a staff member" around the board should suffice, people just need to look around and be ready to defend their sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see there's not much in that discussion, as the author turned out to be a staff member. IMO it's not necessary to mark it as situational as the user generated content is pretty clearly marked. bridies (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well in other projects such as anime and manga project, such when only staff authors can be used, but anyone can write a review, we have put those in situational sources because otherwise the general assumption by someone looking at the page is "hey, i can use anything here". People are less inclined to read those descriptions if they are in general than situational.陣内_Jinnai 07:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well yes I understand that, but my point is...wouldn't that apply to all sources anyway? A blanket term for general to state "make sure they're staff" should suffice, since this could easily come up for any of the other sites as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User reviews don't appear in the site's search engine, one has to click on the games and then "user reviews" so it's pretty hard not to spot the user generated content. There's no way that because an otherwise reliable site features user-generated content it should be marked situational IMO; only in instances where such content is extensive and hard to spot (e.g. Giant Bomb which I wrote about on this page). Any one can publish a comment on articles published on, say, The Economist's web site, but we don't have to remind people only to cite staff. Even in a print newspaper one can get letters published which I'm fairly sure are not treated as reliable, but we don't mark The Times as a situational source. bridies (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it really prudent to consider them a reliable source for upcoming games, especially those more than a couple weeks off? Firsthand, I've seen multiple retailers, online and off (Gamestop, Amazon, and Best Buy, as examples) name release dates that contradict eachother, and sometimes even the latest direct information from the developer. One immediate example: Starcraft II was clearly BS, and developers and gaming magazines alike tend to scoff at gamestop dates in response, warning that dates are not official until they give them out, or refusing to comment. Retailers themselves get these dates secondhand from suppliers as often as they get them from the actual publisher.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 11:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:VG/DATE is pretty clear on the matter "For unreleased games, vendor sites should not be used as verifiable sources..." - X201 (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, This particular page was less than clear about it. I've edited to clarify and bring it more in line with the other page. Some duplication of information, but necessary create clarity.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Odie5533 added a link to his Google Custom Search Engine:

http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=009782238053898643791:8naerdbd-oy

I haven't tried it, but this could be a huge time saver for everyone and should be advertised elsewhere. SharkD (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If it works I'd suggest mentioning this on WPs as an idea. Possiby see if we could a meta-search using RSes from each verified by each project.陣内_Jinnai 19:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

When did TopTenReviews get added to our list as a reliable aggregate, and should it be there? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

I'm not really sure... what evidence do we have for its inclusion? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

None to my knowledge. I've done a few searches here and there, but don't remember anything turning up. I believe it was also added Template:VG reviews without discussion or proof of reliability. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Is Screwattack a reliable source? GamerPro64 (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember where the past discussion is archived, but I believe any Screwattack show published on GameTrailers.com is acceptable. But generally they should be avoided. Someone else may want to chime in about this though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Pretty much what Guyinblack said. I'm particularly wary of their reviews, because more than once I've noticed them heavily criticize something in a game that a quick look at the game's manual would discredit.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Then maybe the reference from the Marble Madness VGV episode should be removed from said article. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That one is hosted on GT.com, which deemed it good enough to include on their website. Not everything Screwattack does makes it on GT.com. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Kombo - I found them on a google news search about Persona 3:FES portable remake and wanted to know if they're reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnai (talk • contribs) 01:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this offically a relible source? EX: [43] GamerPro64 (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this article confirmed reliable? Some articles seem reliable, but the product page didn't put a checkmark next to it EX:[44]. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is per the previous discussion, just never got a closing discussion it would seem. I'll go ahead and mark it as such.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This page has become a lot more active in recent months and quite long and cumbersome. Perhaps we should see about having an archiving bot added to this page?じんない 03:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've setup auto-archiving (discussions inactive for 60 days will be archived). Rami R 14:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The checklist is IMO not useful at all. I suggest that we scrap everything and integrate the important parts (such as diffs about sources) into the listing above, with a straight listing of sources below that we have determined do not meet criteria. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, but maybe you should also have this disscusion on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games to increase responces. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The checklist is designed to be a resource as to whether or not a site has been discussed at all. SharkD (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the check list should be moved to the talk page then? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC))\

It's certainly not doing any good where it is now (people keep trying to add sites there, it's clearly not obvious what it's supposed to be). It would be better to scrap it and have an expandable list of unreliable sites. As for my above suggestion, I'm just gonna be bold and show you guys what I mean. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Associated Content should be added somewhere in one of the lists. (The site is blocked by Wikipedia BTW.) SharkD  Talk  05:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The about page (www.associatedcontent.com/company.html) and Wikipedia entry don't inspire much confidence. I'd say WP:SPS could be used if the author is a video game expert. But I doubt any expert would use this site. They'd probably go through more well-known sites like Kotaku, Joystik, Gamasutra, etc. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

Would fit under "Unreliable sources" but given that it's blacklisted, there's really no need. –xeno^talk 18:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Xeno. @Guy, experts occassionally do publish there (although not for the video gaming field that I have seen), but it's mostly housewives with homemaking tips that produce most of the content there :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be valuable to add GameSnob [45] as an aggregator. GameSnob aggregates reviews from only a small set of top review sites (e.g. GameSpot, IGN, 1UP and a few others). Based on the site's focus on top-tier reviews, the resulting aggregate scores are very reliable. Gameresearch (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The About, Company, and FAQ pages give some details about their operations. They seem to be a website operating in earnest, but at this point they're only a group of independent video games fan operating their own personal website. Unfortunately, that does not meet WP:RS. The fact that they still in their beta phase doesn't help either.

Their selection method does not provide much detail either: "Which gaming sites do you aggregate? A small set of sites that generate the most trustworthy gaming content on the web: GameSpot, IGN, 1UP, GameSpy, GiantBomb, Pocket Gamer and Slide To Play. GameSnob is not affiliated with these sites. We simply like them."

At this point, I suggest against labeling them as reliable. This of course is subject to change. If other reliable sources begin to regularly cite them and they gain industry prominence, then we can certainly re-evaluate them. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

The existence of ever more score-aggregating sites leads me to believe we should cut them all together. Or decide on a single one, like the Film people have done. Oh, and since GameSnob has no content of its own, it doesn't really matter whether we stamp them 'reliable' or not. The question is whether we'll ever use the scores it provides together with MetaCritic or GameRankings. I'd say no. But, as I started off with, it does provide a good occasion to discuss the aggregator issue again. User:Krator (t c) 17:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the bigger issue here is about the value and use of aggregator sites. Personally, I find them quite useful to get a quick impression of the general reception of a game. In this context, I suggested to include GameSnob for two reasons. First, I find their aggregation approach more transparent than that of MetaCritic or GameRankings, because there's very little doubt about the reliability of the included sites. It's basically telling us what the most prominent voices in the industry have to say about a game (even if no super scientific criteria have been applied to the selection of the underlying sources). Second, as far as I can tell, GameSnob is the first aggregator for iPhone games. Since this is a rapidly growing platform, I'd say the site adds some value here. All in all, I think GS provides a useful additional data point and I don't really see how the inclusion could hurt or blur Wikipedia's mission. Just my two cents. Gameresearch (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point about iPhone games, I suppose. And it probably is reliable. I suggest we close this section, stamp it as reliable (it's not less reliable than any of the other aggregators) and go on to discuss the issue of aggregators as a whole. User:Krator (t c) 11:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

While the iPhone games is a plus, the question is how much is the website used by the industry? Because it's relatively new, nothing looks to have turned up on searches for "gamesnob.com" at GamesRadar, GameDaily, Gamasutra, GameInformer, GamePro, GameSpot, and IGN.

Also, I don't see how they are much more transparent than any other aggregate site. After checking out a couple of games on there, it looks like they do a standard average of the review scores with some rounding. That's just my guess though.

Of course, I don't mean to imply GameSnob is trying to do anything other than provide reliable information to its audience. But I think it's too new say it is a reliable video game source within the industry. Again, that may change down they road. Maybe after they're fully up and running, the site will be widely used. Until then, I recommend against citing it on Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

I think that Guyinblack25 (and Mr Fuchs in the TTR section below) make good points regarding reliability and industry adoption. However, I think that there's a difference between individual review sites and aggregators. I completely agree that the reliability of a review site should always be determined based on industry adoption and citations. For aggregators, I feel that the reliability of the underlying sources is a better measure of reliability than citations. If a site comes along that focuses only on the most reliable industry sources (like GameSnob) does, I'd consider it reliable as well. Regarding my comment on "better transparency", I didn't mean to imply that the aggregation algorithm is more transparent or different from other sites (yes, it looks like an average). I just meant that the fact that only a small number of top-tier sites is used makes the resulting score more transparent and informative to me than MC or GR scores that are made up of tons of sites, including some of potentially poor quality that are washing out the score contributions of more prominent sites. My apologies if I come across as a bit of a fanboy here -- I just like the concept of the site ;-) Gameresearch (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries as you didn't come across negatively. I agree the site is rather interesting and I plan to keep an eye on it for my own personal use.

As far as reliability is concerned, the fact remains that they are an independent group with their own personal website. They'll have to prove themselves to the industry first before we can recognize them as a reliable source here per WP:SPS. We have to provide rationales of reliability for such sources for article reviews like WP:FAC and WP:GAN. Anything that doesn't have a strong enough rationale has to be cut from an article for it to pass the review.

Again, this is certainly something that can be re-examined down the road if GameSnob catches on. And I hope it does. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

OK, here are my final thoughts on this before I shut up and let the great minds of Wikipedia reach consensus on a yay or nay for GameSnob. I think the classification of a self-published or "personal" web site in the WP:SPS sense doesn't quite apply to GameSnob. The site is not like a personal blog that might publish unprofessional or unreliable information. According to the Company page, GameSnob's platform uses a "semi-automated process to organize, augment and publish content". So, since they're not really creating original content, I don't think the WP:FAC or WP:GAN guidelines apply. In summary, I think the focus on a small set of high-profile sites makes them both reliable and different enough to provide value and be included here. At a minimum, as Krator suggested above, it's not less reliable than other aggregator sites. In addition, their iPhone coverage is a nice bonus. In any case, thanks for listening and all your feedback! Gameresearch (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My only thought is that I don't see the value in an aggregation service that only considers online sources. If theres no consideration of paper reviews, particularly those from gold-standard publications like Edge, then there's some kind of bias there (and dare I say, laziness). Marasmusine (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Is World of Spectrum a reliable source? I can't find it here.Tintor2 (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I use it all the time, largely because they have a large archive of Spectrum publications (both scans and transcripts), from which I presume they have culled their information. Marasmusine (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the database is fairly reliable with regards to release dates and technical information as they have access to a lot of information through scans as mentioned above. However they host a lot of copyrighted material making linking to the site risky, I think it is officially a fansite but I am not 100% sure. They do encourage help from users but I don't know how much is verified before going onto the site. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

On the copyrighted material part. They do attempt to get permission for everything on the site and publish all correspondance and remove titles when requested to do so. - X201 (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WoS should be in the 'platform specific' section certainly, the site's resources rather than the database itself is what we need, whether the site itself is reliable is fairly moot if we cite the magazines for reviews. The Amiga Magazine Rack should be here as well. The advice should just be the same as that on the Amiga Magazine Rack. Someoneanother 16:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping we can decide on a definite yay or nay for Home of the Underdogs. There are several articles that cite its editorial reviews. Whilst notable ([http://www.homeoftheunderdogs.net/about.php Wired article), it's reliability has been called into question. Marasmusine (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone remember why its credibility was called into question?陣内_Jinnai 04:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, it was discussed during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gate 88 (2nd nomination). To quote Andre: "This isn't a reviewed or reliable site, it's basically a fansite that got big.", and "Underdogs is first and foremost an abandonware repository and the text on the site is not known to be reliable as a source.". Marasmusine (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone can second me, I'm going to mark this website off as not an RS. Whilst checking this review [46], I could find no indication on the site that the reviewer ("DeathDude") was a staff member or was a public submission, or any indication of the editorial or submission process. I can't find any indication that this site has "a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking". Marasmusine (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is their guideline. Seems ... hmm, don't know what to think. User:Krator (t c) 14:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It inspires no confidence from me, I'd say a definite no. Someoneanother 16:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I don't think the site as a whole would stand up to scrutiny at a GA, A, or FA review. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

Now hold on. That link tells us that they work in conjunction with software developers and check all entries with extreme scrutiny not that it is a wiki or a public forum which is what Marasmusine seemed to be worried about. Most newspapers do not have an apparent reputation for fact checking and accuracy but when writing about Ballybuffet, the Ballybuffet Times is always accepted as a reasonable source until shown wrong. You can't just two people come on and say you never really liked the Ballybuffet Times and put it on a blacklist the same day. It is after all the Ballybuffet Times, right? Do you know, on the subject of "The Times", how content is generated for The Times site? Well surprise surprise, what method would be better? Again, you can't just blacklist because you are un"inspire"ed. This is not a Tate gallery. You can't just hand out top art prize for cutting a cow in half. Fine art is still most valuable around here, inspire you or no. ~ R.T.G 18:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The first thing that Marasmusine queried was the status of the reviewer, which is not clarified in the link. It being a gaming website doesn't automatically pass muster either. Unless there is compelling evidence for the site's reviews reliability (interviews are a different kettle of fish) then there's little point in endorsing the site since it will be rejected at misc. WP venues. That's what the list is for, that's what we're currently discussing. If you disagree then that's fine and I'm happy to discuss it, but drop the stick, I read that page the same as you did. Someoneanother 22:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all the above. Not an RS, certainly not a high-quality RS we should be stressing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Can there be something more specific? Rejected by misc. WP venues... by who for what? If interviews are a different kettle... what does that mean? If you give the site a red x today or whenever there will be no special other kettle of fish for interviews without removing that red x first. You are talking about dissing the contents of the site not being selective in its use. Abandonia is the punk.com of punk rock (Abandonware?). There appear, also, to be more than a thousand unreviewed entries on the list. Let's review some things like HarryBalls.com, Practical Webdesign, contactmusic.com, GameHall, or are they not genuine sore thumbs? There are many entries on the list which are instantly recognisable popular magazines, undoubtably notable resources, for instance, Commodore User, Atari User, Playstation Magazine, Playstation 2 Magazine, Playstation 3 Magazine, Maxim, Loaded, FHM Magazine. And sites, Softpedia, Times Online, G4mers, Game Arena, Game industry News, Gamereactor etc. Why do we not green tick some of those as reliable and notable? Note too, most of the little [47] links on the list link to this page instead of the relevant archived discussions. None of the entries, on the list at the bottom, have text beside them explaining green ticks red xs or orange !! (what is the orange !! anyway?). ~ R.T.G 17:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As it says in the section intro, "sites with orange exclamation marks (!!!) are "situational" and can't be used in every circumstance (see the notes for the individual sites, above)." It's true that many of them have not been reviewed. But if someone wants one reviewed all they have to do is leave a message on this talk page, as you have done. People here have other things to do, so they're not going to review a site or magazine just because they feel like it. Reach Out to the Truth 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

RTG: Rejected by contributors in general for no demonstrated reliability of reviewer in situations such as peer review, wikiproject assessment, AFD, GAN etc. Interviews - it's a lot easier to convince someone that an interview is acceptable of a source if the site has anything going for it at all because a supposed interviewee would voice their displeasure if someone started making up interviews with them. The Interviewee is the source. As far as the reviews are concerned, which is the main thrust of what the site would be used for as a source, it needs to be shown that the one writing has a more authorative opinion than the average poster on GameFAQs or that the site has an editorial policy and history which negate such concerns. If not anyone could put up a review anywhere and just cite it. For the record I'm not 'dissing' the site, just stating that I do not believe it would be accepted as a reliable source in the places where issues such as source reliability are discussed, which would waste the time of whoever had used it which in turn is what this list is trying to prevent. I still haven't seen anything which makes reviews by unnamed individuals usable for WP, so I can't support it being a source for this list. All that said, I don't know why we have a large list of accepted sources, some unaccepted sources with reasoning, then a dirty great list of names underneath with a few marks by them. Ideally we should look at all of these names, get all the obvious ones like PlayStation Magazine where they belong, get the others reviewed etc. Someoneanother 18:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

But you keep suggesting there is something wrong with their editorial process. Unless they are lying about it, it must be water tight. Encyclopaedia Brittanica are editing the same way so it can hardly be for us to say it is an unreliable method without some convincing truths. It's of lesser concern what the original contributors name is. It is the editors and reviewers that are in charge of content. If you can't focus on that you must be talking rubbish about what you liked the look of today or how famous your favorites are (inspiration of the week, whatever floats your boat this month). You seem to want to say that it is a public forum only or that they are all a bunch of liars or something. I see nothing subtantial in suggesting that Abandonia is unreliable. They are significant authority on abandonware since many years. They accept submissions subject to editorial review, not peer review, in the same way as Britannica except that they don't disclose the names and addresses of the submitters. You just don't like the look of them or something like that. A swift move on a talk page for which everything seems to be hidden in the archives without linkage. Oh well. After letting people see all this stuff and then we go and hide it all again. How cool is that? ~ R.T.G 10:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't a case of just 'not liking the look of them', but I've no intention of continuing this conversation. I've already asked you to put down the stick and have a genial conversation but you're insistent on poking me with it. Whatever. Someoneanother 14:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

For me, a reliable online source has to be distinguishable from a website that any Tom, Dick or Harry and his friends are running (and calling each other 'editors' and 'staff'). This might be a site that is hosted by a known publisher, or it could be one that has "a reputation for accuracy and fact checking". In the case of Abandonia we have a self-published site, so we'll need some evidence that it is "a significant authority on abandonware." Marasmusine (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Find me a source to establish Brittanica. Even consider trying. The Abandonware Ring, the final say in "authority" and the only abandonware-specific source mentioned in abandonware, gives Abandonia 5 stars ad has done for years [48]. There is no doubt that Abandonia has been in their top ten for years. Now you find me a source to give the Abandonware Ring authority. You find me a source of authority which isn't the law but alas, there it is. You don't know and you haven't looked. Sorry to be so condescending but some folk are ignoring things. Please, replace it or reinstate it in some way. It's not a topic of mainstream interest but it is a solid topic. All defunct computers have solid abandonware setups and I am glad of them. It's culturally significant. ~ R.T.G 03:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Brittanica is a tertiary source, so not comparible. Marasmusine (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As Marasmusine stated, comparing Britannica to Abandonia is like comparing apples to oranges.

However, several publications have considered Encyclopædia Britannica a reliable source for some time now.

• Kenneth Kister's Best Encyclopedias: A Comparative Guide to General and Specialized Encyclopedias
• Marian Sader and Amy Lewis's Encyclopedias, Atlases, and Dictionaries
• Purchasing an Encyclopedia: 12 Points to Consider by the American Library Association
• TIME magazine
• BBC article about quality brands

I'm sure an in-depth search would turn up more. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

I'm thinking of marking MPOGD.com as unreliable. It has ran since 1997 but is self-published, and reviews ([49] is the one I'm looking at) are user submitted [50]. Staff: [51]. Does anyone have any reason to think otherwise? Marasmusine (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well they're barely reviews as is, even on the site they're just considered "news" and that seems to be mostly user submitted. Not to mention there's only two members of staff, so presumably no dedicated reviewers if they do them. Personally, I'd say unreliable. CrimsonFox ^talk 12:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'm sure the site is operating in earnest, but the lack of information on its editorial process makes me think it wouldn't pass WP:RS. However, a few hits came up from other reliable sources citing them.

• MPOGD Interviews linked from 1UP.com news pages. [52][53][54]
• Mention of interview at EVE Vault (not sure how reliable IGN Vaults are though)
  • I also found a few other links to MPOGD news articles on different vault pages.
• Found some brief mentions at Google books too. Though few that relate to reliability.

There's probably a decent argument for accepting their interviews and generic information about specific games. Don't know how strong it would hold up to scrutiny though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

Is there any reason to doubt this as a source when it comes to reviews? Three books and a few independent publications mention it directly according to Google Books and Google News, so there seems to be some reliability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. It's hard to say. I can't find anything about their policies/staff (but it could be there, just hidden from me). They are owned by Neo Era Media which is a basic web publishing site that looks willing to help anyone so their parent company can't be used as support.陣内_Jinnai 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Bump the thread- I'm kinda stumped too. Most of the stuff I saw cited them for hardware information, or just briefly described them. That's pretty minimal. My gut says to err on the side of caution and consider them unreliable. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

I would also say unreliable. They are occasionally cited, but don't stand up to scrutiny, methinks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion reminded me of this previous discussion about TopTenReviews. It is currently checked off as ok on this page and is included in {{VG reviews}}. The About page is kind of sparse, but staff bios gives some decent information. Nothing there screams video game experts to me though. But then again, they are an aggregate site rather than a review site.

A google search of links didn't bring up much. Searches for "toptenreviews.com" at GameSpot, IGN, GameInformer, Eurogamer, and GameSpy mainly yield forum postings. GamePro and Gamasutra searches yielded nothing. I don't think it has much use in the industry right now.

I recommend removing it from the reliable section of list here and the VG review template. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

I'd agree. There's nothing bad per se about them, but when we're talking aggregates the major proof is how they are cited and mentioned. TTR doesn't match GR and MC in terms of that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur per Mr Fuchs. This is somewhat tied into a larger discussion based on a comment Krator made above - should there just be one aggregate site used? Thanks! Fin©™ 21:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's no more discussion, I'm going to remove them from the reliable section and the review template. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

Can this be considered a reliable source? It's used in the God of War III article for EU and JP release dates, but I don't recall Sony announcing any release dates other than the NA release.--The Taerkasten (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's part of N4G. I'd say if there the only site that has those release dates its a red flag.陣内_Jinnai 19:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

link

What do you guys think? I'm on the fence, it operates by submissions but also seems to be serious about editorial policies and whatnot. Anyone have experience with them? User:Krator (t c) 14:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

On one hand, this is not self published (being owned by Dambert Technologies), so there's an extra level of accountability. On the other hand, this tells me that their games directory should not be used, and makes me wonder about their News and Reviews, too. Marasmusine (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The site's a big sack of ehhh... I'm not seeing any sort of editorial staff and policies. Am I missing something, Krator? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

IGN doesn't disclose their policies either. The thing is whether we think the policies (that they obviously have) are good enough here. I'm on the fence, as I wrote above, so I'm not going to argue either way. But just the absence of a directory of editorial staff and policies isn't enough to sway me. User:Krator (t c) 01:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious as why mmohut has been X'd out as a reliable source for information. They have a dedicated review staff and an editor to ensure high quality reviews. I play a lot of mmorpg games so I added their review as a reference to one game, and it eventually got deleted because the site wasn't approved on the list of reliable sites. What's everyone's thought on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.97.223 (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Briefly discussed here. Small number of staff [55] (c.f. WP:ATT#Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources ("As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."), and they had a habit of hijacking links from Wikipedia pages (particularly from MMOHUB; a rival, I guess). Nothing to indicate that they "have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking". Marasmusine (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

With all the Japan-related articles (especially about game developers) going to AfD, we really need an expert on the subject to tell us which sources are and aren't reliable. I always feel guilty when they just end up going down the drain. SharkD  Talk  04:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The ones listed are all reliable. They are either Japanese versions of English sites, have been vetted in other discussions or are major publishers/developers.

If you have something specific please post it.

EDIT:Another idea would be to work with WikiProject Japan and WikiProject Anime and Manga.陣内_Jinnai 01:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)