Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

The Cutting Room Floor

Find video game sources: "The Cutting Room Floor (TCRF)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

The Cutting Room Floor (TCRF) is a website on unused and debugging content in video games. The site itself is a wiki (WP:USERG), so that makes it automatically unreliable. Thoughts? – Hounder4 14:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikis aren't automatically unreliable (some aren't user generated)... But yes, unreliable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Which RS wikis are you referring to...? Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) could reasonably be called a reliable source. --Izno (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Don Markstein's Toonopedia is also considered reliable. JOEBRO64 18:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Unreliable, obviously. TCRF's findings are frequently noted in RSs anyways. JOEBRO64 18:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - Helpful as a fan of game development, but unreliable as a Wikipedia source because it's user-generated, even if its often backed up with proof. The more notable cut content is usually covered by other sources too. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Waypoint

Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 17#Vice's Waypoint

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

Property of Vice Media. Oornery (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Should be fine, used it plenty in the past. It's less a solely-VG source so qualifies as more mainstream works. --Masem (t) 22:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Reliable, per our last discussion on it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Reliable. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding the french website Gamekult

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

Hello User:Thibbs&User:Czar

Is Gamekult a good candidate to be added in the custom search engine https://www.gamekult.com/ ? I wich to add it, if it match... This is one of the two major french sites (with jeuxvideo.com). It includes pro reviewers, who write preview, review, special featured articles about video game industry or video games (main part of featured articles requires payment needed), and it cover the major part of the internationnal releases of the VG industry with articles and news articles.

There are also reader's contributions review and notation system. But all anonymous/readers content is well stamped and recognizable.

Example with a game linked on the home page today morning : https://www.gamekult.com/jeux/rage-3010004273.html

The navigation bar at the top of the page provides links to an overview page titled "Résumé" with general informations such as release date/plat-form/companys involved, the review ("Test" in french, if exist), some stuff like pictures, videos, tips an tricks, then a "critiques" tab (readers review) and then the last tab called "News" is where you can find articles and news articles when the website covers a video game history and release.

It's a part of ZDNet network, Ziff Davis and CBS Interactive.

  • Here is the team (only pro journalist) [1]
  • Here are its policys [2]
  • Notation instructions [3]

--Archimëa (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Archimëa, where is it part of ZDNet? Don't see it in the footer links. Any background on its relation to CBS Interactive France? (Also it's not up to me/Thibbs but the overall consensus of whoever participates here.) czar 00:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Czar Ok. I saw you and Thibbs are mentionned on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Search engine as "approved operators" (and i thought i added this message there, i didn't even see the talk page were redirected here, my bad). Sorry, i thought you decided. ok. Thank you.
Owner of Gamekult is ZDNET (see at the top [4], cnet article [5] and for a reference [6](Les Échos) ) --Archimëa (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
For the record, CUP Interactive (formerly known as CBS Interactive France) is the company that operates ZDNet, CNET and Gamekult in France. I've has good experience with the site in the past, so I'm positive on its reliability. It should be on the list. Lordtobi (✉) 07:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
At a cursory glance, looks reliable. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Probing this a little more in depth, what's the case here besides parent ownership? ZDNet is a media company—not necessarily a mark of editorial prowess. The site's about me makes it look like they started the site as hobbyists and their team page doesn't appear to show editorial pedigree. What is the actual evidence, internal or external, that there is editorial fact-checking and process behind their reports? czar 14:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

All about Casual Game

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

In the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery Case Files: Key to Ravenhearst discussion, there is a war between Izno and some IP about the reliablity of the site. It’s a well know site on the Casual Playing (I don’t like the word gaming) industry but Izno say there is no reliability on the site contrary to some some persons that think it’s good source. This game is more use for computer casual games than Gamezebo since it’s become more mobile oriented.

Can you give your opinion on it? Because i don’t think Izno is an Admin of the vide game project, but mabye i wrong about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.233.125.123 (talk)

Looks like a shortlived concept (2012-2016), and I can't seem to find any "about us" page, or similar. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, they don’t change the 2012-2016 in 2012-2018 but they still active. There’s no about us page but there’s an about us text down the site. 205.233.125.219 (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Unreliable - I'd want some information on the editor and the team. The fact the information is out of date doesn't fill me with confidence. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Izno is not an admin. Izno does not need to be an admin to say that a source is unreliable (which, from what I can see, this site is unreliable). It is also not a war--we are having a fairly calm discussion. --Izno (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Some Czech magazines

I've recently written some articles on Czech video games which to a large degree rely on Czech video gaming magazines, and I'd just like to confirm their notability. The four main ones are listed below (there doesn't seem to be a source list on the Czech Video Gaming Wikiproject page as a guideline): --Coin945 (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Eyeballing them, I'd say they'd probably be reasonable as reliable sources. --Izno (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Gaming Trend

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

Is the website Gaming Trend (stylized as “GAMING TREND,” for some reason) reliable? Its content seems like proper articles, but I couldn’t find an “About” page, but they do have a “Staff” page, which lists their staff members.

There was a Wikipedia article about it once, but it was deleted. Interqwark talk contribs 05:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Most of their bios just read as "so and so has been a gamer their whole life". So I'm not really sure how this differs from a fan-site. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The first few writers don't appear to have any credentials. The site (and one of the writers) has been around for a while (2003!) without folding, so longevity points. However, at the bottom of their review system page is We are a 100% volunteer-driven site. Not a single person from the Editor-in-Chief on down takes home a cent for their work here. We do it because we love it, and we want to be great because we love it. I'm inclined unreliable. --Izno (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Bloody Disgusting

Is this a reliable source? As I've seen a bunch of horror and Indie game articles that uses this source. 122.55.51.147 message 03:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:FILM/R considers it a reliable source. I'm not affiliated with that WikiProject, so I'm not sure how thorough their review process is, but I have no particular reason to doubt them either. Sergecross73 msg me 12:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The LA Times describes it as a fan site and goes on to mention that it's an unpaid gig. The site clearly has some age to it, but there are some (probably-limited) independence issues since it is also producing films. I'm inclined to unreliable, actually. --Izno (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

App Advice

Find video game sources: "App Advice" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo I see this was asked before [21] with just one person saying it looked professional, and no one else saying anything. A lot of articles already reference it. http://www.metacritic.com/ considers them reliable enough to take quotes and game scores from. Should they be added to the list? Dream Focus 13:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  • At a cursory glance, looks like another run of the mill app site. I can't see anything that really distinguishes it from hundreds of other app news and review sites. It looks a bit better than your average and has been around long enough. But their about page is basic at best, they don't have any editorial, hiring, review or news policies, no ethics, advertising, or review integrity statements, and no real author credentials (and 18 authors to boot!) Now, some authors do look okayish, but we can use their articles regardless then. Metacritic also has a habit of collecting reviews from sources that we not only don't consider reliable, but fully unreliable. I don't really see which sources reference this site (unless by "articles" it was meant WP articles). Overall, I would say this is just another App site with possibly a couple authors who have credentials whose articles we could use. Most of their content has barely any content, with a couple "articles" being common. I just don't think this is the sort of GNG and citation standard to consider a recommended reliable source. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    I meant a lot of Wikipedia articles use them already. [23] 25 for "app advice", and 129 for "AppAdvice." [24] Dream Focus 14:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think a large number of inclusions in articles should ever be used as an argument for reliability. Also, Metacritic uses other sources we considered unreliable, so that's not really an argument either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
If they aren't a reliable source, should those articles have them removed then? Dream Focus 18:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
If its unreliable, yes, of course it should be removed. There doesn't seem to be a consensus either way yet though. There doesn't seem to be much of an argument either way yet though. It being used a lot on Wikipedia doesn't mean its reliable, but being "run of the mill" as Hellknowz states isn't a particularly damning assessment either. There's nothing wrong with a run of the mill website if it's got the hallmarks of being reliable. I'm neutral, not having looked into it yet, but I just wanted to get this out there before people start piling on too much in the wrong direction - we should be looking for other things - Do writers have credentials? Have they written for other reliable sources? Is there an editorial staff? Any sense of them being an authority in the industry? Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Their employee page is here, and includes biographies for some (but not all). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I translate "run of the mill" as "content farm". Look at these headlines: "Awesome apps for commuters", "Today's apps gone free: X, Y, Z", "Jump start your day with coffee apps"...

    they don't have any editorial, hiring, review or news policies, no ethics, advertising, or review integrity statements, and no real author credentials

    seals the deal for me: unreliable czar 03:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Per czar, HK, and my own review, unreliable. --Izno (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Retro game reviews

I'm shuffling through some very obscure articles about extremely obscure games on a very obscure platform called the Gizmondo. The only source available I can find for most of the games is this site, and I don't see any previous discussion over it, and also can't figure out if it's user generated or if actual people are writing the reviews. If this is considered a reliable source, it could expand possible thousands of stubs, so I'm interested to see what ya'll think.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 17:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting to see some of the information it has on games, but I can't imagine it being considered a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. There seems to be virtually nothing to work off of, unless I'm missing something. No about us page. No writers names on a single review I checked. Like zero credit, names, or anything to be found anywhere. Even the "home page" appears to merely be the last 5 or so reviews published. Its literally a database of reviews and nothing else. Even user-generated websites at least have writers or home pages. Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Casual Game Reviews

Find video game sources: "Casual Game Reviews" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo I doubt it’s reliable because it’s not updated since June 2017.72.10.128.43 (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Definitely unreliable, not even a discussion. No author names, no about page, nothing. TarkusABtalk 01:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - The fact the website hasn't been updated in a while is not an issue. There are plenty of sites that have have been discontinued that are reliable. However, we would need proof of the editorial run of the website. Usually reliable sources are very open about who's editing the site. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Gamesauce

Find video game sources: "Gamesauce" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo I suppose this could be check to view his reliability.

adventurespiele.net

Find video game sources: "adventurespiele.net" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo I am sure is not Reliable, but i just want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.128.43 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

4players.de

Find video game sources: "4players.de" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This one has come up before a couple times and I'd like to see it settled since it's been used in an AFD I'm current involved in. @Czar, Maplestrip, and Anarchyte: as previously commenting, and maybe SoWhy has a comment. --Izno (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Game Center CX

It's a Japanese television show that is an odd mix of documentary series, reality tv, and game show. Typically, the show will introduce and discuss games, and the narrator will go over gameplay mechanics, a brief bit of information on the game and its history. They also have sections discussing the history of various other games as a kind of filler segments. I would think that the narrator sections would be RS, but Arino Shinya's comments wouldn't be notable enough since he's just a comedian playing a game he has no experience with. Also, the first season aimed for more of a documentary approach, and heavily featured game dev interviews. GC:CX also has spin-off series of dvd documentaries containing overviews and interviews with game devs.

If it was a pure documentary format, I would think it would definitely be an RS, but people think of it more of as a gameshow. The first season interviews, and spin-off documentary series would count as RS, but the main show is a bit strange. Would this count as a RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harizotoh9 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Since it's produced by a notable TV network, I think we can presume they apply common fact-checking to all parts of the show that aim to be informative, so I think those segments can be considered reliable source for the information, unless proven otherwise. Regards SoWhy 10:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
That's what I figured. There's a clear delineation between the "fact" sections and the "challenge" sections. I haven't seen any errors in the "fact" sections, and Fuji TV likely has access to databases where they get the info and does fact checking. Also, I guess it could be used as a source to establish notability, correct? Majyūō was sent to AFD on March 22nd, 2018, and just barely survived. But on June 7th, it was the challenge for GC:CX. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I also lean RS for the informational, produced segments (including the history bits and the documentaries/interviews), while the game challenges themselves should be taken as purely entertainment and not used as sources on WP.--Alexandra IDVtalk 11:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

TrustedReviews

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

Is the review site TrustedReviews (trustedreviews.com) reliable? It seems to have had an “About us” page, but now, it redirects to their “Contact Us” page, for some reason. So now, they have two “Contact Us” links at the bottom of their page. The “Contact Us” page simply lists the names, occupations, and e-mail addresses of their staff members. Interqwark talk contribs 08:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Japan Times

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

English language Japanese newspaper, occasionally reports on gaming news, available in both print and online editions. Reporting is high quality, neutral.

Examples of gaming reporting: 2008, 2013,2017. I checked and it doesn't appear to be added to the search engine or the approved sources list. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The list is largely made of video game/technology-centric sources. As the page notes, The New York Times would be considered reliable too, but we don't list it because it's more of a general news site, and if we listed every one of those, well, the list would be massive. Regardless, I agree with your sentiment though, if they've been around for over a decade since the 1980s and have a print version, that alone is enough to point it towards "likely reliable". Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The Search Engine includes the NYTimes, but not the Japan Times. Japan Times would fit nicely for the search engine. They cover Japanese media more than the NYTimes, and it's a good high quality source in English, meaning it's easy to use. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Right, I was just talking about about this list. I have no objection to adding it to the search engine either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, our page for the search claims that we are mirroring the RS list, NYTimes is there but not here, that wouldn't be true. We should probably cross-check what belongs where. Lordtobi (✉) 17:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
You guys can do whatever you want with the search engine. Or whatever consensus dictates, or Czar/Thibbs want, since they primarily maintain it, or whatever. I don't really care - I don't use it personally. I'm just talking about, and explaining, the list. We generally keep generic reliable sources to a minimum, or the page would balloon would expand out to a ridiculous size. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Similarly, The Korea Times is a long-running English-language magazine that has a lot of coverage on video games from the Korean peninsula (Bluehole et al). Lordtobi (✉) 16:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I forgot about The Korean Times. They did a piece recently on Starcraft caster Nick Plott. In addition there's also the Nikkei Asian Review, the English language spin-off of Nikkei. They are a business paper, so they tend to focus on companies and the macro picture, but sometimes they'll detail game development, like the technology behind a big hit game. All three are high quality English language Asian newspapers. All three should be added to the search engine. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

AtariHQ reliability (again)

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

AtariHQ is currently listed as a reliable source and there have been four discussions.[26] I have found two game reviews attributed to Keita Iida of AtariHQ appear to be modified from older magazine reviews. Here's one example from the AtariHQ review of Super Breakout for the Atari 5200:

  • Keita Iida: "I found it curious that Atari did not include the children's version found on the 2600 cartridge (no ball speedup and paddle does not go to half size after the ball hits the top of the screen.)" [27]
  • David H. Ahl (1983): "Again, we found it curious that Atari did not include the children's version (no ball speedup and paddle does not go to half size after a ball hits the top of the screen)." [28]

Here are excerpts from reviews of Boulders and Bombs:

  • Keita Iida: "It's a neat little premise upon which to build a game. Unfortunately, there challenge here isn't too exciting. After the novelty wears off you notice the details, like the spelunker's utter ineptness at dropping bombs." [29]
  • Electronic Fun with Computers & Games (1983): "This is a sound premise on which to build a game. Unfortunately the designers failed to provide an exciting challenge. After the novelty wears off you notice the details like the spelunker's complete ineptness at dropping bombs." [30]

I don't know what the full extent of this is. Dgpop (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wgungfu: Do you have anything to add here? You are the co-owner right? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't really comment about the similarities between those reviews, but I will say that I do still think this site is reliable. It's owned and edited by Marty Goldberg, who's been a fact checker/writer at Retro Gamer and an editor at GameSpy and IGN, all of which are pretty high-quality reliable sources. JOEBRO64 21:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hardcore Gaming 101

Editors may be interested in this RSN discussion. Please comment there per WP:MULTI if that is of interest. --Izno (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Casual Maniacs

Find video game sources: "Casual Maniacs" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo I am sure is not reliable because is about casual playing.

casual-maniacs.de - German online(?) gaming magazine. Unlike what the IP thinks, there's nothing inherently unreliable or non-notable about casual gaming. ansh666 19:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
So it's reliable, situation or unreliable? Sorry of thinking that Casual Playing is not notable on Wikipedia. i as angery about something72.10.135.251 (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Not sure, since I don't read German. But I would tend towards reliable, since it does seem to have an editing staff. ansh666 03:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. Has a staff but no indication that any of them have any professional training (or last names for that matter) and it's only the admin and one woman, so it's hard to call it a "staff". The legal imprint points to a private person, not any kind of organization or company and uses disclaimers generated by free online generators, usually a sign of a lack of professionalism. I also cannot find any mentions of this site on other RS websites. Regards SoWhy 17:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

SourceGaming.info

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

Like Shmuplations, this site has a ton of translated interviews from Japanese game devs alongside other original, interesting articles. Problem is, the about us page is a bit thin: the staff uses pseudonyms and none of 'em seem to have visible credentials. I'm inclined to say unreliable, but I'd like other opinions on this. JOEBRO64 15:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Unreliable per their own disclaimer: SourceGaming.info is a fansite, [...]. Any translations provided by SourceGaming.info are for fan use only and may not accurately reflect the original meaning. Regards SoWhy 17:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Pokemon Showdown Pokedex

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

I was told here to post from the reliable sources noticeboard. I am looking for a reliable source for Pokemon in-game data such as moves, abilities, etc. when they merit inclusion in a Pokemon's article, and the PS Pokedex [31] may be it. Bulbapedia is definitely unreliable, and it appears Serebii is as well. The Showdown Pokedex is not user-edited; any proposed changes to its repository[32] must be committed by the senior developers of PS. These developers regularly research and test in-game data and mechanics for accuracy, eg here[33] here[34] and here[35]. The dex contains no opinion information and is among the closest things to an authoritative source on in-game data in Pokemon, as far as I'm aware. (just don't click the "i'm feeling lucky" button unless you want snark.) TheTiksiBranch (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

This would... definitely be user-generated and unreliable. Besides that, you want to source moves and abilities, which would fall afoul of WP:GAMECRUFT #7. This definitely wouldn't count as a secondary reliable source for the few exceptions of highlighting a move/ability that has received significant secondary coverage, as it's just a listing/directory/gameguide. -- ferret (talk)

gamer.nl

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

Redactiestatuut Gamer.nl

w:nl:Gamer.nl. Used to be part of w:nl:Sanoma Media until Reshift Digital aquired gamer.nl in 2014. Alexis Jazz (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The website is owned by an established publisher and the redactiestatuut looks professional and complete. Doing a very quick test, checking out the current front-page writer, Michel Musters seems to have written for other Reshift Digital publications (like Power Unlimited) and he was quoted by the NOS, which is the government news organization. Everything is pointing at Reliable here. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
It is already listed under "Other reliable sources", just as "Gamer (Netherlands)" which is confusing. I changed that. Regards SoWhy 12:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Slashdot

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

Reliable or not, it's not mentioned at all on this page, which I find confusing. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

That just means no ones bothered to investigate or ask. We’ve got a pretty good list compiled, but still, there’s thousands of video game websites out there, and it’s constantly growing, so we just haven’t gotten around to everything yet. Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Indiegames.com is over. Now Indiegamesplus.com

Just found out that Indiegames.com, a sister site to Gamasutra, cut ties with UBM at the beginning of September. Now it will be going under IndieGamesPlus.com. Wondering if the change to independent will change its reliability on here. GamerPro64 21:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Cybersport

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

VPEsports

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

Wololo.net

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

https://wololo.net/contact/

Strictly a blog, it is "still mostly managed by a single personal" but also features guest bloggers (which implies a form of editorial oversight). Quality seems to be above average. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Unreliable - It’s primarily just a single guy’s personal website, no one has any particular credentials - they’re all just “fans” and “enthusiasts”, not professional journalists or writers, etc. Additionally, their primary focus is console hacking - we can’t be linking to a website littered with illegal or “gray area legal” type content. Sergecross73 msg me 22:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Unreliable per OP. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I was afraid it would be unreliable by WP standards.. Bummer, they look into some stuff the mainstream media either avoids or doesn't care about. Alexis Jazz (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Tweakers

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

Reliable source with editorial oversight. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Can you elaborate on why you find it reliable, where the editorial policies are listed, etc? Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Probably) Situational Not Reliable Okay, back to Reliable/Situational. I've been looking into this site for about a half an hour now after the OP posted about them on my Talk page. They have an editorial independence policy, named editors, and a physical address with directions. But they also allow anyone to register an account and submit news. I wouldn't trust any shared or user-submitted articles, but full reviews by staff journalists are probably okay. We could also vet individual writers as we've done with some other sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, they have a physical address. I know, because I've visited their HQ once. All the news staff is paid and all a user can do is submit a link (and optionally include a quote and/or remark), like a news tip. If that's not allowed, you can also remove the NY Times from the "reliable" list. Everything in https://tweakers.net/nieuws/ and https://tweakers.net/reviews/ is written by paid staff. There are also user reviews, but they look like this: https://tweakers.net/productreview/172247/star-wars-battlefront-ii-pc-(windows).html. For the same game, https://tweakers.net/reviews/5871/star-wars-battlefront-ii-pay2win-verpest-sfeervolle-game.html was written by staff. Alexis Jazz (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Changed my !Vote until we know more about their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Having a Masthead, policies, and a physical address are all well and good, but we really need to know if they're quoted by mainstream media (especially outside Dutch-speaking areas), if they've won any journalism awards, if they publish updates or retractions, etc. Until we know that information, it's tough to say anything other than "they sound situationally reliable". Woodroar (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Woodroar: I took the liberty of changing the order of the messages here to be chronological.
The answer to your questions: all that or nearly all that.
Now all that's needed are journalism awards. Honestly I had to look up what those awards would be. Apparently w:nl:De Tegel is the most important one, but looking at the winners Tweakers is likely out of their scope. Journalism awards are not really a thing in The Netherlands. I found Inge Janse who got a nomination for an article written in 2014 and in 2005-2006 he worked as an editor for Tweakers.net. Not sure I'll be able to do much better. Is it really a hard requirement to win a journalism award? Btw, they are part of De Persgroep. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the articles, Alexis Jazz. Journalism awards aren't required, no. They're just one form of recognition within the industry. A mention in Wired with praise from Bruce Schneier is a great sign. Personally, I think that original content (news reporting, reviews, etc.) written by Tweakers staff is fine. I'm hesitant about shared or user-submitted content, that may depend on the source. If they're sharing news from another reputable source or a tip leads to in-depth analysis, great. If they're simply passing along a tip from RandomUser2001, then we shouldn't use that article as a source for facts or determining notability. Anyways, I'm interested in what others say. Woodroar (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Tweakers started out of nowhere in 1998 and it looked very green back in the day. So very old articles may not always be up to our standards. Even in 2004 there was no way a user would submit news and an editor would publish it with a single click. They would still write the article. They wouldn't publish articles based on unreliable (in the general sense of the word, not the WP definition) sources. Back in 2004. In March 2006, Tweakers was taken over by a publisher, VNU, which is now Nielsen Holdings. When he sold Tweakers, the founder bought the farm. No, he didn't die, he bought an actual farm (and still works for Tweakers as a developer/designer to this day). Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Woodroar: suggestion for the situational requirement: only articles published in 2006 or later (when VNU/Nielsen aquired Tweakers) and only URLs that start with https://tweakers.net/nieuws/, https://tweakers.net/reviews/ or https://tweakers.net/video/. That's only content from staff. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that they probably wouldn't run an article written by a user, but my concern is that they do run questionable press-release-like articles with little vetting or commentary. Just yesterday they published this article written by an intern that simply repeats the highlights from a developer press release. The article includes prominent links to the pricewatch section of their site which lets Tweakers earn affiliate commission on purchases. Many, many game sites do this—it's how a lot of them stay in business—but reliable sites tend to tag those articles as press releases or add some kind of disclaimer about affiliate earnings. In other words, reputable sites keep their factual articles separate from the puff pieces that pay the bills. Woodroar (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Interns are monitored by experienced editors. That pricewatch link is part of the automatically generated "read more" section. On https://tweakers.net/nieuws/144269/google-chrome-staakt-ondersteuning-voor-android-jelly-bean.html it only links some more articles. https://tweakers.net/video/17011/techjuwelen-canon-eos-300d-de-eerste-betaalbare-dslr.html also links the camera in the pricewatch, even though it hasn't been available for sale for over a decade. The pricewatch also functions as a hub for product specifications, reviews, user reviews and links to associated forum threads and articles. Tweakers ran that article because users are interested in that and much of the added value in this case is the translation and selecting highlights itself. The DLC isn't out yet, so what commentary could they have added and what vetting could they have done? For Wikipedia, there would be no reason to cite Tweakers in this case instead of the original press release, that's true. From the article: "[..] meldt Creative Assembly." ("Creative Assembly reports"), "[[..]] waar Creative Assembly in de nabije toekomst meer over zal vertellen." ("which Creative Assembly will tell more about in the near future", this sentence sounds slightly too informal in Dutch as well. well, it's an intern), "Volgens de ontwikkelaar" ("according to the developer"). The article isn't hiding in any way that it's repeating and translating the highlights from the press release.
Here's an actual advertorial example: https://tweakers.net/plan/1771/zaandam-valley-albert-heijn-toont-innoverende-applicaties-en-nieuwe-technieken.html. The video is also on a separate YT channel. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Maniac magazine

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

Reading old gaming mags I came across an old German magazine called Maniac (branded Man!ac). They have a modern site, and it looks like they've been publishing their old game reviews online for the last few years. An online archive of old magazine reviews is much easier to search than print text. The only thing that seems to be missing from the online ones is that they don't include scores for graphics and sound, only the overall score, and it seems to be missing the pictures and the captions. Other pages just record the score, but don't have any text.

I've checked, and it doesn't look like the site is used much, or even at all on WP. An old gaming mag is far better than some modern fan site. And many of the games they reviewed have articles on Wikipedia with few sources.

For example, compare this Demon's Crest review, and you'll see it's the exact same text:

Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Reliable - Published in Germany since 1993. Has news, reviews, "exclusive coverage", etc. Lists staff, editors, and contributors. Published by Cybermedia Verlagsgesellschaft Mbh. Pretty standard magazine for the time. TarkusABtalk 13:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
That's what I figured. I was just making sure. I've never really heard of Maniac before recently. Does it still publish a magazine? Is the website the same quality as the printed magazine from the 90's? Harizotoh9 (talk)
  • Tentative reliable without looking into it in detail. Any publication that survives that long and had a printed mag is pretty much reliable. They almost always have all the hallmarks -- staff, editorial, review policies, etc. I imagine printed German ref is not used at all on WP due to language and access issues, so that shouldn't be a problem. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Wireframe

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

New magazine on video games from Raspberry Pi. Issue #1 is free and available here: [36] TarkusABtalk 14:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: The magazine is edited by Ryan Lambie, who has been in the business for eight years, including Den of Geek and some books. Content is appropriate and their stuff is free, which is good. Leaning reliable. Lordtobi (✉) 19:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The magazine also has a website with features and all (presently three) issues are available here. Lordtobi (✉) 19:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

People Make Games

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

People Make Games is a YouTube channel run by Chris Bratt, a former editor for Eurogamer,[37] that presents retrospectives on older games with previously little known info and interviews with people connected to mentioned projects. The channel is similar to Noclip by Danny O'Dwyer, which we consider reliable as far as I am concerned. Lordtobi (✉) 18:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it’s pretty rare to allow self-published YouTube sources unless it’s a really special exception though - like Siskel and Ebert-level stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Sergecross73, that's why I drew the Noclip comparison. Lordtobi (✉) 07:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

TouchArcade

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

Revisiting per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toast Time. I agree that I currently wouldn't consider this site reliable on its face. Our last significant discussion was in 2014 and a recurring defense has been its precedent of usage (it's linked 1100+ times on WP). Looks like it didn't have an editorial policy or background on editors back then either. So it would have to be in some high regard from its peers to warrant carte blanche "reliable" status... Anyone up for some sleuthing? czar 02:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  • This site is a reviewer. The site entirely detalis about the game. The site not only for review, but it is function to obtain game information. In my opinion, this is reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Video game task (talk • contribs) 05:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • So, uh, you're doing an about face from that same discussion? :) --Izno (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    user:czar, getting harder with the years. fwiw, I really liked TA's coverage when indie game articles were my writing repertoire but the AfD sounded like things I'd say so encouraged me to review with fresh eyes. I wouldn't pass a similar site with equal lack of self-reported editorial process/pedigree/reputation, so really depends on what we can discern about TA's quality from its peers. Otherwise I think we can do better than "Polygon cites it" and Odie's links—I don't think that proves a reputation for accuracy. czar 18:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, when I looked around at the website (I used it quite a bit for Godville) I wasn't super thrilled by what I saw but deferred to the list here. --Izno (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Editing staff page [38]. The EIC is Eli Hodapp, and he appears to be seen as an expert in writing on mobile gaming areas from searching. TA is used by our other RSes when it comes to mobile iOS stuff, so I would say generally reliable for our project. --Masem (t) 18:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (I'm the person whose comments prompted this discussion). I believe TA is not reliable as an indicator of notability. They're indiscriminate - ie they review basically everything, and review almost everything well, so can you really call it selective critical commentary? Look at their reviews by star rating: no 1-star reviews this entire year? only two 2-star reviews? Even given the tendency of video game reviews to rate on a Four Point Scale, that strikes me as basically churnalism - toss out a couple bland paragraphs about anything a developer will send you, pop your affiliate link at the bottom, and call it a day. Per their about page (which isn't linked anywhere on their main page - I'm interested to know where it is linked from), they accept solicitations from developers, but I haven't seen a single review that mentions this. The whole thing just smacks of WP:ROUTINE coverage intended to generate purchase clickthroughs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    • If we're talking notability, I would agree that TA alone is not sufficient, but if TA is reporting on a game alongside our mainstream sources, that should be fine. (And there's nothing wrong with no "low scores" from a site. Ask anyone about IGN's rather "inflated" review scale, but they're still a good source). --Masem (t) 23:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) The problem I have is that TA is being used in accordance with reviews from similar "review every app and stick an affiliate link on it" websites to argue notability. If these sites review essentially every app that developers send them (and many of them do, TA is only one example), the coverage is basically WP:ROUTINE and therefore meaningless as an indicator of notability. (To paraphrase Syndrome: if everything is notable, how is anything notable?) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
        • I think you’re exaggerating a bit here. The volume of non-notable apps are far more vast than any one website could cover. There are thousands of lo-fi game apps that fail the notability criteria. There is so much garbage out there on the App Store that TouchArcade is not covering... Sergecross73 msg me 23:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Yeah, inflated review scores is a industry-wide issue. Reviews skew way higher than the do in the music world. What’s considered generally well-received in music is one of the years biggest critical flops in video games. It’s an industry thing. Sergecross73 msg me 23:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm well aware it's an industry-wide problem, did you both miss my specific comment about and link to the TvTropes page describing the issue? My point was that it was extremely egregious even given the tendency to over-rate. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I still think the site is reliable. TA is one of the most respected mobile game sources on the web—EIC is professional, it's frequently cited by other RSs, and they seem to be able to get interviews with key devs (which is usually a good sign). JOEBRO64 20:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

j-pop.com/games

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

Viz Communications published Game On! USA in 1996, a video game news and manga magazine. It went under after 7 issues, and after that the writers migrated to the Viz communications site j-pop.com to continue in the games section. The site published reviews and features from 96-00. A bit of an obscure site, but since it's published by Viz media, it should be fine right? I've read a few of their reviews and features, and haven't seen any errors or mistakes. I don't think I've seen the site used or discussed anywhere. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The Esports Observer

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

Nintendo Life Reliable?

Hello! I edit several game articles and have an issue with using NintendoLife as a source. It seems to be considered a reliable source and is noted for posting factual information. However I come across several issues with the site frequently, that put this into doubt.

There seems to be a problem with quality control in regards to factual information, and author reliability. For instance, on Nintendo Switch they reported that Puzzle Bubble 1 and 2 would be released in same week (no source provided), when in fact it was just for Puzzle Bubble 1 couple weeks ago. Also note the use of NES screen shots for an arcade emulation release - please see http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2018/12/arcade_archives_donkey_kong_jr_is_swinging_onto_a_switch_near_you_this_week.

There is also strong allegations of posting incorrect news and clickbait news stories with altered facts. Please see: http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2019/01/future_business_shift_could_see_nintendo_move_away_from_home_console_development , where in fact in their comments section people have stated how the original source has been twisted as if Nintendo could be moving away fro console gaming, whereas in fact it is more about future proofing their business via innovative means. Last year lone, there was an issue with their guides that contain incorrect information - http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2018/11/guide_how_to_get_to_the_power_plant_and_capture_zapdos_in_pokemon_lets_go_on_nintendo_switch "If you played Pokémon Red, Blue or Yellow back in the day, you'll know all about the fabled Power Plant. Here, you could capture yourself a level 50 Zapdos, challenge the Elite Four..." . Don't think I need to explain that one. Dark Samus (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sort of examples you mention are true for 99% of gaming media. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, there's no issue specific to Nintendo Life that other publications don't have (of varying degrees). However, if these sort of issues are commonplace enough, then there is a case for them being unreliable. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thirded. These sorts of things are unfortunately part of all journalism, even reliable sources. Case in point, I just stumbled across this discussion with this source already copy/pasted on my device to be shared at another discussion. It’s an article from reliable source Eurogamer, which does the exact same sort of leading, click-bait-like headline that you just accused NintendoLife of. Welcome to 2019 on the Internet. Sergecross73 msg me 21:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
And Eurogamer is usually seen as one of the most reliable out there, too. We should never automatically assume every article from a WP:VG/RS publication is 100% correct, and do some basic fact checking ourselves. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, yeah I am acutely aware of how video game journalism has their own qwerks. Even on official levels, in this day of age, where journalism is more digitised. Thought it was still worth discussing NintendoLife as a site in question. Even in comparison to other sites GoNintendo (classed as unreliable), it has become a bit more commonplace lately in regards to accuracy and story twisting,coming across as borderline tabloid journalism. Of course the example links I gave are non-exhaustive, and not a one off.Dark Samus (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I've posted about this here before, but I'm still unclear on what traits justify NL's classification as "reliable". czar 23:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Looks like them being owned by Gamer Network (who also owns Eurogamer, Push Square, RPS, GameIndustry, and VG247) is the primary reason? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The owner and editor Damien McFerran has written for other RSs. TarkusABtalk 00:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
      And Gamer Network is owned by ReedPOP, an events organization. I haven't been convinced that a publication's parent company should have any inherited bearing on its editorial process/reliability status. An entertainment company acquires a company ostensibly because its content will bring in clicks/money, not necessarily because of some underlying journalistic integrity. If NL was owned by ZDNet, we'd still need to ask how content is written and vetted. Is IndieDB on par with Nintendo Life/Push Square, and are those on par with Eurogamer? Each is its own operation with staff of different sizes and backgrounds.
      Re: McFerran, having a background in a field would make a journalist an expert, not necessarily confer reliability onto their claims. Reliability's in the chain of editorial process.
      Also re: the above on industry malfeasance in general, I err on the side that we're too lenient to the point that maybe we should be using far fewer publications. In the case of the above, at the very, very least, sites should be posting corrections when they get facts wrong. Wouldn't be a bad idea to collect a bunch of inaccuracies, submit to the publication, and see whether the posts are updated. If the publications can't handle such a basic test, I don't see why they should be deemed reliable for the purposes of an encyclopedia. Otherwise we pass their disservice onto our readers. czar 00:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

PC Joker

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

Ive seen this magazine be mentioned before but I have no clue if its actually a reliable source. GamerPro64 20:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Damn, that takes me back to my youth. de:PC Joker was the first German PC gaming print magazine in 1991 but was discontinued in 2004. Definitely reliable since this is a print source with full staff and editorial control. You can find some issues at [41] (in German of course). Regards SoWhy 19:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Metro

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

There's been a bit of discussion at WT:VG about this, but I also wanted to bring it here. Metro is a Daily Mail (which is widely considered unreliable) sister site that frequently covers the video game spectrum. An analysis here shows that it has a lot of the same problems of the Mail. I'm going to say this is unreliable. JOEBRO64 19:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Since this is a general newspaper and not a specific gaming related one (cf. Metro (British newspaper)), I'd says WP:RSN is the right place to discuss this. From my understanding, the list this project keeps is just for game-specific sources, no? Regards SoWhy 20:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree with SoWhy. It's not specific to VG so why cover it here. -- ferret (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Well they do have a dedicated gaming section that generally other newspapers don't, so the results should still be noted in the checklist here at least. But yeah, the entire publication should be judged for its reliability, which seems to be in doubt. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yea their gaming section was the reason why I posted here. I knew it isn't just gaming-focused (but then again, neither is IGN or GameSpot), I was just primarily focused on their coverage of gaming. JOEBRO64 19:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it’s worth mentioning here, they do seem to have a video game presence. Personally, if I’ve ever used it in the past, I think it’s mostly because I had thought it had been classified as reliable due to how frequently I saw it being used. I haven’t looked into the specifics, but I do find the connection to DM troubling. Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd make the argument that situational sources exist for this vary purpose. It clearly has an editorial process, which is usually the biggest part of our arguments for VG sources. The issue with the Daily Mail (and other tabloids) is their use of shock headlines that almost exclusively belittle WP:BLP articles. I'm yet to see anything gaming related that would cause me to think it wasn't a reliable source for gaming related information from that section. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of the Game Data Library at the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion of the reliability of the Game Data Library at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Game Data Library. — Newslinger talk 10:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

LootPots.com

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

Relatively new Nintendo and indie game-focused news site with occasional reviews. Is it acceptable as a source if it has anything useful? L ke (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

My understanding was that it was just a blog written by a random guy on Twitter. I wasn’t aware of any sort of credentials or experience that would make us classify it as reliable... Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Looks like a one-man blog. No editorial, credentials, etc. So not reliable. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_20&oldid=1078777234"