Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

PCGamesInsider.biz

Find video game sources: "PCGamesInsider.biz" – 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

Owned by Steel Media (also owns Pocket Gamer, launched relatively recently. Main editor is Alex Calvin that was deputy editor for MCV, as well as having writings appear in various other RSes. Seems to be a more British/European-angled GamesIndustry.Biz/Gamasutra.com (more aimed at changes at the industry, rather than games themselves) though clearly aren't territory specific. --Masem (t) 16:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Video game manual citations: Include uncredited, but verified authors?

If you don't want to read all of my paragraphs, you can probably safely read the first under this and then skip down to my summary at the bottom of this comment.

I was wondering if it makes sense to include manual writers in the citations for manuals (which, by the way, need their own template format, but that's a project for the future; {{Cite book}} works okay, but has a different parameter set than that relevant to video game manuals. Regardless of the template format, this discussion can guide if authors will be cited in video game manual citations.). I was thinking about bringing this up in more general discussion, but I couldn't think of any context where it would apply besides video games.

I can see benefits and downsides to crediting the author:

Benefits:

The author adds their own style to the material they create. Crediting the author links up information surrounding the publication better, so interested readers can understand more about it.

Downsides:

Authorship implies a certain amount of ownership of the work. While there is certainly creativity, information is controlled by the company, and they have a final say on what can be said in the manual. Manuals are a sort of hybrid promotional material, where the company is writing fiction about their characters, so the author as an independent entity may not be particularly important.

I am personally in favor of crediting the authors, but more from an information archival and encyclopedia connection perspective; my academic Wikipedia instincts are leaning in the other direction. Now that I consider it more, manuals are a special type of source anyway: they detail a fictional universe, so the information that is being included about them is not a philosophical truth, but a description of what the company says about their own fictional universe. This final observation is what tips me in favor of crediting authors, because true ownership of the materials is less relevant; the author is shaping the story that's being told. The information being supported by the citation is the story. But on the other hand, all that the true verifier cares about is that the company is responsible for the manual. My indecisiveness is why I'm bringing this up for discussion; other editors may have more diverse or nuanced perspectives which I haven't considered (or more insight on the ones I have).

Thoughts?

--E to the Pi times i (talk) (contribs) 02:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Summary of my personal perspective on the decision to be made; the choice is between:

  • More concise citations which express the verifiability, namely the publisher
  • Slightly longer citations which add interesting connective information (trivia, perhaps?) to the encyclopedia, but information that is irrelevant to verifying the source

--E to the Pi times i (talk) (contribs) 02:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Why would this need a dedicated citing template? Just use {{Cite video game}} (or expand upon that with new parameters). As for crediting the authors, I can't even imagine you'd be able to find the person(s) responsible most of the time, as they are almost never credited for that specific role. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    I have a personal list of examples where I can add authors, based on game credits, biography snippets, etc. That's why I'm asking would it make sense to include the author, where available? You haven't really answered my main question. I have other thoughts on the {{Cite video game}} template, but I need to examine it more carefully before commenting. --E to the Pi times i (talk) (contribs) 02:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    WHEN I WAS YER AGE, sonny boy, we didn't have in-game documentation or helpful user interfaces. We had these things called, er-hrm, game manuals. We had to go read! I TELL YOU BOY WOT! --Izno (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Dissident93: Re: your comment on {{Cite video game}}, I am hesitant to use that for video game manuals, since that dilutes the purpose of the template, and besides, many parameters are still irrelevant. {{Cite game manual}} is a potential future template derivative of {{Cite book}} which I would consider, but I don't want to bloat {{Cite video game}}. --E to the Pi times i (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anybody would be against crediting the author if known, but again, it's not something you'd see (or cite really) very often. And I don't see how expanding the main game cite template with the stuff you want would bloat it, as it only has 10 parameters and is underused as is. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I just realized that {{Cite book}} is perfectly appropriate for citing manuals: it has |type=Booklet and |id=, which is basically what I was looking for. My mistake. --E to the Pi times i (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Overpowered Noobs

Find video game sources: "Ooverpowered Noobs" – 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

Have gotten pinged on this one again. I originally got messaged on Discord when I declined to add it to the Video game reviews template, nearly a year ago. Today I got pinged again as if I had been reverting its additions and therefore offended the writers by calling them unreliable (I am, however, not aware of having reverted any additions of this site in the last year, though I did remove two cases today once my attention was pointed at it). I'm not seeing any overall staff page, editorial policy, etc. Clicking individual authors on articles will take you to short bios but nothing of real notes, things like "loves cats", "has mad skills". The editor in chief is (according to the messages sent to me), "Tiffany", which may be Tiffany Lillie. No credentials listed other than "gamer". The entire site is wrapped in a "gaming news for gamers by gamers" motif, and also has articles with no byline "from the developer". I think its still a solid unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Daily Radar

Find video game sources: "Daily Radar" – 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

A website maintained by Future plc; I'm actually pretty sure it's what became GamesRadar. If it has anything useful, would it be acceptable as a source? JOEBRO64 14:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

TechRaptor

Find video game sources: "TechRaptor" – 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

All I could find about this was this 2014 thread with two participants. Back then, Thibbs opined that the page is probably unreliable because it has no other RSes talking about them. This might have changed since then, considering that I found a couple of RS using the VG/RS search, explicitly citing TR, such as [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I'm not sure whether this is enough but since it seems accepted RSes treat it as "one of their own" now, we might do so as well. Regards SoWhy 18:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If I remember correctly TechRaptor was born out of Gamergate on which they were on the "ethics" side. To me that makes them super questionable. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Tentatively reliable Unlike most sites brought up here, even some that are undoubtedly reliable, we have pages detailing editorial policy and ethics. Staff pages, while not written as resumes, include at least one known writer, a CEO with degree, and clearly listed management/editor in chief positions. See their ethics and standards page, which also details their review process and the fact that editorial oversight exists before publication. The site is now in its 5th year, showing that it has some staying power and is not some fresh blog site. As noted by SoWhy, other outlets are citing them now as well. Definitely born out of the gamergate controversies, but I don't see that as a necessarily stumbling block. (After all, we still allow Kotaku) I'd like to see if anyone can provide evidence of unreliablility, since most of the boilerplate checkmarks are actually met for once. -- ferret (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Tentatively reliable - agree with ferret; their (former?) stance on Gamergate shouldn't be considered a negative if we still allow Kotaku. The only obviously negative thing I see about the website is how amateur it looks (subjective opinion), but I'm pretty sure that should not be considered a factor if they pass the general qualifications for reliability first. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Another opinion, should we graduate them like we do with most everyone else? Situational->Reliable? Let them roll in and make sure they're of useful quality in articles. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 22:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Policy-wise, there's no such thing as situational. We use it to denote when a site is reliable in some aspect but not in others (I.e. Forbes is, Forbes contributors are not). So you'd need to specify those cases. -- ferret (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. They weren't only "born out of Gamergate", they were directly involved: a TechRaptor writer was part of those early IRC chats where they planned the "ethics in games journalism" misdirection, and writers freely pushed that position for some time. In a note from November 2017, the current EIC said "With our prior Editor in Chief, there was no editorial process to be heard of. Articles not only did not receive critique or editing, they likely saw no review at all." (He continues about their poor editorial standards in the full article.) About himself, the EIC even says "Not only had I not had any sort of editing experience, outside of what I did in college, I’d never really had to manage people before." You could make the argument that he's since learned how to be an editor and the site has improved...but they still have a section named KekRaptor. So there's that. Woodroar (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
    This is the kind of thing I needed. It sounds like they may get there one day, but the big site reorganization and post from the EIC is only Nov 2017. I am not worried about "Kekraptor", "kek" has long been a gaming meme if that's the complaint, and several sites maintain satire sections. -- ferret (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - per Woodroar's rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 01:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Unreliable Per Woodroar. Possibly a Situational if we exclude content before say, March 2016, and the obvious satire section. March 2016 is the apparent cut off where they have culled and archived the content with lax editorial control. -- ferret (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
    When I brought this up, I did so because the coverage in other RSes seems to have considered them a reliable source of information beginning from approximately March 2016, so a cut-off at this point makes sense. In case anyone is interested, I brought this up because I was using this review in SpellForce 3 and was advised to check the list of unreliable sources. Regards SoWhy 08:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Twinfinite

Find video game sources: "Twinfinite" – 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'm seen this site a lot but am a bit iffy about its reliability. It has a staff, but most of them say "I'm a JRPG enthusiast" rather than actual credentials (most of them are college educated, though). Thoughts? JOEBRO64 22:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not an expert but here go some layman observations:
  • Has a review policy that includes editorial review by other editors
  • Couple of editors have college degrees related to journalism ([7], [8], [9])
  • None of the writers seems to have any actual experience working for a similar publication
  • All links to it from the VG/RS Google custom search seem to come from N4G.com, which is listed as unreliable on the main page (not sure why it appears in the custom search then) and similar sites
All in all, I'm leaning unreliable. Regards SoWhy 16:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
N4G is primarily just a website aggregator, so it really shouldn't be something that's held against a particular website - its not like its their fault. (For example, here N4G is using an article from The Verge, which is definitely a reliable source.) They're marked as unreliable because I think there may be some original content coming from N4G, and also, to discourage editors from citing N4G when they really should be citing the actual sources themselves. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
That was my point, yes. All I saw were either generated content from this page or similar links that merely embedded an image or something from Twinfinite. Regards SoWhy 16:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, I had misread your comment to mean that their use on N4G hurt their reliability. Regardless, I haven't taken a detail look at it, but what you and Joebro are saying are in-line with what I'd would have gathered with casually see the site in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I thought this site was already considered reliable? At least, I've (and seen it used by others) used it in articles for a long time without any opposition. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
There were discussions in both 2016 and 2017 that were sorta trending toward unreliable really, but there was never a ton of input, and so it looks like it was archived instead of any further discussion or action being taken both times. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Interesting, I'll guess I'll try and replace them when I see them in articles, since it doesn't seem likely it will be considered reliable with this discussion either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

CSE heads up re: GameSpot

Wanted to give a courtesy heads up that the VG/RS search engine isn't working properly with some old GameSpot URLs. If interested, you can follow the progress at Thibbs's talk page. czar 17:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

PlayStation Lifestyle

Find video game sources: "PlayStation LifeStyle" – 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

Have we ever gotten a consensus on whether or not PlayStation Lifestyle is reliable? I've come across it a lot. On the checklist it's marked as unreliable, but it seems that past discussions have actually seemed to favor marking it as reliable. I'm not sure if it's a source I would use that much, but it does have connections to other sources we consider reliable (like RPGFan and Game Revolution). JOEBRO64 22:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the future of the GCSE

One more point of issue that I have been thinking for several months and that I have tentatively run by others privately and that I think it would be best for the community to consider: Who should be in control of the two approved Google Custom Search Engines? Currently there are two of us (User:Czar and me) who participate in the update and maintenance of the searches, and we don't really have a schedule on it except as needed. It's kind of an ad hoc arrangement, and other than having more than one operator there is certainly room for changes to the system.

Operational considerations

  • Monetizing - Google allows for the deployment of advertisements alongside search results. This feature has been deactivated from the start and I would assume that it's kind of a no-brainer but that's one issue I wanted to raise so we could give it some kind of a pro forma acknowledgement.
  • Privacy - Minor aggregations that could allow reverse examination of user searches (privacy issues) - Ultimately it's an issue of how many users use the service. If only a few people perform searches then only their terms will show, but if more use the service then it becomes increasingly impossible for anyone to reverse examine who had made the original search. It's a total abundance of caution I'm raising here, but I thought it would be best to be totally transparent just so it's raised.

Possibilities for future What would be the best way to turn over the engine to community members?

  • Option 1 - It stays with me and Czar for now as a default. No real reason to keep it this way except that it's the minimum disruption.
  • Option 2 - Have as many as want to join. This does have a potential for vandalism but as long as vetting is followed, and given the level of documentation I don't think much damage could be made eve in a worst case scenario. It would require operators to pay attention to double check each other and to ensure that errors, (worst case scenario) sneaky acts of vandalism, or (worst case scenario) wheel-war disagreements.
  • Option 3 - Mods only. I'm not a mod and I would have no problem voluntarily turning in my rights to it.
  • Option 4 - Something else. I'm open to any other scheme that anyone else.

With that, please share your thoughts. I'll drop a note at the main WT:VG too. -Thibbs (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

On the money piece, what is the cost of the search engine? Are you happy to continue paying for it, if non-zero? Option 4 seems reasonable: option 3 + you, and others who have shown themselves to be reasonably trustworthy (i.e. me, if I were interested [I am somewhat interested]). I guess someone could change the searched sites to Goatse or a malicious website--so there could loss of personal identifying information or installation of malware. Is there some sort of change control on the engine side? --Izno (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
There is no cost for the engine, and I believe the only difference is that if someone (an approved operator) turned on monetization then ads would appear and I would get some pittance of money which I don't want. Otherwise, there are engine-side control options for operators (adding and removing discussed and vetted sources for both engines and sub-site exclusion URLs to filter unhelpful/unneeded content such as forums, sales, cheat codes, etc.). There is further details listed here. -Thibbs (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure if I asked the right question there in retrospect. @Thibbs: Is there some sort of configuration control i.e. a history page for changes made to the engine? --Izno (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
@Izno:: There is an "audit log" (under "Statistics and Logs" in the tool), but I believe the only thing it shows is when each operator made an edit. It doesn't show what was changed or even how extensive the change was. Czar, do you know of any such area that would keep track of changes to the inclusions and exclusions? For example in the "CSE Annotations" under "Setup/Advanced"? There appears to be a timestamp associated with each entry, but how close to a history page does this really give us? -Thibbs (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Nope, not very robust. The audit log shows which feature was edited (e.g., "Basics", "Look and feel", "Autocompletions") but no specifics. Our solution was to mirror every change to WP:VG/SE for transparency. The SE owner alone can export the URL list XML ("CSE Annotations"), which could potentially be posted for transparency, but the export is not automated so you'd have to trust the site owner to export it anyway... and by that point, the mirrored posting to WP:VG/SE could be sufficient czar 19:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Option 5 - Must have consensus amongst members at WTVG to be added. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
This sounds very sensible. Spinning off your thought: Further documentation and a list of consensus-approved operators should be made in a new subsection at WP:VG/SE. I will list the operators for now at least. -Thibbs (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with Option 1. I'm also fine with limited expansion as well to other trusted project members, presuming they post here with interest and we see if anyone objects. Admin bit is a good but possibly unnecessary bar. Either way see no reason for Thibbs to lose access. -- ferret (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Cheers, I appreciate the vote of confident. :) -Thibbs (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It sounds to me like so far there are no particularly strong views as long as we keep watch over it all. It would be unlikely anyway in my view, but even in a worst case scenario this discussion could easily be revisited. I'll continue monitoring for at least 24 hours since the RfC just started but otherwise it sounds like this may eventually become a matter of case-by-case community-based consensus (option 2 or option 3 + me) as Salvidrim! suggested. -Thibbs (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with whatever too. Thibbs/Czar do a fine job, but I don't oppose anyone else working on it too if they have interested and are trustworthy. I support the prospect of Salvidrim's "Option #5" as well (though I kind of figured we were already more or less operating on that.) #5 would keep anyone from doing any actual damage though - if someone's being destructive/disruptive with it, consensus will dictate that they stop. Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Yikes! I'm probably happiest as a free agent for now at least. -Thibbs (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

GameReactor (German but also international)

Find video game sources: "GameReactor" – 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 Their Scandinavian pages were briefly discussed here and unsuccessfully raised here, so I'm making another attempt. I'm focusing on the German page since that's what I understand (and has a review I want to use) but a check of all editions would make sense. GR exists for 20 years now and according to our article on them is published 8 times a year in multiple languages, including German. Their staff includes a couple of journalists with experience in the field. I'd say they are reliable but there is no consensus I can find. Regards SoWhy 08:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

WCCFTech

Find video game sources: "WCCFTech" – 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 is one of the sources I recently used in an article which Czar pointed out as potentially unreliable. Without trying to go behind his back here, I'd like to get some more feedback. As he pointed out, their jobs page looks like anyone basically can apply to work there. On the other hand, there seems to be a review process in place and they do get cited quite a lot by other publications this project considers notable, such as [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] (searching for wccftech -site:metacritic.com -site:gamerankings.com on the VG/RS Google custom search nets 155,000+ hits). I know that such hits alone are not necessarily a reason to assume reliability but since those RS do assume reliability, maybe we should too? Regards SoWhy 17:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I was just about to merge this into the section above when you struck it @Czar ;-) Regards SoWhy 17:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Unreliable This website got popular in recent years on forums and social media because it frequently posts graphics cards leaks, clickbait, unverified rumours and generally false rubbish. It's not a good source for information. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, if I remember right, it was used sometimes by Joebro in his Sonic articles, and it seems like GA/FA reviewers usually asked for a replacement source... Sergecross73 msg me 21:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Huh? I've never seen this source before. JOEBRO64 21:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, I might be confusing websites then. I'll have to go digging... Sergecross73 msg me 03:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of that "WWG" website, and it looks like its still in the article, so I was all around wrong. Nevermind. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Consensus agenda

A few from a recent pre-GAN discussion. I don't think any of these are controversial, but let me know if you disagree:

  • ✓ PC Games (pcgames.de) German physical mag:
Find video game sources: "pcgames.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
    • Reliable PC Games is the oldest German video gaming magazine still in existence (26 years now) and one I have read quite a lot back in the old days when games were still on CDs and you needed magazines to get demos. Regards SoWhy 17:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Reliable - virtually any print mag has the credentials we need to be considered reliable here on Wikipedia. 26 years in the industry just makes its case that much stronger. Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ The Games Machine (Italy) (unless the web version is held to different editorial standards than the print?):
Find video game sources: "The Games Machine" – 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
  • ✗ GameSpace
Find video game sources: "GameSpace" – 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
Find video game sources: "Capsule Computers" – 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
  • ✗ Wccftech (has separate section below)
Find video game sources: "Wccftech" – 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
Find video game sources: "Game Debate" – 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

czar 17:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Netokracija (SEE, Serbo-Croatian, Slovene)

Find video game sources: "Netokracija" – 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

Athough they cover digitalisation, business and IT topics of the region of South Eastern Europe, they also deal extensively with video games. Here is their "about" page, listing their reliability (used by other global sites such as Huffington Post, Business Insider, Tech Crunch etc., and local such as Jutarnji list, Tportal, Blic etc.) their recognitions: http://www.netokracija.com/o-nama Although it began as a "blog", it is currently described as a "online regional magazine" (both self-description and by others: http://www.tem-journal.com/documents/vol1no3/Tem%20Journal%20Vol1No3.pdf#page=72).

Their gaming section(s): http://www.netokracija.com/gaming-igre and http://www.netokracija.com/gamingokracija

The guy writing most of the content: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivan-%C5%A1imi%C4%87-b08ab0116/ worked as Journalist at HRT Radio Osijek and junior content producer at another company, and has masters degree for Mass communications/Media study as "Culturology".

Another journalist writing for the column, similar expertise: https://www.linkedin.com/in/amkostanic/

A third one, although a digital marketing specialist, also worked as a journalist: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasminakolic/

On occassion, other people writing certain topical material and thoughts are video game developers themselves (ie. computer programmers), but without journalism expertise: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ana-boskovic-bb8097155/ .

Owner credentials - Ivan Brezak Brkan: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivanbrezakbrkan

"Forbes featured Ivan as the founder of Netokracija and "aristocrat of the Internet", highlighting his entrepreneurial approach to media in the region."

The language barrier might be problematic, but I think the source is very reliable.

Cheers,

Kiksam (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

NowGamer

Find video game sources: "NowGamer" – 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

A few things give me pause: no attributed authors for articles, no about page, and a dead link for on the "Advertise with Us" page. However, the articles appear to be well-written. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 03:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking more closely, this is really interesting though. The content I'm using it for is originally from issue 43 of Retro Gamer. Since they often copy articles straight from Retro Gamer, I think it's best to use Retro Gamer as the reliable source, and maybe use this as a link for the citations. But I see no reason to use this in other contexts, based on their layout. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 04:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

And even more useful, the evolution of their about page: in 2011 vs. in 2016. The about page is comparatively impressive in 2011 compared to 2016. I think Imagine Publishing is reliable, with Future Publishing perhaps less so (though clickbait was mentioned as a possible downside in past discussion.) I'm going to add this to the undecided list for now, but pending further discussion, this could move. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 06:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Reboot Magazine

Find video game sources: "Reboot Magazine" – 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

Reboot (magazine), also well known for Reboot Develop (http://www.rebootdevelop.hr) and Reboot Infogamer(http://www.rebootinfogamer.hr/en/)

Managing director: https://www.linkedin.com/in/damir-durovic-55008256/

Editor-in-chief:https://www.linkedin.com/in/dario-zrno-27a5689/

Kiksam (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't we assume that websites of print magazines are reliable? Regards SoWhy 08:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
If the print magazine is reliable too (and it is in this case), I think we do, yes. Lordtobi (✉) 08:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
When the web version is shown to have the same editorial standards of the established print magazine. Not sure how you would discern that from http://reboot.hr/ Also never a good idea to take advice from an unsourced WP page czar 09:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
This: https://reboot.hr/impresum/ I can confirm that the main editor of the portal is also the main editor of the printed edition, the graphic editor is also the same, and the contributors (Vida Stračević, Luka Žučko, Borna Pleše, Danijel Lučić) also write for the printed edition. Kiksam (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be any mention of other editors (Borna Cmrečnjak, Damir Radešić, Mateja Šop) either the printed magazine, or the online impressum, though one (Šop) of them also writes for Adria localization of IGN: http://adria.ign.com/darksiders-iii/15150/preview/darksiders-3-utisci-iz-prve-ruke-ign-first and Bug magazine and Radešić also writes for the gaming section of the Bug computer magazine: https://www.bug.hr/author/damir-radesic-12. Couldn't find anything regarding other two unlisted contributors. Moreover, the portal seems to be relatively poorly managed (frequent errors on the mobile verson, design anomalities) Hmmm....Kiksam (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Nintendojo

This website sometimes crops up and I'd like to know whether it's possible to use it as a source. They have an editorial team and only really post general news. Past discussions have been held but no consensus has actually been reached in either case.

General page: [16] Staff list: [17]

Thoughts? ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 23:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Unreliable (see below) Don't we usually prefer not to use these sort of platform/company specific sites? The staff page gives no detailed info on people besides their name and basic role within the website. All of them could be (and mostly likely are) just fans of Nintendo, with no real credentials for being reliable and/or experience elsewhere. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
It's not a hard rule, there's some platform specific ones we find reliable...but yes, probably more that we don't. I still need to do some digging on this one. Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
There are plenty of platform-specific sources that are deemed reliable (NF Magazine, Nintendo Life, Nintendo World Report), but the question I was asking is whether the site was written by actual journalists or just fans, because the staff list isn't linked or anything. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 03:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that the site seems to only really report on Nintendo-related news in a general fashion; there's few if any opinion pieces. ~ P*h3i (talk to me) 03:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Hold up. Schneider worked with Nintendojo before he was associated with IGN... why would his repute somehow flow backwards? Also what actual mechanisms for quality does the site have? What indicators show that this is anything more than a fan site?

    Love video games and Nintendo? Love writing? Love having a great group of people to share those passions with? Then consider joining the Nintendojo team! ...This is a volunteer site, so there is no pay, but there are the intangible rewards of great friends and experience working in a deadline-driven environment...

    czar 17:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
He founded the fan site first and then worked at a professional website. It's the same as a Polygon reporter having a personal site before joining Polygon—it doesn't make the personal site reputable, as that resides in the site's editorial process. czar 22:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
While I get your point, it's not like the site went defunct after he founded IGN. It still exists, and has for 20+ years now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
In addition to this, the site (from what I could tell at least) never posts anything remotely opinion-oriented; no reviews, etc.; only news. This would make it less of a fansite and more of a news source for things Nintendo-related. ~ P*h3i (📨) 05:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@P*h3i, can say the same of other news-only-yet-hobbyist sites discussed in sections above this one. @Dissident93, how would it follow that Peer Schneider's possible(?) involvement 20 years earlier, pre-IGN, pre-professional career (while in college) somehow imbues the current site with a reputation for accuracy and quality? Did his legacy set some kind of editorial standard that remained unchanged for 20 years? Is that reasonable? How is this site functionally different from any other unpaid fansite? Am I missing something? czar 09:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't (by default). I was just noting that it wasn't like the site went defunct as soon as he left; a site running for 20+ years normally adds to its qualifications for reliability, but the original issues I pointed still hold true. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent update

I just updated the much-delayed CGSEs, reviewing the last several months going back since there was last significant expansion/alterations in the lists below and I've run across a few little inconsistencies that I thought I'd run by you for review. If these are too minor then I can just make a decision on these myself according to that seems to make sense. I'll explain my instinct would be below:

  • Should "Major Nelson's Blog" and "PlayStation Blog" be listed either the same as Reliable or as Situational? Currently they are listed as Reliable under the "Primary/affiliate sources" table (which is colored green for "reliable" rather than orange for "situational"). They've been vetted in talk here, but the disclaimers written next to the two blogs and that's often more traditionally how we handle "situational". Again they are both listed as reliable and they seem to be high quality sources, but should we switch them to "reliable" sources instead? Any thoughts?
  • "About.com" has been shifted to "Defunct" from "Situational". Perhaps it makes sense to either retain "About.com" as "Situational". Ultimately we may have to re-examine the meaning of the "Defunct" table as it is actually not related to reliability/situational/unreliability as it's an unrelated concept (grey table, multi-colored table, etc.). In the default I will restore it to "Situational" with a disclaimer instead.
  • "Paste (magazine)" - So far the only trace of vetting I have been this: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Unless there are any objections to the source I can add it and consider this thread as sufficient for the purpose of tagging it as reliable.

-Thibbs (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The PlayStation blog (don't know about Nelson) annoys the crap out of me when it shows up in search results, since my primary use of the search is to triage at AFD. A non-independent, usually-primary source, is not what I expect to show up in that list. --Izno (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
We had a discussion about PlayStation Blog, Major Nelson, Nintendo Directs, and whatever else ones like that - they're reliable, but only in the same capacity of WP:PRIMARY - as in, usable for basic objective facts, but not subjective claims or notability arguments. I guess that would technically put them closer to situational that reliable.
Paste is considered a reliable source over at WP:RSMUSIC as well, and passing conversations show that's its been there uncontroversially since at least 2014, though I'm not seeing any discussion they particularly had on it. (I've been working a lot on improving their source list to be closer to the quality of what we've got going on here lately.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Here's the Major Nelson discussion, it was farther back than I thought... Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I still say it generally sits at reliable in that regards. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 22:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we're all generally in agreement in how to handle it (more or less as a usable primary source that doesn't go toward notability) its really just a matter of how we want to "classify" it, whether this treatment means "reliable" or "situational". I almost wonder if we should change format and have it be a section of prose rather than a chart - that way it could be written without worry about these classifications. It may be better to convey in a more general sense sense anyways - while Nelson/PSBlog/Nintendo Directs are probably the most commonly used ones, it'd be equally acceptable to cite something like Atlus's website for an Atlus game's release date as well. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This is an old discussion at this point, but if we wanted to indicate primary sources in the checklist, we could use red superscript p next to the source e.g. Major Nelson's BlogP and PlayStation BlogP --E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 02:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Digitally Downloaded

Find video game sources: "Digitally Downloaded" – 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 website keeps coming up when I'm source hunting for JRPG type articles, and I wanted to see other's stance on it, because what I've come across, I've felt to be good writing, and would be helpful in writing articles.

Their About Us page doesn't say much about their credentials, but I went digging on the internet and found credentials for a number of staff I decided to spot check, including:

  • Matt Sainsbury - the owner/editor in chief - is pretty well qualified according to his Linked In account:
    • He's professionally educated, having a graduates and masters in Communications/Media Studies/Marketing.
    • For five years, he was a Features Editor/Print Editor for ARN Magazine, which is published by IDG Communications - a massive, global company. He's done some other similar jobs as well.
    • He's a published author, via Penguin Random House.
  • Jebediah Hoy - News Editor - per his Linked In:
    • Is college educated, with a BA in English/Professional Writing, and previously had his work published through general publication "The Pueblo Pulp".
  • Lindsay Mayhew - News Editor - per her Linked In:
    • Has a college degree, and work history related to, art history/criticism of art, which is relevant, because part of the website's approach is evaluating video games as art.
  • Sam McGraw - per Linked In
    • Has a college degree in Communication/Journalism, and has worked at several company publishing marketing type content for them.
  • I think they're also a MetaCritic datapoint (alone, not helpful, but adds to what is there already). Plus they seem to be able to get interviews with key devs, always a plus. Support. --Masem (t) 15:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Apart from their writers having gone to college, what do we actually know about the site's reputation or fact-checking policy? ("Scoring" policy =/= editorial policy...) EIC's LinkedIn:

    Digitally Downloaded started out as a hobby website after I identified a space in the games press for it. It has since grown to a mid-size publication with an active community and visibility across all major gaming markets.

    It's a side-job. Are writers paid? Is there any effective oversight? Who knows? btw, his book (of concept art and interviews) is by No Starch Press and distributed (not published) through Penguin Random House. We've been over this ground before but having a background in journalism and experience writing for a reputable publication is all good experience for the individual, and hopefully they carry it to their next jobs, but it isn't a replacement for editorial process—the type of internal quality review for which we hold outside sources in esteem. Otherwise it's no different from any other content farm or blog. Not seeing the case for reliability here... czar 17:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Overall, I feel like we're getting into some pretty nitpicky territory here... Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Ya, it's nitpicky in the other direction. The No Starch coffee table book is extremely minor towards proving the site's reliability, but it's inflated to say it's anything on par with publishing a work of non-fiction. Every site we assess gives their editors titles—they don't necessarily denote any actual editing apart from basic division of labor. Unpaid staff is a telltale indicator of the difference between profession and hobby. czar 14:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Rare Gamer

Find video game sources: "Rare Gamer" – 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

It is a fan site written by unpaid pseudonymonous staff. Most of the stories are opinion pieces (Top X lists), but there are some interviews ([18], [19], and probably more). Jaguar previously said it's unreliable in DKC's good article nomination. It seems situational: I see no problem using it for interviews, but the information pages should not be used as sources because more direct sources are more reliable, and the list articles are trivia specific to Rare games. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 05:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  • There is no such designation as "situational". Every site is "situational" if it meets the self-published sources guideline (as most interviews do). When reviewing for reliability, we're looking for whether the site has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, e.g., editorial pedigree or policy. There's nothing about Rare Gamer that indicates it's more than a hobbyist project. I don't think anyone would contend that RG is reliable after reading the intro at WP:VG/RS, so not sure why it would warrant discussion or further clarification. czar 14:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Grrlgamer

Find video game sources: "Grrlgamer" – 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 came up in a GAR for Chocolatier, and I made the case that it's reliable. I'd like to include it in the list of reliable sources (although it's now defunct, but I think for some games it's definitely a unique perspective).

  • They seem to have had a staff setup with editors ([20]) per a press release when the site was founded
  • Didi was a featured speaker at Interactive Content Exchange 2007 for Grrlgamer ([21])
  • The site was featured in Nintendo Power in 2006 as a "site to visit" ([22])
  • Book talks about them at length and talks about how the 97 founder was a journalist already ([23])
  • The founder of Grrlgamer talks about her founding of it and why she decided to make it ([24]).
  • A book describes how Grrlgamer broke the barriers of websites to cater towards female gamers and write quality reviews ([25]).

Nomader (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I'd say situational, as only their head writer, Didi Cardoso, seems to have had a university degree and some experience in the industry before or while working at Grrlgamer. Furthermore, the site heavily relied on outside contributors and there was no editorial policy, wherefore articles by Cardoso could be considered good sources, but not others. Lordtobi (✉) 18:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Lordtobi: I take it we should then apply the same standard to "Gamer's Intuition", the site that's currently listed on her twitter? She's the editor-in-chief there but it hasn't been updated for a long time (link to staff page: [26]). Nomader (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, it is headed by the same two people (Cardoso/Mazza), has no editorial policies and relies/relied on third-party contributors and remote writers. Except for Cardoso's articles, we should avoid all others (Mazza does not appear to write her own articles). Lordtobi (✉) 16:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Many of the links in the "Media" column are dead, particularly in the Defunct section, rendering them worthless. I would suggest they be updated with WayBack links.--Coin945 (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The Next Web

Find video game sources: "The Next Web" – 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

An article I posted at GAN contains content sourced to TNW. The Wikipedia article The Next Web was deleted at AfD in 2016 in which David Gerard said that TNW was reliable. TNW was at RSN in 2014 and EllenCT said that TNW was reliable. LinkedIn for CEO looks good and I found this article about the co-founder. wumbolo ^^^ 15:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Apply your judgement, but TNW can frequently be a RS in my experience. The article was deleted because there wasn't much in other RSes about them - David Gerard (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Separating publication indexes by reliability

czar's comment on Izno's edits in this edit summary reminded me that I also like the lists of publications to be consolidated, not separated by reliability, because it makes it easier to search the index for a particular publications if it's all in one big alphabetical list. The way it is currently, I potentially have to look through 3 lists (I could always use the ctrl-f find function, but sometimes the source is not named exactly what you expect, and not everyone knows about the find function). E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 23:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I've always personally used ctrl+F as well, but I do agree that these issues you and Czar raised are valid. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thirded. Browsing one list is a lot easier than browsing several. SharkD  Talk  12:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Firstly: Are the tables in the other sections even valuable, if you all don't actually use them? If not, let's kick them to the curb. If they are, then they should be the one stop shop for our information about those sources, including how we evaluated the placement of the sources within those tables. Personally? I have a problem that we have two different places to go to look at details and discussion. You can see that in how some notes about reliability, which are globally applicable (and which duplicate information elsewhere on the page), have filtered into the lead of the checklist (prior to my splitting of the lists). I also have a problem with the unordered fashion of the lists, which make browsing a pain, if in fact that's how anyone uses the list. I don't certainly, because it's hard to do so without at least separation by reliability (and elimination of the obnoxious pretty color markings). I control F. I want all the details, and I want it all in one place. If there are "AKAs", the tables are where we should find those, not the checklist (which, BTW, there are multiple sources which have been consolidated in the table with AKAs as a result of my work). --Izno (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Apart from browsing the tables to get a general lay of the land on my first visits, I've always used the page as an alphabetical index when looking for supplemental sources to the custom Google search. That's my use case and that's my understanding of how others pointed to this page use it too. I wouldn't miss the tables, but there should be some sort of example-based general introduction to the concept of reliability that isn't a wall of text. czar 17:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • My two cents:
  • I like Izno's reorganization, and prefer it. It's much easier to get a grasp on which sources are usable. And as mentioned above, you can "control + f" if you're looking for a specific source.
  • I think we should get rid of the table, and not have separate checklist and table sections. Just 4 big groups - Reliable, situational, unreliable, and inconclusive/undiscussed. Sergecross73 msg me 18:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • While I like the formatting of the tables, I think I agree that they aren't really needed and are misleading at worst (quick glance from somebody new to the page might think they are more reliable than the ones in the reliable checklist, but there shouldn't be any difference between them). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Your quick glance is mostly because I don't have all the time in the world and have thus only gotten them partially integrated. It is my intent to have every source present in the table have also its discussions. (Ref the situational list for what a finished reliable list looks like.) --Izno (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
And if that's your intention, I'm fine with that too. I assumed no one was willing to take on the massive task of converting that massive checklist into a table, when it'd be so much easier to integrate the table into the checklist. But if someone is, then I'm fine with that. I just share Dissidents concern - that table items may be perceived has having more importance. Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
My changes do not change that perception whatsoever. The old checklist already has that issue. I'm simply making it apparent now which items do or don't have table entries. --Izno (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I know. I apologize, I didn't mean to make it sound like I was blaming you for that. I'm not. It was merely a thought I've had for a while. I'd been meeting to start a discussion on it weeks back, but I burned myself out working on the music WikiProjects respective list, and didn't feel motivated to start up that debate. Sergecross73 msg me 23:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
And you may have misinterpreted what I said. I'm not trying to turn the checklist into a table--only to integrate with the tables those checklist items which already have table items. --Izno (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah. Okay, well maybe hold off on that part, in case there's support to merge the tables and checklist. Sergecross73 msg me 23:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I think they should ideally all be in tables, or all dumped in a checklist. But either way, that's a lot of tedious work for no real benefit. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Continuing formatting discussion

(Resuming a slightly older discussion, so pinging editors who previously commented: @Czar, Dissident93, SharkD, Sergecross73, and Izno:) I agree with Dissident93 that they should all be uniformly in a table or checklist. Since the talk is where the discussion about a source's reliability took place, it's probably the best place for an interested editor should look to find why a particular source was deemed reliable or unreliable. Therefore, I am in favor of getting rid of the tables and consolidating the page into an alphabetical index (sorted by reliability). E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 20:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I second the checklist suggestion for points explicated above. I'll add that the tables are designed to give background on sources and why they're recommended. They need not be nixed altogether but their purposes shouldn't be intermingled: The checklist has historically been a guide to whether-you-should-use-that-source, and the tables have been a primer for recommended sources and why they're recommended. Most of that realistically happens at the linked discussions, though I imagine there are a small segment of new editors who may find the table introduction useful. If you want to pursue the tables, that's how I'd suggest splitting them out, but separate from the unified alphabetical checklist. czar 20:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    I don't understand. Is the info contained in the tables going to be migrated into the checklist? SharkD  Talk  23:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
    @SharkD: Yes. That is what I am proposing. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 15:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
    Could someone please mock up an example? I am having trouble visualizing this. SharkD  Talk  01:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm definitely in favor of standardizing the format. I just haven't been pushing hard for it because, working on similar tasks on other source lists - it's rather tedious work, and I was wasn't particularly interested in doing it myself, so I didn't think it was right of me to push too hard for it to be done. But I certainly support doing it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Sergecross73: Did you mean wasn't particularly interested in doing it myself? E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 15:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, sorry. Revised. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • One additional component that's on my mind in regards to the WP:FAC process—it might be a good idea for sources that have been used in a successful FAC to be tagged as such with links to the discussion. There's a lot of commentary at video game FACs about "well it's on the reliable sources list", and while that's true, FAC requires more stringent sourcing standards (not just that they're reliable, but they're higher quality) so it would be a help to a lot of editors if there's more useful deliberations easily discoverable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
    @David Fuchs: That's a good idea. FaC discussions are a good additional source of analysis, along with WP:VG/S and WP:RS/N. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 17:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
    Didn't we just have several long discussions about how a source needs to be established within the industry, not necessarily higher quality? SharkD  Talk  01:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Since no one has made a mockup of what the list should ultimately look like, I vote revert to March 9, 2018. SharkD  Talk  22:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Your comment spurred me to finish integration. The reason you haven't seen a mock is because E-PI-I was blocked.
The prior version of this page, before I started working on it, was unequivocally bad and which I will strongly oppose reverting to.
If the tables are valuable for someone (and I think there are sufficient someones given that we have multiple experienced editors acknowledging that they may have some value), then the discussions should appear in the location of the tables. It's that simple to me, as a matter of good writing/organization.
The point is to know whether something is reliable (ctrl+f) and if so, the context of that decision (=table/table comments/discussions). I expect that there is approximately no-one in these discussions or using this page that thinks "oh, I'm just going to browse down the lists one by one in ABC order for... some purpose" without any other context. Whatever purpose that might be. The use case for "supplemental sources" regarding the CSE is interesting, but I think that could be resolved if the CSE was actually kept in sync with this page rather than just randomly updated by whichever person takes the minute or ten to updated it every couple of months. Lastly, I'm not convinced their "historical use" is an interesting point whatsoever. --Izno (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

TouchGen a reliable source for reviews?

The most i found was this list of reviews by Touchgen in Wayback time machine archive site [27]. But WP:VG/RS doesn't recognize it as a reliable/unreliable source. Could someone let me know please? I'm not sure what makes a reliable source for video games.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Some of the things we look at when deciding if a source is reliable or not:
  1. Is there a dedicated staff? Or can anyone post articles. (The latter violates WP:USERG and isn't usable.)
  2. Are there dedicated editors that enforce editorial control?
  3. Is there an editorial policy? Reviews policy? Ethics policy?
  4. Do they have a history of being significant to the industry? Do other websites cite them as an authority on information?
  5. Do the writers have credentials? Have they written for other reliable sources or have formal education in writing/journalism/relevant subject matter? (If they're main credentials are "I really like video games!" or "Been gaming since I was 5!" type stuff, that's generally a point against - it generally means they're more of an amateur enthusiast than a professional writer.)
Its not that you need to check all the boxes, (few websites have editorial, ethics, and review policies, for example) but if you start getting too many "no's" up there, it'll start being hard to convince people. Generally, the easiest way to determine a lot of this stuff is to look at a given website's "About Us" page, Staff listings, and/or individual writer's bio pages. Sometimes looking up writers on Linked In can help identify credentials as well. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Noclip (YouTube channel)

Find video game sources: "Noclip" – 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 Noclip is the name of the YouTube channel started by journalist Danny O'Dwyer that has been doing various levels of documentaries with a good range of video games; he used to work at GameSpot.com doing video production so this is just an extension of this. His documentaries are well recognized (via a google news search), and many of these are directly with the ppl involved. He, for example, is set to realize a history of Bethesda and the making of Fallout 76 next month having gained access to the studio. ---Masem (t) 17:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  • It looks good per above comments. Their intro video paints them in very good light. The author/creator appears to be a notable journalism, so that basically says reliable. A quick look at their content also looks really good. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Adventure Gamers

Find video game sources: "Adventure Gamers" – 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

Why is this listed as a reliable source? And by association, why is coverage in this source used as proof of remarkability towards notability?

Adventure Gamers is constantly looking for good writers. We do not offer paid positions, but we do offer opportunities for volunteers to join our writing staff and share their knowledge with the community. ... You do not have to be a professional writer to write for Adventure Gamers, but you do have to demonstrate your ability to write well and think creatively, as well as some familiarity with the adventure game genre.

Their editorial policy is a start (addresses conflicts of interest, external influence, some review policy, scope), but doesn't address editorial review, which is the most important part. (This was raised as an issue a decade ago, when our standards were even more lax.) Someone once raised that some of their staff hold positions in the games industry, but how many/which? Answer: "a few" (read: an irregularity)

As the majority of Adventure Gamers contributors are volunteers, a few of us hold positions in the game industry, either on a permanent or freelance basis. We strictly avoid conflicts of interest by assigning reviews only to impartial members of staff.

Adventure Gamers started as a humble fan site in 1998 but grew into the biggest online magazine of its kind.

I imagine it's been used because its history makes it some of the oldest adventure games content/reviews on the Internet, but if that content is produced by fans and with no editorial oversight or journalistic credibility, how is their work distinguishable from that of a fan site? czar 13:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

bump czar 02:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks like it fails by allowing pretty much anybody to write an article. I'd say we should remove this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Unreliable by default since "majority of Adventure Gamers contributors are volunteers" and "do not have to be a professional writer". The current bar is to have better writer credentials. If the reviewer is someone with credentials, it likely a fine source (but, of course, same is true for pretty much every "situation" source). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The editor works with reviewers to ensure the score is in line with the tone and contents of the review itself, but will never override the reviewer's final scoring decision. Reviewers' names are never revealed ahead of time and reviewers do not communicate with game companies themselves during the review process, avoiding even the possibility of behind-the-scenes influence, whether personal or monetary.

So they do have a paid professional editor looking over the reviews. Whether the writers are paid or not, doesn't change their writing ability, hopefully that not a reason to judge them. Dream Focus 13:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the phrase "We do not offer paid positions" is a better affirmation of their relationship to compensation than whatever may or may not be suggested in the quoted sentence czar 03:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Switch Player

Find video game sources: "Switch Player" – 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

Hi all, following a conversation on the WikiProject regarding Wheels of Aurelia, the suitability of Switch Player as a reliable source was questioned.

The publication has a free online print, as well as a monthly 60+ page print magazine for over a year.

The magazine has supposedly a team of 11 who work on the magazine, and seem to do a good job of which.

Theres a good interview with the founder and another interview with the executive editor, as well as some.information on Gamasutra. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • From a quick glance, they don't seem any different than any other Nintendo fan-curated platform. Also the fact they are funded by Patreon doesn't really sit well with me. For one, that's not really a stable source of funding for keeping a publication afloat for a long period of time, and two, it could represent a potential conflict of interest from contributors in some way. That Gamasutra link isn't really anything to note either, as it's just a press release they are hosting (and they do that for a lot of things). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Funding only matters to the extent that it ensures quality—that someone actually edits/fact-checks the published piece. Have we any evidence that they do this? czar 13:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Sadly, I'm probably the last person to talk to regarding editorials, and who people are, as I've never taken too much of an interest. However, the executive editor is Paul Murphy who worked as an editor for the Official Nintendo Magazine, and also ran The Vita Lounge. Acording to Nintendo Life, they have collaborations with Laura Kate Dale, Chris Scullion, Tom Phillips and Tim Gettys in the first issue, and The next two issues have Ryan Brown (UK's Daily Mirror), Andy Robertson (Family Gamer TV and Nintendo Life) and Daan "NintenDaan" Koopman all guest writing. However, I couldn't find a full team, or editorial (Hopefully someone else can). I did find a contribute page, that seems to emphesise quality, so that's positive. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Reliable. The fact that they're running a 60+ page magazine every month (that's lasted for more than a year and has more than a dozen reviews an issue) that costs money is reassuring, and the interview with the founder mentions there's 11 staff including an editor (who was also an editor at ONM). Furthermore, the Nintendo Life features show that aside from the core staff, notable and professional writers (from Kotaku, Daily Mirror, and Nintendo Life) have written for Switch Player. I don't see any reasons to suggest they're unreliable. JOEBRO64 20:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Reliable I agree with Lee Vilenski's findings and reasoning. Also someone should probably create an article for them. Dream Focus 13:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    I'll draft up a stub soon. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • ? But making a magazine doesn't mean you have an audience and it certainly doesn't mean the magazine is reputable for fact... It's easier than ever to go print up a magazine, but how big is the run? <500? Is it registered in library reference systems (is it collected?) I fail to see how this is distinguished from a fan project. czar 03:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Surely the big difference is the writing staff and reliability of what is written. A reliable source could produce ten copies of something; but it would still be considered reliable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
email from Switch Player
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thanks for getting in touch and for the possibility of us being cited as a reliable source. I’m happy to answer any questions that you have. Please also accept my apologies for using my Outlook email - my SP email account is bouncing to your email address, saying it's blocked?

The magazine sells through around 500 print copies, the vast majority of which are funded by Patreon, but that’s more for security than anything else, acting as the subscription model. We sell about 100 additional copies each month through the site alone. The magazine receives around 2000-3000 views each month via issuu, which as noted in the conversation piece is free. It’s important to me that as many people get to see the content as possible, which is why it’s available for everyone, albeit with a slight delay to enhance the value to those that choose to pay for it. Collectively, Issuu states that the 15 listed issues have been read over 76,000 times.

We’ve been interview by a couple of smaller enthusiast websites, but we have interview a fair few folks. Mainly indie studios, but I have interviewed Laura Kate Dale and Tim Gettys, and those Kinda Funny folks know about us (we have had smaller nuggets of writing form many folks, like Colin (pre-leaving KF) and Greg. Each month we take paid pitches from freelancers to enhance the quality of content within the publication. We’ve been featured by Nintendo Life prominently and have had mentions on GAF and ERA as well as a few other places. I wrote press releases before for issues but they didn’t really seem to work out too well! I’ve sent bundles of magazines to a variety of press outlets hoping that we will be picked up on it, MCV in the UK are apparently working on something.

We are on Metacritic with over 400 reviews now and we are sent review codes from practically everyone, including Nintendo - whom I have been to see multiple times in Windsor directly to get hands on with a variety of things. The only thing impacting our coverage is the sheer frequency of codes coming in..

http://www.metacritic.com/publication/switch-player

Switch Player Profile - Metacritic www.metacritic.com Read what Switch Player had to say at Metacritic.com

As was noted in your discussion, I was also The Vita Lounge, a website which was founded in 2012 and did the same thing for the Vita, and we ran that for 23 issues (alas, we started the magazine too late in the system’s life) and I have no intention of going anywhere. TVL is STILL online and will remain a vital resource for Vita fans everywhere, forever. The intention is to do the same with Switch Player, and if the Patreon dried up tomorrow, the digital version of the magazine would still be produced, until the system has nothing of any note to justify a monthly magazine.

We are niche, we are specialist, but we are also balanced and each month we strive to improve everything that has gone before. We also know that we are not perfect.

If you have any other questions then please feel free to let me know, and thanks again for the consideration - it’s really appreciated.

Kind Regards

Paul Murphy Founder/Owner Switch Player www.switchplayer.net

Attack of the Fanboy

Find video game sources: “Attack of the Fanboy” – 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 “Attack of the Fanboy” a reliable site? They have a useful article that could serve as a source for the engine that Super Smash Bros. Ultimate was built in, but I’m not sure if the site is a reliable source.

They have an “About” section. Interqwark talk contribs 19:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  • That's a pretty glaring error to be made right off the bat. Their About Us page is pretty lackluster, especially that Mission Statement. Not much in the way of credentials for its writers/staff, editorial policy, etc. I'd say unreliable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_19&oldid=850171138"