Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 11

Armed Gamer
Stumble across this website while looking at an article. Can't really pinpoint its reliability as its probably a small website but that's why we have this page, right? GamerPro64 01:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - no about page, poor-to-mediocre writing, and for that matter no visible editorial policies. --Teancum (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll run through the basic elements of my personal examination for the benefit of Smuckola's checklist question above. Important to note that this is a multi-factor test and none of these factors alone is dispositive. Again, this is not a checklist, but a multi-factor test and each source should be considered on its individual merits. So opinions may vary and multi-editor consensus is required. -Thibbs (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Have we discussed this before? - No. Nothing in the talk page archives here or at RSN.
 * Reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - ❌ - There are zero references to armedgamer from any of our RSes or Situational RSes. I do see references from Gamesided (RS discussion) here.
 * Credentials of staff - ❌ - No published staff roll, but the sole editor seems to be Stephen Crane who is described in the self-published Armed Gamer Digest (link) as "A 26 year old gamer who got hooked by the NES at a very young age and never looked back. He games on a daily basis and is currently trying to climb his way up the ranked ladder on League of Legends". There seems to be nothing in the way of academic, professional, or industry credentials. I haven't examined the freelancers in depth. There could be room for case-by-case Situational use for individual freelancers established as experts in the relevant field.
 * Published editorial policies and guidelines - - I don't see any "about" page or other information related to editorial policies. The best I could find was this. On the positive side, however, it looks like there is no user-submitted material. This could be cleared up by writing to the website and getting a statement form them.
 * Other factors - ❌
 * Awards and accolades - I don't see anything in the way of awards/accolades.
 * Longevity of publication and citation - The website has been up and running since at least 2011 (Internet Archive link). (Domain name registered in August 2009 according to whois). Not particularly long-lasting.
 * Print or online? - This is an online source with a self-published print component. The print version does not have an ISSN or ISBN.
 * Conclusion - ❌ - I agree with Teancum. It doesn't look good to me. -Thibbs (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - I agree with Thibbs's analysis. Sergecross73   msg me  15:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Undetermined
Hi guys. I'd be obliged if someone would be able to toss me a sentence or a link about why this section is supposedly allowed, if it is. Isn't it categorically going to violate WP:CRYSTALBALL unless there already exists some wide coverage by reliable sources of a super high profile title? And it'd have to definitely include only those which have Wikipedia articles. All of the titles currently in that section are either WP:CRYSTALBALL or straight nonexistent. Am I right? I have every inclination to delete the entire section and its contents. Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 12:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not include it unless since there are no sources. On a related note, this is not the best place to bring this up because this is a talk page for a souring guideline page, not a general page about video games. In the future it would be best to ask at the talkpage of the article in question or WP:VG--66.130.191.63 (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with you removing it. The whole things unsourced, so you'd honestly be free to challenge any of it, let along the CRYSTAL stuff. Also, the IP above is correct, this page is largely for people questioning whether or not a source is usable, so you may not get a huge response here. Then again, I don't think you need much input here, I'd say just go for it. Sergecross73   msg me  13:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Zeldadungeon
I've just written a Themes section for the Majora's Mask article (in the same style as the section seen in the Blade Runner FA), and used this source, specifically this article, to source interpretations on the game's theme of friendship and healing. I think it's a situational source and valid for my purpose, but I'd be interested in what you guys think. A link search reveals it's been linked from the Ocarina of Time FA so I assume it's okay, but I couldn't see it on this project's checklist. Autonova (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Cracked
Further to my discussion on Zeldadungeon above, I also used cracked.com, specifically this article, in sourcing a popular interpretation on Majora's Mask, which I included in the new Themes section. The site lists the identities of writers and editors and it seems reliable to me, but again I should let you guys have a look. Autonova (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While Cracked likely meets the definition of a WP:RS, I'd caution users to be very careful when using them as a source. They say a lot of things that are sarcastic, satirical, exaggerated, or rather opinionated. You'd have to be pretty careful with how you use it. They cite a lot of the sources they use, which could be better things to cite too if the source is reliable and a little more straightforward with their writing. (Also, while its fine to discuss and determine, "Cracked" wouldn't really be one to add to our charts either way, because we only list video game/technology specific sources here, FYI.) Sergecross73   msg me  18:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess that'd make Cracked a situational source, huh? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 15:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to get the input of more people first really. I read the site, as I find it generally entertaining, but they jump to some bizarre/unlikely conclusions in some of their articles... Sergecross73   msg me  16:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources of sources
Here are some of the best places I've found for sources on classic video games, computers, and other things. But the other things often do include games and computers.


 * The_Wikipedia_Library/Journals This is a new project which pays to gain collective access to proprietary archives of print media, sharing it free of charge to Wikipedia editors. I have not evaluated its efficacy to our cause.  They say it is funded by a grant and is currently underutilized. They want help with publicity on WikiProject pages and user pages.
 * Billboard magazine is on Google Books. I have found many indepth interviews with Howard Lincoln, Hiroshi Yamauchi, and details about St.GIGA and Satellaview. I was surprised to find Japanese-only things, but it's a broad coverage of all types of global media.  Be sure to cite the date, volume, issue, and page numbers. There are samples of many books, and there are many other magazines.
 * Computer magazines at Internet Archive
 * Video game magazines at Internet Archive
 * And I definitely won't mention these sources.

And there are archives of every kind of video game and computer software at Internet Archive. I've vaguely read that all of this is available via a temporary DMCA exemption, so I don't know whether it's suitable to link from WP:VGRS, but the software itself is a literary source. We're not distributing it here, but maybe could link to one who apparently legally does distribute it. I'll defer to someone who more thoroughly understands the facts. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 15:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, Smuckola. You might want to look through the WP:VG Reference Library to see if any of this appears there as well and add links where appropriate. -Thibbs (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, I didn't realize Billboard covered much video game stuff. I've always just used them in my music articles. Thanks for the heads up. Sergecross73   msg me  16:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There's also User:JimmyBlackwing/Sourcing video game articles czar ⨹   15:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, though that's a user essay so it shouldn't really be edited without JimmyBlackwing's permission. -Thibbs (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Metacritic User Score
Is the Metacritic User Score usable. I would think not, for similar reasons described at WP:MOSFILM. However, I can't find a similar text about the audience response at, for example, WP:VG/S. Where do I need to look, what is the guideline? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you've identified the relevant portion of WP:VG/RS. Specifically I would highlight the line: "Many sites allow users to submit content, like Wikipedia itself. These reviews are often not independent, and are not reliable because they have not been checked for factuality by an editor." WP:VG/RS is also subsidiary to the Wikipedia-wide guideline, WP:USERGENERATED. Which is pretty clear. I'd be open to suggestions to clarify/improve the language at WP:VG/S, though, if you think it would help. Do you have a specific proposal for text to add? -Thibbs (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not useable. WP:USERG is a more general thing to cite, it really isn't acceptable anywhere. I suppose we could state it more outright if it really isn't... Sergecross73   msg me  23:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thibbs and Sergecross73, thank you for your replies. Yes, I think it would be good if we would state outright in WP:VG/S that user review scores such as those from Metacritic are not usable per WP:USERG. The manual of style for film-related articles gives as arguments that such scores are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. I think the same would apply here. Maybe we could also use the statements that polls not carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner are not usable, and that the general public has no proven expertise or credibility in the field. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK what about this? Shall we add the following text: "Aggregated user-submitted content (e.g. "user scores" and "user polls") available on Metacritic, Game Rankings, and other aggregators is not considered reliable because it is susceptible to vote-stacking and demographic skew, and because the general public has no proven expertise or credibility in the field." We could add it to the very end of the section here after "...but this does not show in the scores." Is that OK? Any suggestions for tweaks to this text? -Thibbs (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I'd slide a mention of USERG in there somewhere, but otherwise I think it's good. Sergecross73   msg me  13:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible to me too, I'd always taken this as the consensus but wasn't aware it wasn't written obviously anywhere. Sam Walton (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK I added the text now. I added in a link to USERG as well per Serge's suggestion, but I did it earlier in the subsection where user-generated material is first brought up. You can review my edit . Feel free to make any tweaks as needed. -Thibbs (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, I just found an enlightening summary of the position deserved by Metacritic and numerical ratings in general, written in terms of their advantages and disadvantages. A lot of reliable sources are said to be allegedly abandoning the practice of numerical ratings. — Smuckola(talk) 18:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

MMOs.com
MMOs.com has been added to a variety of articles by User:MMOPhilosopher in the past month. That user has just been warned for spamming, but I'm also concerned about the site's general reliability. I'm inclined to revert all of these but I thought I'd bring it to the community first.

My impression is that MMOs.com should be considered unreliable. I am unable to find anything about editorial policies or control, and no author by-lines. In fact, according to their About Us page, they appear to use "free lance" writers rather than staff. Like "free lance", their articles are filled with spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. They prominently link to specific, recommended games, which is probably advertising. And they're run by the founders of MMOHut, which is specifically considered unreliable by us. Other opinions before I revert? Woodroar (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the spam warning on the user's talk page though I didn't revert or edit any of their edits (yet), and I support what you're saying here. I looked at the website and there was no indication of any kind of professionalism, like it could very well be some random persons trying to create a popular website. Though I'm guessing it cost a lot of money to buy that domain name. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Before you revert the changes, take note that I've fixed numerous actual problems on various wiki pages as well as clarified things and was never warned up until today. I was adding value, not just spamming links. I may have gotten a bit ahead of myself, but please look at the actual changes. I've deleted dead links, removed a few obviously spam links, updated incorrect information, clarified / re-worded poorly written sentences and added official website links as sources. Plus many of game pages I edited had no references, and the official game pages don't mention the very specific content that was already talked about and needed a source. The links from wikipedia are no-follow anyway and don't pass on any search engine Juice, so there's nothing to gain aside from "click" traffic (which is literally 1 person a day from all articles. I genuinely thought I was enhancing these articles, had I been warned earlier I would have stopped and kept my edits simpler. My motivation behind the edits were to enhance the pages on Wikipedia, many of which were very out dated. EQ2/Planetside 2 didn't even update developer/publisher until I did it. I'd like to continue contributing if possible and would even do so without ever putting any sources if that's preferred. - MMOPhilosopher — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMOPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 16:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, your other edits have been fine. It's been the singular addition of MMOs.com, which appears to be an unreliable site, which is the issue. Woodroar (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "and would even do so without ever putting any sources if that's preferred" -- when you're adding new information then you need to cite a reliable source. So, no, that's not preferred.
 * also when removing dead links one should check first if a copy of that page exists on http://web.archive.org — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added links to official game sources, ie. for Angels Online I cited their official site. I won't be adding any more links to mmos, I was under the impression that I was adding value since it was recent relevant source.. A lot of the obscure games like Angels Online will never be reviewed again by traditional gaming sources, and those games have all changed drastically over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMOPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 17:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think your edits should not be reverted without looking, I think they should be edited. Specifically any ref to the mmos site should be replaced with a 'citation needed' tag. Because it's better to have that tag instead of an unreliable source, for at least two reasons. One, people can see that a source is needed and they might be able to provide one. Two, we can't allow anyone to engage in ref-spamming whether they're doing it knowingly or in good faith, because it will encourage others. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

VGMdb
I see this site often. It's user-submitted and unreliable, right? Any objections to listing it as such? czar ⨹   14:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I feel like we've discussed it in the past, and that's the conclusion we came to. Sergecross73   msg me  15:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

My recent edit to Polish entries
The Polish entries were originally added as a result of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 6, copied from the analogous page on pl.wiki. For sake of completness, I now went and added links to the pl.wiki page so that users of this page can quickly learn what rationale was originally used to assess these sources. For the unreliable and situational sources, I had to link to an old revision of the pl.wiki page, because it had descriptions of non-reliable sources deleted back in 2013 by consensus. JudgeDeadd (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This edit made several sources situational where they were previously deemed unreliable. Moreover, quoting from that Archive 6 (which had no consensus and was already completed at the time 3 years ago): I'd feel more comfortable if  were to review the changes before we accept them carte blanche. (I thought every wiki did their rules differently, too?) czar  ⨹   20:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think that situational Polish sources should be considered non-reliable. As I said earlier, it seems to me a step too far to assume that English natives will be able to appropriately deal with the specific requirements of a situational source in another language. I will try to look into the proposal more closely in the next few days, though. As far as the issue of different language Wikipedias using different rules, I think that's a case by case issue. For example in this case I remember that the Polish Wikipedia had simply translated its RS rules directly from the en.wiki RS rules. Presumably the interpretation of the same text (including direct translations) would be the same regardless of language or nationality. -Thibbs (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I apologize. Fixed (changed "situational" back to "unreliable"). JudgeDeadd (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. I just looked it over and fixed one more you'd missed. -Thibbs (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Is 'GamesNosh' reliable?
I noticed that an IP added an entry for a website called 'GamesNosh' at Donkey Kong Country (an article I'm currently in the process of bringing up to GA). I've never heard of this website before and it's not even on WP:VG/RS. A quick look at its website doesn't do it any favours. Should it be deleted? ☠ JAG  UAR  ☠ 23:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - The "About Us" Staff Page doesn't instill any confidence. They just seem to be some random fans that started up a blog-like website. They assert themselves as the premiere UK video game website but I don't see anything that especially supports that, especially considering it started from scratch in 2014. I think they may have been deemed unusable back in all those GamerGate discussions too, though I'm not sure, as I could be remembering a different generic video game website upstart, and really don't want to wade through all those lengthy debates... Sergecross73   msg me  00:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're referring to Niche Gamer. But I will admit that in its current standings there doesn't seem to be much credibility for it now. Maybe in the future or something when its been around longer than a year. GamerPro64  00:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Daily Dot
I was under the impression that The Daily Dot was already seen as reliable based on its incidence in other articles, but I didn't see it on our list and its related pages at RSN were not favorable. Thoughts? The specific use I have in mind is its articles on eSports, specifically a team called Cloud9, in order to prove notability. Daily Dot gives the team way more coverage than any other site on our list. czar ⨹   00:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked into this myself yet, but I skimmed through the RSN discussions and my impression is that the community consensus is largely favorable. The more recent discussions are trending in a negative direction, but I view them more as carve-outs to the general idea that it's a reliable source. To be specific I see the basic RS determination in this discussion, a carve-out that Daily Dot writer "Eordogh" is non-RS in this discussion, and a carve-out for contentious BLP issues in this discussion. If you are looking to use the Daily Dot source for non-contentious claims about Cloud9 then I think that would be fine. We might want to ping some of the editors who commented at RSN (Silver_seren, TRPoD, and Liz might be good candidates) for their thoughts. -Thibbs (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

JayIsGames
There have been several past discussions about JayIsGames, but they were all in 2011 and earlier. The main consensus from them was that, due to the site accepting user reviews, it was a situational reliable source and, generally, only reviews by Jay Bibby, the creator, were considered reliable. I would like to point out that, since 2011, the site has hired several editorial staff members for the site. They still allow submitted user reviews, which will obviously not be considered reliable, but there are other reviews that I feel should be considered reliable. Obviously, any reviews by Jay Bibby, but I want to suggest also reviews by Dora Breckinridge, the Chief Editor of the site that manages the content and approves other reviews and also runs the official Twitter, to be considered reliable. She was hired on in 2012, after the previous VG/S discussions, so she wouldn't have been considered back then. Silver seren C 23:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a "about" type page that lists who is hired? I'm not easily seeing one there, but it would help to confirm who we can put under the situational umbrella. --M ASEM  (t) 00:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there isn't such a page that I can find. The only route to confirm their actual hired people might be to contact them directly. But, further evidence of Dora being a hired person, the actual Contact page has her email listed as the one to contact for game submissions to be reviewed. Silver  seren C 00:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, i've just sent an email to the JayIsGames contact email, so hopefully i'll hear back soon with a list of their official paid staff. Silver  seren C 01:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, that would work if they could do that. I agree that JIG is something we should consider for mobile/flash-style games but definitely want to limit to those employeed on the site. --M ASEM (t) 01:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dora responded. Quite quickly, I might add. It looks like she is the only salaried person on the site, the rest of the reviews are just freelancers paid per article. So I guess just her reviews (and Jay Bibby's, though I don't think he's done reviews in quite some time) would count as reliable sources. Which is still good, since she is quite prolific in her review output. It's something, at least. Do I have your agreement in the reliability of at least her reviews then? Silver  seren C 02:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's satisfies me. --M ASEM (t) 02:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends whether she is paid as an editor and fact-check as opposed to something else. If no one is checking work, what separates her from a paid freelancer? I'd be hesitant to include even situationally before some assurance of this. czar ⨹   11:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

BuzzFeed
I'm surprised that Buzzfeed hasn't been discussed here before. But I've noticed that its used on a few pages. I don't personally find this site to be reliable at all, with its notoriety of click bait articles, and it being accused of plagiarism which I didn't know about until now. Just doesn't seem like the best choice to be used as a reliable source on this site at all. GamerPro64 01:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:RSN BF situational notability. Older articles had no fact-checking and some newer ones do, so it depends on the author and the claim. This is more for their longform reports—I wouldn't count their listicles as significant coverage for purposes of proving notability. czar  ⨹   11:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's kind of like "Cracked" - there's some truth in there, but there's commonly a lot of slanted info in there too. Sergecross73   msg me  00:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed additions to the list
I've determined that the following sources are most likely reliable for eSports. I'm still trying to find non-English language sources that might be reliable. (edit: more sources) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk • contribs)
 * http://www.dailydot.com
 * http://www.na.lolesports.com
 * http://www.pcgamesn.com
 * http://www.eslgaming.com
 * http://www.esportsmax.com
 * http://www.redbull.com
 * http://www.hltv.org
 * http://www.sk-gaming.com
 * http://www.smitecentral.com/
 * http://esportgo.com/
 * http://www.esl-one.com/gate/
 * For starters, we only list video game specific sources (that's why the undeniably reliable New York Times isn't on there) so that may discount a few...Secondly, you get more feedback if you give some actual reasons for your stance... Sergecross73   msg me  00:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Daily Dot is already under consideration above. For the rest, we need to know about their fact-checking policies and reputations for reliability, one at a time. czar ⨹   01:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, Redbull has had a bit of prior discussion as well (no consesus though): see archived link. -Thibbs (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of these seem eSports focussed. I know HLTV only covers competitive Counter-Strike and nothing more.  Most of the stuff they cover isn't notable or mentioned on any other gaming websites. Reliable or not, it really seems like a source to just pad out eSports pages with non-encyclopaedic and non-notable content. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Careful mixing the concept of notability into a discussion on RS. The only question you should be asking is "does this source have a reputation for fact-checking?". --Izno (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I guess I misspoke, by "notable" I mean, widely read and reliable. Also, if the website has a whole section and editorial staff dedicated to video games, does that count as video game specific?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Gaming Trend
Marking this as unreliable. About page: No editorial oversight. – czar   14:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - I agree, it checks several of the marks against Wikipedia's standard for being reliable. Sergecross73   msg me  00:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Defunct Games
Defunct Games has come up on two occasions here with little dialogue. I don't see how the site could be reliable. Its main writer, Cyril Lachel, is most closely affiliated with Gaming Nexus, which we have marked as unreliable. Defunct's "about" page says nothing about editorial oversight and their "now hiring" page says even more in its title, posted in 2013: "Help Wanted: How to Work Really Hard for No Money" ... "We've grown into a website that cannot be run by one single person." Mark as unreliable. – czar   12:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Internet Game Database (IGDB.com)
Can this be added to unreliable sources? As far as I know, it's a database that relies on user submitted content. Site FAQ:, About:  --The1337gamer (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I represent IGDB.com and would like to shed some light on the process of how credits are added and our attitude towards reliable data. We are young, but aim to align ourselves to Wikipedia's requirements for reliability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources and believe we have achieved that with our end credits pages. We are a commercial enterprise but are not affiliated with any organisation or individual listed in our credits. Our credits page is not a sales page. Users are forced to contribute data using a reference and we currently only accept a recording of the video games "end credits" on Youtube as a reference. This means the data is from the actual source. After submission, these are then manually evaluated and confirmed by a member of staff, by comparing the data to the actual video stream. In the future, other references may be possible but the submission evaluation will be as stringent as it is currently. For instance, these credits was manually transcribed from this Youtube-video . For clarity we will start posting the Youtube-URL used as source and the date retrieved. With this in mind I believe that we could be considered as a situational source and our credits information reliable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.38.204 (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't achieved Wikipedia's requirement for reliability. The fundamental operation of IGDB, which relies on user generated content fails Wikipedia's criteria for reliability (see WP:UGC).  It is self-published information and even with curation, other similar websites are listed as unreliable (Mobygames, IMDB, IGN wiki, Giant Bomb wiki, etc).  We use secondary sources (published articles) for credits but if that is not possible we already have a template in place for citing a scene within a video game like the end credits. Also note that self-published YouTube videos also fall under WP:UGC, only official accounts of developers/publishers/other media sites confirmed reliable are usable on Wikipedia.  So your usage of them as a source doesn't satisfy Wikipedia criteria for reliability either.  --The1337gamer (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We of course respect your decision and will not appeal this further. Although please be aware that video game credits are almost never archived/saved by the game companies. This means that the animated end credits shown in-game, in many cases, are the only existing, official, record available containing information about the people involved creating a game. This is certainly true for defunct game companies. If we cannot reference to the only available official record, what other official sources are there to reference? A question though, if we would host the videos containing the end credits ourselves, could we then be considered as a situational reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.38.204 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Gamesetwatch
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/ is the link. Is Gamesetwatch a reliable source? Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 10:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Its been determined to be. consensus. GamerPro64  17:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Gamebits
Their about page says their column was published in a couple of major publications, which I haven't verified, but the staff doesn't look too hot from the journalistic expertise side. I don't see the editorial oversight either... – czar   05:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - I'm not seeing anything worthwhile on this site. GamerPro64  01:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

GameCritics?
Unless I'm missing something on the page, I'm surprised GameCritics is not on the list of sources? I'm also here to ask if it's reliable, as I'm in the process of bringing an article up to GA with one of its reviews included. Its about us page has a list of critics and a philosophy, but even so, I'm still unsure if it can be used as a source. If it's already on the list of reliable sources as a different name or if it has been discussed about before, then I'm sorry to bring it up. JAG UAR   22:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks unreliable. I see no hallmarks of reliability (editorial oversight or industry expertise). – czar   23:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. A couple of the critics I have checked have professional backgrounds but the fact that the about-us page states that "anyone can apply" to be a critic makes me unsure... and I'm still lingering on building up one of the reviews as I don't feel qualified enough to decide whether or not it can be used! JAG  UAR   16:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Both founders and every editor I spot checked were hobbyists (no professional pedigrees). That aside, there's no editorial policy of oversight or any other sign that it's a source of repute. – czar   17:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've removed the GameCritics mention from the article. JAG  UAR   21:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

GameRanx and DualShockers
Been seeing GameRanx being used lately (mostly for "Best of" list), while DualShockers I've have heard was reliable but there wasn't any real consensus on it.

GameRanx: http://www.gameranx.com

DualShockers: http://www.dualshockers.com

GamerPro64 02:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Dualshockers was deemed unreliable. I'm always removing it from Tezero's work, and I thought that was why... Sergecross73   msg me  02:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the archives, there's wasn't any real consensus made. Just some talks about COI and spam issues. Nothing much on its merit. GamerPro64  02:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there an argument for its reliability? I see no editorial policy and its EIC has no industry experience. Otherwise it looks like a straightforward no. – czar   05:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Saw it mentioned at Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy's FAC so might as well give it its day in court. GamerPro64  06:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say unreliable. The staff has no special credentials and I see no reputation for checking facts. It's used twice in that FAC article: once as a news post and once as a longer piece by Alexa Ray Corriea (even though the current site doesn't show author bylines). She wrote it freelance but later worked at Polygon and GameSpot, so I'm not sure how I'd treat that one, but the site generally has no hallmarks of reliability. – czar   16:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Unreliable - per Czar, and the prior discussion. Sergecross73   msg me  16:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Gameranx looks unreliable as well, same as last time. They have an ethics policy but no formal editorial oversight (apart from an anonymous source measure in the ethics policy). – czar   16:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's expand upon GameRanx. They're owned by Complex, which I've also seen be used for "best of" lists. So how reliable is its parent website? GamerPro64  21:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have an extended opinion of Complex Media, but their list of game website holdings doesn't indicate whether any of the magazine's oversight extends to the sub-sites. (For that matter, I'm not even sure of the relation between Complex the magazine and the website.) And as most of the regulars here already know, I don't think much of the "top X" listicles as articles that we should be citing for any real editorial import. So I don't know what's up with Complex, but their gaming sites appear to be functioning apart from whatever editorial oversight they have, and they each should be evaluated on their own merits. – czar   22:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Some cleanup to do: Special:LinkSearch/*.dualshockers.com – czar   01:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hm, how much is relevant to be cited by other RSes? It's cited by CNET, Time, VG247, GameZone, GameSpot, among others according to the WP:VG/RS searching tool. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It factors in, but in this case I'd say that DualShockers is being cited the same way they would cite a third party blog or critic. Professional credibility is usually a factor alongside (not in replacement of) editorial oversight. But I've said enough on this so others should chime in. – czar   02:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Dorkly
Do we have a stance on Dorkly? They seem to have their own staff], though not that big of one, and are apparently owned by the same people who do College Humor. I'm not overly familiar with their work though. Thoughts? Sergecross73  msg me  13:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say unreliable and not particularly useful anyway. Their content is designed to entertain rather than inform. Most of their articles are just dumb trivia or "what if" lists and they publish stuff like  without making it clear that it is false and satire. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this being unreliable. Would consider it to be as reliable as Cracked as both are just humor websites and don't add much substance to a page. GamerPro64  17:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I assumed it would be considered unreliable or impractical for use. (I don't think I've really wanted to use it in 6 yrs of video game article writing.) I figured I'd ask, and also use it as an example as to how handle questions about sources to someone I'm trying to inform about Wikipedia. So thanks, this was a good example of how it goes. Sergecross73   msg me  16:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The Jimquistion
Saw this on the Hatred (video game) page. Recalling that Jim Sterling left The Escapist a couple of months ago, as well as him formally from Destructoid, there may be some reliability from him. Like Robert Christgau for music. Though it just being a WordPress website does make it come off more as a blog. GamerPro64 04:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd actually support this. Jim is one of the finest games journalists we have and, surprisingly, has been on metacritic since The Jimquisition (.com) launched. I'd call him reliable, but probably deserves to fall into situational until graduation (similar to The Escapist). Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 06:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * He's certainly been cited by a large number of RSes in the past and I believe he has something of a reputation as an "established expert on the subject matter" whose work in the relevant field has been reliably published in the past. As such his I think his writing at other sites might be considered to be reliable as a "self-published expert source". -Thibbs (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For what its worth Robert Christgau is definitely the exception, not the rule, over at WP:ALBUMS. Just about every source that has been suggested on the grounds of "He's like Christgau" has largely been rejected. Its rather hard to be elevated quite to that level. Not sure JS is there or not. Sergecross73   msg me  14:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sterling isn't high tier of a critic like Christgau is. I meant more of individual's writing reviews instead of being part of a established websites like his previous venues. GamerPro64  16:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Bumping this for a bit more attention, as he was briefly used at Fallout Shelter till being removed in favor of IGN as a better source. The archives suggests that nearly 5 years ago there was one lengthy-ish section about him, with a lot of back and forth that seemed mostly tied to personal taste of him. -- ferret (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to use his statements of opinion but the point of a reliable source is editorial oversight for statements of facts. As a one-man outlet, the Jimquisition is feasibly never the best source for statements of fact. Even then, I'd only use his opinion when it is notable, as in referenced by other outlets, but even then I'd cite that secondary source instead of Jimquisition directly... I'd also be hesitant to give him "self-published expert source" carte blanche and I think the guideline's advice on that mirrors what I just said. So, situational. – czar   17:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As it seems I forgot to say something, I threw him into situational alongside Jay is Games (and correcting a small thing about screwattack). I figured this wouldn't hurt anybody. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 06:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

CinemaBlend
Currently CinemaBlend isn't considered reliable due to this discussion five years ago. However, it also has a question mark next to it on the checklist. The site doesn't seem too bad in terms of reliability. Would at least consider it Situational. GamerPro64 21:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Lots of PR talk on their about pages (and was recently purchased by Gateway Media). I don't see a compelling reason to trust it—no editorial policy, no staff pedigrees, and the only ways in which it's cited by other VGRS is in rumors or their interviews. I'd be hesitant to give them carte blanche or even situational status (situational for what cases?) – czar   22:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly I thought it had potential after reading some articles used in the Giant Bomb article, which was used multiple times. GamerPro64  00:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Arcade History
Previous discussions of Arcade History found it to be a fansite with no editorial backing. Does it make sense to have this as an external link template when we have KLOV and Moby, which appear to be better alternatives by every measure? – czar   03:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The RS demands are a little looser for external links. See WP:ELMAYBE #4. It might be worth contacting some of the members of the (now defunct) WP:VG Arcade Taskforce to see if they consider the website a "knowledgeable source" (to use ELMAYBE's phrasing). -Thibbs (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That VideoGame Blog
Discussed briefly once before, but wanted to confirm that this site is unreliable so it gets the X. No reputation for fact-checking or reliability. Writers page, no editorial policy. – czar   16:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The website does have a staff and the the "our team" page explains their credentials. I wouldn't go so far as to say that any of them could be considered "established experts" (using the language from WP:SPS), but this should be tempered with the fact that the website does see some citations and praise from our listed RSes including CNET (here) and Gamezone (here). Following up on the previous discussion, - did you get a chance to contact the website? If so, do they have a process for editorial oversight? -Thibbs (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

https://www.superdataresearch.com/blog/
I've spotted this quite a bit lately, but someone was specifically calling it out as a "random blog" and removing Gamesindustry.biz sources due to the fact that they reference it. My position in that particular case is that Gamesindustry is a reliable source, so we presume they vetted it.

That said, I'm not sure Super Data Research might not be a reliable source in and of itself... thoughts? -- ferret (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite certain this is reliable. Their about page shows that they are involved with major companies. Might need to be looked at more. GamesIndustry is definitely reliable, though. GamerPro64  23:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

TechRaptor discussion
This site was discussed before with only one response and no determined opinion on its reliability. But after it being mentioned in the GamerGate talk page I think it should get looked at again. At the very least it might fall under situational. GamerPro64 23:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In that giant ethics page, I ironically see no hallmarks of editorial control. They're not going to take bribes, though. I see a review scores policy. I see no staff credentials and no requirement for staff credentials. Even minding Thibbs's mention from last time on how their reporting was picked up—I'm not convinced by that as a measure on its own. Needs to have some semblance of experience and fact-checking. No reason to accept this as a reliable source—it's just a blog. – czar   23:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. This was also discussed at RSN and GGC Talk with plenty of reasons to consider it unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Twinfinite
I've seen this site used a couple of times so might as well get other peoples opinion on this site. They have a Resume and Review Policy so that might make things easier to determine. GamerPro64 03:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Khabal
Well, this is an interesting find. Khabal came up in a recent AfD and it looks considerably professional for the time period (early 2000s). It was apparently an Asian video games website owned by the Internet portal Lycos and was sold in 2003—not sure how that affected its reporting. It appears to have had staff writers with real, full names, and the content does not appear user-submitted. I could use some help identifying the history of the publication and the credentials of its authors, but I thought it looked surprising good for something unknown to us. Here's a list of reviews. – czar   06:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Gamestyle
So besides being briefly discussed here many years ago, there hasn't been much consensus on its reliability here. Looks like a regular blog so I don't really see much reliability. GamerPro64 03:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The Mary Sue revisited
I brought this up on another talk page, but I think it needs to be addressed more here. This recent article is promoted on the website, and while clearly an opinion piece by non-regulars to the site, there is no indication it is an opinion piece other than the 'contributor' header. Additionally the article's very title, stating a fact about the character and that we as an audience should "deal with it". raises some red flags for me that the site itself may not making a distinction between factual article and opinion pieces. Additionally looking through other articles on the site there is no distinction of such here: every article I click states "contributor", even when the website's own staff is involved.

At the very least I do feel this source needs to be regarded as situational and not considered entirely reliable, with a distinction being whether or not the cited member is a part of the website's direct staff or not. Thoughts on the subject?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We do consider The Mary Sue as a situational source: they are reliable for their original content, but any reblogged ("via") content would be evaluated based on its original source. This has been discussed here at WPVG and at RSN. The Mary Sue is cited by other reliable sources, they are part of Abrams Media, and they have all the hallmarks of a reputable publication (including known editors and contributors). In short, they have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that we look for in a reliable source. Woodroar (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A bit of an aside. I love how this one article is setting the Samus Aran talk page on fire. GamerPro64  01:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I chimed in there. As far as I'm concerned, it's more an issue of WP:UNDUE than reliability. Woodroar (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I noticed the discussion at another Talk page - My thoughts are as follows: WP:FRINGE (without comment as to whether it is also fringe) for "Samus Aran is a trans woman" or variations thereof; WP:UNDUE (in isolation) for "how desperate LGBTQ gamers are to find faces and stories like their own in games" (usable as attributed opinion with other supporting sources); Reliable for the authors opinions at their BLP page; Suggestive that TMS sources should be reviewed as to the balance of opinion v factual journalism, and consequent in-text attribution. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Game Freaks 365
Noticed a single editor has been adding this website as reference to game articles since 2009. From the brief search I've done, it is the editor's own personal blog. Assuredly, an unreliable source. So unless anyone contests I'm gonna go ahead and purge it from all articles. --The1337gamer (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you contacted someone on this self-promotion? GamerPro64  23:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, only noticed it last night right before I posted this here. What's the best way to handle this?  The editor hasn't received any prior warning and they don't edit frequently.  So as the issue has never been brought up before, I was thinking of just explaining that they shouldn't do it on their talk page. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe bring it up to an admin. Maybe Sergecross, Masem, or PresN would know what to do. GamerPro64  13:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I can just give them a friendly notification for right now, telling them its not okay, and requesting they stop, unless Masem or PresN think something else is more appropriate. I think that's all we need to do unless he refuses to stop. Who's the editor/where is it being posted? Sergecross73   msg me  13:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * is the editor. Here's a list of external links to the site:  --The1337gamer (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The website isn't currently loading for me, but was there something on the website that linked it to the editor? Or is the connection just the likelihood that, if someone keeps citing the same website, there's probably a connection? On that note, I just noticed now that you offered to explain it to them. I'll gladly do it, but if you want to, you're free to as well. You know Wikipedia well, and its not like it takes an Admin to give a notification/warning. Let me know. Sergecross73   msg me  14:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Iupolisci's user page says he is a Political Science major at Indiana University South Bend. The owner of Game Freaks 365 is Political Science major at Indiana University South Bend: . I'm fine with notifying them. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

PC Games N
Is this usable or not? My gut instinct is telling me no, since the about page doesn't really have a lot of info, but I figured that I should ask. I wanted to use this preview/review for a potential page on the Lakeview Cabin series. The site has been quoted by IBT, but that seems to be the only mention I can really find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Already I don't like the fact that there are user-submitted content and no Staff page. Makes it really hard to tell what to use. GamerPro64  14:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm. I've been using PCGamesN for a while and sort of assumed it was reliable, but looking at it now I'm not so convinced. Their about us page states that they wish to create "the fastest, most focussed and most fun PC games community ever" which doesn't strike me with confidence. Sam Walton (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm not seeing any reliability to this. I'm gonna go with Unreliable. GamerPro64  23:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Unreliable, at least from what I can easily see. Yep, I see no hallmarks of editorial control. Their reports have been used by other RS but I don't see anyone speaking to its fact-checking, quality, or reputation. Best I can do is that they're expanding their content farm and that they've hired someone with industry experience. – czar   01:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks÷ guys! I figured that it'd be a "no", but I know that sometimes reviews can be usable so I wanted to make sure. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable - This is a professional publication based in the UK, founded by ex-Future staff. It's essentially exactly the same story as Rock, Paper, Shotgun. - hahnch e n 17:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Original and Curated content? So essentially PCGamesN is a mix of professional and user content. How do you tell the difference? GamerPro64  17:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All the posts on the site are written by professionals. They never launched a user-blog feature that I know of, they also dialled back their "channel" format since launch so you don't have things like DotaN any more. - hahnch e n 17:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That link says that a veteran editor founded the site and that they hope to have "editorial quality" (i.e., their plans), but it doesn't say anything about their editorial control in action or the actual reliability of their content. – czar   18:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

GamersHell
I've been seeing this website lately and have no idea what it is. To the point i thought it was called "GamerShell". Anyway, checking previous discussions doesn't help me believing its reliability (1, 2, 3). So does this meet criteria for reliability? GamerPro64 15:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the previous discussions, but this website pops up all the time on the custom search. I don't think I've ever used it as a source, their content doesn't seem to have much substance to it.  Alot of press releases and rehashing/mirroring of standard news.  Do they produce any original content?  They haven't published a review in over 2 years and I see no editorial policy or indication to suggest it is reliable source. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (I've always wondered if its "gamer shell" or "gamers hell" as well, especially as neither particularly makes any sense...) They do have an established staff, and have apparently been around for 16 years...but there doesn't appear to be any actual credentials or information listed for this list of names, nor do they seem to have an editorial policy listed. I'd probably go with unreliable unless people dig up info on the writers themselves, and finds that they've written for other RS's, in which maybe a situational could be argued... Sergecross73   msg me  16:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have much time to dig into the issue at present, but I wanted to note for the record that I have also had doubts about this source. I mostly use it for press releases which can be reliable as primary or self-published sources (provided the promotional material is omitted and only the facts are reported). I've never used GamersHell to demonstrate notability, though. The rehashed/mirrored standard news articles that The1337gamer mentioned aren't necessarily problematic, but it would be better to cite the original source (only noting GamersHell-hosted mirrors parenthetically if at all). So I'd happily see it shifted to "situational" (only for press releases). -Thibbs (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hobby Consolas
To start this site is in Spanish. I think this might be a good source from a perspective from a Spanish-speaking publication. GamerPro64 01:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have much time to dig into this source either, but it's one of the best-known paper-based Spanish-language magazines and its coverage goes back to the early 1990s. Unless there are solid arguments against it, I would consider it an RS. I'll look into it more when I get a bit of time. -Thibbs (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Inside Mac Games
So I was checking up the sources that are considered reliable here and noticed that Inside Mac Games, currently marked reliable (✅), redirects to a forums board. I went on the Wayback Machine and its looks completely different from its current look (2011). This should either be considered situational if certain links work still or unreliable if all their previous articles were deleted and replaced with its current forums layout. GamerPro64 01:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

CinemaBlend

 * CinemaBlend was discussed 5 years ago and was considered unreliable. says that it is a reliable source in the Talk:Batman: Arkham Knight/GA1 review so I think I should come here to double check, and ask for the opinion again. AdrianGamer (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In the context of that RSN review, the article in 2010 was being used as a secondary source to an LA Times article that was the originator of the sourced info. Additionally, its "about" info has drastically changed since then. Compare it in 2010 (when the RSN took place) to today's. I've used the source in countless film GAs with no issue, so I don't see how it would be any different for a video game GA. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thunderbolt (website)

 * This was previously discussed many years ago and the discussion did not appear conclusive -- it was pointed out that the source was used in numerous FAs (and it still is), specifically, it was accepted as a ref in the System Shock 2 FAC. To quote the article on the website: Thunderbolt's review scores are aggregated at Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, GameTab, MobyGames and Game Rankings, where it is amongst the sites that are used to calculate average scores. The site is also referenced by game publishers such as Atari and 2K Games.


 * It is an unpaid effort but has an editorial staff. The head editor is no fresh-faced newcomer, he's worked for Sony, Sega....
 * All in all, nothing revolutionary, but I think it's fine to use for reviews and editorial opinions. Thoughts? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliable - I agree with the conclusions of, and don't have any objections after my initial look-through. Is it related to "Gamingbolt", or are they just two websites that happen to end in "bolt"? Sergecross73   msg me  19:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty certain it is unrelated. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait, why isn't a volunteer staff and lack of editorial expertise/background the biggest red flag? czar  15:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Unreliable – unless I'm missing something, I see zero hallmarks of quality with this site. There's no reason to trust it for facts: its editorial staff (especially its head editors) do not have editorial or journalistic experience, and it has no policy on fact-checking apart from "professionalism". (If the lead editor worked with Sony/Sega, it wasn't a big part of his career. I'd be doubtful to rely on his industry experience.) And it's not like we're hurting for sources either... I had thought we established long ago (and it remains true) that Metacritic/GameRankings aggregate all sorts of sources we find unreliable for facts—that's their prerogative. And whether a company chooses to cite the praise of a blog or major gaming magazine is also their prerogative and it doesn't make the site reliable for facts. If other gaming sources were to cite the importance of Thunderbolt, that would be a different story, as we trust their judgment when quoting press more than the self-serving, selective quoting of a game producer. czar  15:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

HonestGamers
Want to confirm as ❌ unreliable. Their ethics page suggests that it's a self-run fan website with no professional expertise or reputation for accuracy. – czar   18:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The ethics page certainly suggests that the early (Geocities and GoDaddy) iterations of the website wouldn't be considered reliable. The current version does seem to receive some citation from our other RSes, though. (e.g. on Polygon, gamezone, engadget and joystiq, etc.). Further, the tagline here suggests that the editor in chief (Jason Venter) writes for joystick/engadget as well. So there may be room to consider the site situational depending on the credentials of the writer. I'd be interested in other views. -Thibbs (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thibb's reasoning, I think it could be a situational one, depending on who's writing it, and how contentious of a comment is being made. Sergecross73   msg me  12:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Expanding upon this. I looked up Jason Venter and see that he also writes reviews for GameSpot at times. I don't think he writes for Engadget after the closure of Joystiq, though. But I think if we were to use Honest Gamers as a source, Venter's work would be usable. GamerPro64  20:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If the idea is that Venter himself may be viewed as an expert, that doesn't make the site reliable by proxy... (That situational reliability is local to the writer, not the publication.) It's more that someone can use his articles if they wish to argue for it, but I don't think it makes the whole site situational unless someone can speak to the whole site's quality. czar  16:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * He's the "Editor in Chief" though, not just a rando writer for them. Seems like that would be worth more. Also, I was under the impression that Thibb's "situational" comment was also about time as in, how Kotaku wasn't usable prior to a certain year... Sergecross73   msg me  16:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As a side note, Honest Gamers is currently used as a source in 17 articles. - X201 (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Game Rant
Another source that I've been seeing lately with no discussion on its reliability. Its own by Complex, just like GameRanx and seems to be run by two people so I have no clue. GamerPro64 02:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have personally had some good experiences with Game Rant as a source, with some surprising quality. The website's about page makes it look pretty reliable as well, though the staff count is somewhat low. I am quite confident that they have decent editorial oversight going on. I don't know if the editors have any experience outside of their own website or if Game Rant has been credited or discussed by current reliable sources, but from what I've seen, I support them. ~ Mable ( chat ) 13:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)