Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 12

Cheat Code Central?
Some old discussions from 2009 and 2013 wondered about the reliability of Cheat Code Central. I found the talks very small and without consensus. I do not know what the site was like a few years ago, though the website looks to me as professional and well-written. Even if its enthusiasm for video games is a bit overbearing (don't we all share that enthusiasm somewhere?), I still found many of its articles as a notable secondary source for information. If you have any issues about this, it would be nice to hear. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that it wasn't deemed reliable. I know I've removed them as a source a few times when they wrote articles that weren't really corroborated by any other sources. Seems like their sources were deemed not helpful in some WP:AFD's too. Sergecross73   msg me  19:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think they have an image problem? Most of the game magazines and websites in the early days of the medium had the same sort of "cool" mentality (even Nintendo Power was a victim). They look like they have a dedicated staff, but I can't confirm that because they don't have a staff page. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They do have a staff page, it's just weird to get to, because you have to click on "contact us" to get there. (Or at least thats how I stumbled upon it.) Its here. They do have an established staff, though none of them really have any sort of credentials other than "loving video games", which isn't really worth anything in these discussions - everyone's a self-professed fan/expert on the internet. The only person who seems to have any other experience is "Jenni Lada", and even then, her title is "site liaison", so I imagine she's more of a marketing/sales type than a writer. Sergecross73   msg me  19:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They're still a dedicated staff, so I can assume that the owners aren't hiring random people off the street and telling them to write. That said, they're writing about more contemporary things beyond applied psychology in virtual worlds (game design), so as long as they have some sort of editorial oversight, it should be okay for news, reviews, and lightweight claims. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there's nothing about them other than their love for video games and random things like family and Batman. "Random fans on the internet" isn't really that far removed from "random people off the street", so I can't say I've got any evidence to agree with your sentiment there... Sergecross73   msg me  20:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that they are not experts. They are not user contributors, and so don't share the ability to blog about content that only interests them. There's nothing on the site saying "write articles for us", so it's fair to say that they write in the best interest of the site. Even then, all the bios on the contact page say they've been involved in gaming for decades, so they have a leg up on the less experienced fans who like to write on less notable sites. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

GameSkinny
First off, so many websites have "Game" in their name. Second, here's another website that should be looked at. Don't personally see anything that would show its reliability, especially seeing that their staff might just consist of contributors. GamerPro64 03:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I always feel unsure of a website that writes "written by gamers, for gamers" in its about page. Anyway, senior editor Jay Ricciardi seems trustworthy, but it doesn't seem like he has any experience in the industry besides being a "gamer". None of the other staff looks more reliable than him. I happened to stumble across this thing, which is interesting, as it does seem like they ensure professional and well-researched content. Looking through some of the website's actual content, I personally don't see any issues. ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not a good sign when these websites have their "by gamers for gamers" type comments. I know they do it for "street cred" for the type of reader who is disillusioned with the Polygon/Kotaku type websites, but inadvertently, it's also basically a concession that they don't meet the standards of a WP:RS. Just another opinionated gamer self-publishing their thoughts on games, with no actual credentials. Sergecross73   msg me  13:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This source, I think I can say without harm, looks radical in its user contributions. It feels very opinionated, almost like a blog, without the editorial oversights that would accompany an "officially" biased source (like FOX news). Should we trust this for anything important? I don't think so, and for anything else it would be an uncertain source. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems that makes a clear no for this one. ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. "The best NSFW nude Fallout 4 mods and where to find them"; it's clickbait. Why write for?, intro/about and contact along with suggest very low threshold for article acceptance and high motivation for advertisement. I see no mention of editorial process and "Say your piece in a few minutes." seems the opposite of well-researched, professional content. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Anomie's Super NES article sources.
So, the SNES article was recently tagged for having unreliable sources. The editors there were able to fix up many of them. But there are ones that point to the romhacking.net site, all of the author's to the three different sources have Anomie's name attached to them. Mostly I'm asking for the other editors, as they were somewhat scratching their heads trying to figure out if this type of source is OK.-- Sexy Kick  21:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on the actual source, I would say it is statistically likely that some Wikipedia's editors are also authors elsewhere and that their content may in fact be suitable sourcing. As long as there is no conflict of interest or personal agenda, there shouldn't be any issues. I do think having written a source and then using it yourself might be stretching it (having a discussion first would be okay). But it wouldn't make the source itself any better or worse.
 * As for the source itself, I would say it's highly situational depending on what the content is and then who the author is and what their credentials are, since the site describes itself as "community site". Firstly, any publicly editable content would be excluded. Some content, being very technical, there is little chance such content is editorially reviewed. I guess purely technical, no-opinion data only needs a willing author while interpreting it should have author with credentials. Their about implies interest and care for their content, though their faq page implies anyone can contribute content with sufficient interest/skills. Long operation time lends extra credibility and that they have no ulterior agenda. I would say static (non-editable) content is situational (technical details - okay, otherwise - depending on author). — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I fixed all of the other sources that had gotten tagged, or removed the content if I couldn't find a source and it wasn't really important. That left Anomie's sources. These sources have been in place for nearly a decade from what I can tell, and would really like to be able to accept them as reliable sources. I think the question goes two ways... Is romhacking.net possibly reliable? If not, is Anomie as an author reliable? (i.e. a subject matter expert?) -- ferret (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One other note, that I forgot User:SexyKick had pointed out on the SNES talk page... The romhacking.net sources were in use during the article's FA promotion, so they were not seen as a problem. However, that FA promotion was back in 2007, so I don't know how relevant it is to current sourcing policies.... -- ferret (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, standards in general were far lower back prior to 2008. A bunch of GA/FA articles from that time period wouldn't ever pass with today's standards. Sergecross73   msg me  22:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm sitting on calling this Situational. And feeling it should be fine in this case.-- Sexy Kick  22:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that a rom hacking website meet the requirements to be an RS. I'm also not sure it's okay to be linking to websites that openly discuss and distribute illegal content. Wikipedia's really rather strict about legal stuff like this... Sergecross73   msg me  22:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I was basically basing my reply on Hellknowz' comments. Legal stuff is beyond my current expertise.-- Sexy Kick  23:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Game World Navigator / Навигатор игрового мира


Game World Navigator / ru:Навигатор игрового мира (Navigator Igrovova Mira).

Finally got around to this one. While being one of the Russia's main ones, they are independent/self-published, so their PR suffers and I have trouble finding publisher-related information. They do get mentioned a lot in passing in Russian sources, like. Not a whole lot in English sources. Compared to other magazines, they appear on par with also-active Igromania in their content.

The magazine is second-oldest Russian print magazine starting March 1997 and still active today with monthly releases (although there have been gaps). It appears to have a steady audience with self-reported circulation numbers peaking at 65k in 2000s and 20-30k since. It's listed on Russian VG/RS equivalent as a reliable source.

The content (some examples) is mainly PC video game based with previews, full (2+ pages) and short (columns) reviews. Reviews are on a scale of 10.0 with breakdowns in later versions and seem to have broad score range (71 according to MC). Usually around ~200 pages, earlier ones up to 100. Earlier versions also had guides and such. Later versions also cover some indie games. They also cover hardware, industry, esports, and such. As of 2012, the magazine went from PC-only to multi-platform.

According to the intro in their first issue, before the journal, the people behind it were doing various work in leading Russian publications, including making their own computer game catalogue (I think this is the one, searching for offline "video game catalogue" is useless) for almost 10 years. So they had experience, but not a full editorial team to make a journal, which they finally managed in 1997. They also say "not for money, but because they enjoy it". They keep printing editor's column each issue. I have to say, their first issue is better than most magazines manage, although it's fairly average for existing magazines.

The magazine was founded by editor-in-chief Denis Dadydov (Денис Давыдов), who had worked on other magazines before and later moved on to Igromania, which sounds like the experience and credentials they claim. Their team does not appear to fluctuate and same people are working consistently. Current chief editor is Igor Boyko (Игорь Бойко), who was second-in-chief to Dadydov and took over. He is recently the first Russian judge to join Gamescon, which likely speaks to his credentials. He has an interview at.

They are published by Navigator Publishing (Навигатор Паблишинг), which is their own independent publisher. They also published 11 issues of Console (Консоль) magazine (some examples) during 2006-2007, which was their console counter-part reaching 15k circulation, though it didn't take off (apparently because no one cares about consoles, even though magazine's quality was on par). It seems to follow the same layout/content as the main magazine. Apparently, they also printed some other minor now-defunct publications, but it's impossible to find.

They also have an online version at nim.ru, though mostly to mark their online presence checkbox (Boyko says print magazine is priority in his interview). I can't find any (legal) repository of magazine scans online, but I have most of the issues for reference (including Console). Some extra stuff I used for references. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

App Spy (AppSpy.com)
This one was previously reviewed back in 2014, so I figured that I'd open up a new one since there was nothing 100% concrete at the last one. This review is a video, so warnings about that.

This has been used to salvage articles at AfD so that's a point in its favor. They're also listed as a critic on Metacritic and they seem to still have their reviews posted as of April 2015 (I didn't do a long search for dates), which is another point in its favor and for me personally I think that this should be enough for it to have an approved check mark next to the website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Android Headlines
This is another one from the same draft article, Draft:Walking_War_Robots. Now this specific source looks to be unusable since it was a sponsored review, which I take to mean that the game company paid them for the review. This page suggests that none of the reviews are usable since anyone can buy a review.

I'm just sort of running this through officially so that it can be added to the list of the "shouldn't be used" websites. I was debating whether or not to even add this, but a search for the website URL on Wikipedia shows that people have been using it as a source. I think that an official discussion would probably help guard against future attempts to add this to articles. I'm going to remove this as a source from those articles, as I don't think that a website that so prominently advertises that it'll write about you for a fee could ever be neutral. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if they charge for their regular articles, but I'm leery of any site that has a huge banner at the top that very prominently advertises that they'll review your stuff. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The quote: "Our writers are tech lovers and expert users with a passion for Android. They help shape the industry with their in-depth coverage of Android news to the Android Community and it’s followers. We strive to bring the most compelling and accurate Android news, analysis, opinion and provide our readers with the most detailed information in the industry with the highest standards and ethics in journalism." is on the website's about page, but I haven't exactly been able to find out who the staff are of this place. I really dislike how they tend to put prices in their article titles. Looks incredibly promotional. It also looks like the website is made by huge Android fans, rather than "experts", though I wouldn't really know the difference anyway.
 * I had a bit of trouble finding anything video game related, but what I did find did not impress me at all. I would deem this website worthless for video game articles, except maybe to verify that a game actually exists. I don't know what kind of use this website has for WikiProject Apps, but I doubt it is much better. Unreliable for now. ~ Mable ( chat ) 16:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. I would say the aforementioned banner to app review service makes it an instant fail -- unreliable. There's no immediate links to any editorial/review policies. Staff page is way too long for their site size, and no one has good credentials. About seems more like wish-making at this point. I don't think they can substantiate all those claims. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh hey, you found the staff page. Well, the site's CEO doesn't seem to have any experience anywhere, for one. ~ Mable ( chat ) 16:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Android Police
Another one for the same draft article, Draft:Walking War Robots. This source is the one that I'm wondering about. Offhand this looks good. It has an editorial staff and the article was written by a staff member. I don't see anything that gives off the impression that they charge for anything, so this is likely usable. Given that there was such a dubious source added (a website that charged for reviews) I'm going to run this one through here anyway. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. First impression is that they are not by default reliable simply because they cover pretty much everything Android related, including wearables and stuff. They can hardly be expected to compete with dedicated review sites. They don't have dedicated staff for game reviews as far as I can see. So speaking for video games, I doubt this would be above situational. Author profiles are not extensive, barely a blurb, so credentials are missing. About is the only info they provide about themselves, and no further author details. They list "Android Police Product Review Ethics Statement" for their paid content, which is better than most. But no other editorial or review policies. This isn't a video game site, so I wouldn't say we should list it. Situationaly, it is a another above-average blog-like website.
 * The article in question seems like not very in-depth compilation of misc. games bunched up. Hardly any critical content, mostly what looks like copy-paste of press release infos. Author's credentials say nothing about video game experience. I would probably be against this one. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Tapscape
I feel a little bad about bombarding you guys with all of this, but I do want to ensure that these are usable. This one looks OK, since they have an editorial staff, although this wasn't written by a staff member. (I tend to like using ones written by dedicated staff members/reporters since that makes it less likely that the review was something contributed by a random person and posted without any edits.)

What do you guys think? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. With Advertise and Submit your App for Review and Tapscape Internship Program as their top links, this is probably unreliable from the get go. They focus on a broad range of topics, so this isn't video game specific and unlikely to have high quality, editor-reviewed reviews. Some of their "reviews" are essentially press releases converted to articles with no real critical analysis effort that I see. A big "Free" label and big "download" button before the review even starts is a big red flag. About lists staff, but nothing about them, no credentials. Their parent Rocket Media is pretty much advert-driven content maker. Just another SEO-optimized average blog. With no editorial/review policy anywhere and barebones information (e.g. no sponsored content info), this is pretty much unreliable. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Search
I Made a custom search engine to search from reliable sources, available at http://vps216546.ovh.net/rss/. Currently includes 152 sources taken from techmeme and this project's page of sources excluding the non-english ones. --Johnny Bin (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I'll have to bookmark this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What makes Techmeme sources reliable? They include things like Buzzfeed and whatnot. Did you include our situational sources as well? Why did you exclude non-English sources? Will you be maintaining this list long-term? Finally, why isn't the search on google domain rather than (what I assume is yours), like ours already are ? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, how is this different from the two Google Custom searches we already have? Techmeme sources may not be reliable sources in the eyes of the project, so there may be cruft mixed in. Also, no reason to use it via someone's personal VPS site. You can access that same search directly via Google using the cx 009672783509648111265:crl-sop4tjc -- ferret (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Our CSE uses our own RS/Situational lists (although I'm not sure who, if anyone, is keeping them updated). CSEs are blacklisted because they're very open to being abused and might "look" like legit Google searched to the uneducated eye. Our own WPVG CSE should have been whitelisted though. (RS · Sit) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * - The history of our current GCSEs can be found here. It's due for an update. I'll attend to it tonight. -Thibbs (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was told on #wikipedia-en that this project is the only one to list reliable sources. So I made a custom search for my needs that can be used for general topics other than video games. Can't link to google cse because it triggers a protection filter, the id is 009672783509648111265:crl-sop4tjc . --Johnny Bin (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (The Music/Album Wikiprojects have a source list too, at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES, but yes, in general, most WikiProjects don't go into this detail with source lists, and this is the most well developed source list as far as I know. Sergecross73   msg me  14:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC))


 * I would recommend using the custom Google search that Thibbs maintains and has built after several years of grooming and custom exclusions (e.g., user blogs on otherwise reliable sites) czar  14:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The Digital Fix
I think this site should be marked as unreliable. The authors are uncredentialed and the site has no hallmarks of credibility. czar 17:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. Looks like a run-off-the-mill blog collection site. Appears self-published. No about page. No information about editorial, fact-checking, paid content or review policies. Lists author profiles, but there are many and they are not very detailed and hardly any credentials. Write for us has a lot of roles listed, so it's doubtful video games get any extra editorial treatment or coverage. Reviews don't look bad but their scoring scale is strange. MC and GR include them. Doesn't look like any of our RSes reference them. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Electronic Games Magazine
Hi guys. I have a 1up reserved for anyone who can verify a source on Sound Fantasy, upon which I'd attached ? The source had originally been given as "Electronic Gaming Magazine" with a section called "International Outlook" but a magazine by that name doesn't seem to exist, and that's a little further away from "Electronic Gaming Monthly", so I thought it might mean "Electronic Games Magazine". Can you at least verify the name of the magazine? Does Electronic Games Magazine from November 1993 have a section called International Outlook? I find an archive here but they don't seem to have November 1993. As a super bonus 1up round, I'd love an image and page number of that, so can you tell me if it's this one? Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 10:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * - It seems to be from Electronic Gaming Monthly. See the contents of the Nov 1993 copy (#52) at the WP:VG Reference Library. The relevant article uses the game's dev title, "Sound Factory". -Thibbs (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * JimmyBlackwing has listed himself as the contact for that copy of the magazine, so you might want to contact him to verify whether the jpeg you linked is from the Nov 1993 EGM. -Thibbs (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I'd completely forgotten about that page. The 1up be thine!  JimmyBlackwing, what do you say about the image?  Did I do my citation correctly? — Smuckola(talk) 11:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I could tell just from the scan snippet that it was from Electronic Gaming Monthly, and (sure enough) I found it in the Nov 1993 issue. The section in question isn't a review, though—it's a preview from the magazine's coverage section for foreign games. (It looks like Hellknowz has already given you the full information regarding the preview below, actually.) JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Electronic Gaming Monthly #52 (Vol 6, Iss 11, Nov 1993, Sendai Publishing Group) has an almost full-page preview of Sound Factory on page 86: . — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Gameplanet (New Zealand)
I can't help but notice that, while its considered reliable here, there wasn't really any consensus of it being that. I can't find any discussions where it was agreed it was reliable. Might need to be re-evaluated. GamerPro64 15:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * So http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/ is sister site of http://www.gameplanet.com.au/ (acquired as Australian Gamer in 2012 ). I cannot tell the difference at present (presumably server/advertisement). So I'll go with NZ version assuming it's the same as AU since 2012. About looks okay and 15 years seems like good experience. They have an actual Editorial policy page, which is a big plus, and I like what they are saying. Also includes review score breakdown, which is nice. They're independent, so no publisher oversight (but also no agenda). Contact us doesn't have any blog-like red flags about paid content or freelance writers. No author profiles or staff info page, which isn't great. Their reviews have a broad spectrum of writers. Googling a sample of authors, I can see some writing for other places, like or . A random sampling of their reviews and misc. articles look pretty good. According to their wiki page, won a bunch of NetGuide (NZ) awards, which is great (although they are the only big ones in video games). Mentioned in our RSes ?. I would say passing the bar for reliable. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

MassivelyOP
I think we need to re-evaluate Massively due to its original iteration getting closed down in part to Joystiq shutting down. Never read the site before but it does appear the old guard writes for MassivelyOP now. They have an ethics statement which is nice. GamerPro64 23:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Disagreement at PlayStation 4 system software
Hello. Would a few kind editors please share their views at PlayStation 4 system software's talk page here? I'd be very grateful. There's been a bit of a protracted dispute (History). Many, many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

OpenCritic
I'd like to request that OpenCritic be added to the list of Video Game review aggregators.

For the past several major releases, OpenCritic has been the fastest aggregator when posting reviews. They also have several publications included that both Metacritic and GameRankings do not have, such as Eurogamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, Kotaku, Totalbiscuit, AngryCentaurGaming, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Game-Debate, Gadgets360, Paste Magazine, Pixel Dynamo, WCCFtech, GBAtemp, Examiner.com, and PCWorld. They will soon also be adding TechnoBuffalo, Ars Technica, the Reno Gazette-Journal, and IBTimes UK.

Unlike Metacritic and GameRankings, all of OpenCritic's standards for publication inclusion are completely transparent and visible on their FAQ.

Unlike Metacritic, OpenCritic does not have any weighting, and instead takes a straight average. You can see this calculation by clicking on the score orb on the game details page.

Also unlike Metacritic and GameRankings, OpenCritic includes publications that don't issue numeric verdicts, such as Eurogamer, and instead displays their textual verdict. Non-numeric publications are not included in the aggregate score.

Another point of contrast is that OpenCritic allows publications to submit revisions to their score or quotes at any time (for example, IGN just edited their Splatoon review). By combining both the ability to change scores and listing non-scoring reviews, publications are offered new flexibility. Some publications chose not to score DLC, while others may chose to wait until servers come up. In both cases, OpenCritic is able to list their reviews as non-scoring.

As a result of both public standards and a straight average, users do not need to extend any trust to the OpenCritic administrators, as everything can be verified using publicly available information.

Some random sources of praise in addition to the Google links above
 * Telltale Official twitter bragging about their score
 * Executive editor of Game Informer stating he's impressed
 * Jim Sterling tweeting about it
 * Inclusion on multiple review threads on reddit's /r/games: Halo 5, Divinity: Original Sin - Enhanced Edition, Tales of Zestiria, Fallout 4, Anno 2205, and Tales from the Borderlands (to name just a few).

To fully disclose, I am the CEO of OpenCritic. I also just want to say that I've never edited wikipedia before, despite being one of those guys that'll go around and read random things. I'm sorry if I've broken any protocol - I'm a bit nervous about submitting even this.

MattEnth (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * OpenCritic has been discussed before on our WikiProject's talk page, and back then, we felt it was too early to get a good grasp of OpenCritic. I suppose now would be an excellent time to discuss the website. First off, thank you for disclosing your identity, MattEnth. I believe that, though you obviously have a stake in this discussion, it is completely fair to join the discussion. You're making very good points, and I personally feel that OpenCritic would make a great addition, if not even a replacement, of our current aggregators.
 * One thing that I have seen noted before was that OpenCritic only collects scores of games released after the website's launch (with some exceptions). Obviously, for games that have not have their score aggregated by OpenCritic, we will keep using our traditional aggregators only.
 * I believe we can use a replacement of our current websites, but I haven't been on OpenCritic often. I'd like to hear from people with more experience with all these websites and their intricacies. ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Too Soon - the last consensus on this, which I still agree with, is that w need to wait and see if it becomes to be an industry standard or not. If it does, add it, if not, we hardly need a third aggregator... Sergecross73   msg me  14:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree with Serge and Maplestrip on it being too soon. I do prefer OpenCritic over Metacritic but seeing how it's too new of a website to be used we're going to have to wait to see how much more accepted it is in the industry. The website being as transparent as it is now is great to see, though. GamerPro64  15:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Previous thread: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 115


 * I have yet to find secondary source proof of OpenCritic's widespread acceptance ("too soon"). czar  17:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, guys (and I hope this formatting works!) Can you be more specific in terms of the benchmarks you're looking for? We're already Alexa ranked at 50k US and 170k global with only 6 weeks of traffic (Alexa's rankings are based on the 3-month average, so our rank is reflected with 1.5 months as 0 traffic). We have a significantly higher reference rate compared to GameRankings in online discussions. We can also provide internal emails that were forwarded to us from Bethesda, Treyarch, and Telltale's marketing team that reference OpenCritic for company-wide congratz and celebrations. We'd also be the only alternative to a CBS Corp aggregator. "Industry standard" is a little nebulous, and we feel that we have already matched it, thus it would help if you could tell us what data points you're specifically looking for when making that evaluation? MattEnth (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good point that the only video game aggregators used here are owned by CBS Corp. I think the biggest thing at this time is that the website isn't that well documented on different websites. You still see Metacritic be used as a frame to how much praise a game got from reviewers. OpenCritic may be getting a lot of praise from well established gaming companies, but it doesn't seem to have been embraced by sites like Polygon, Kotaku, IGN, etc. The only major articles I've seen about the site was its launch and that's it. I think once those big named sites start talking about what game got what score on OpenCritic, then we can definitely see it being accepted. Though the emails from those companies sound like a great start. That would be something worth reading about. GamerPro64  23:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Understandable. I would like to highlight that many of those sites specifically shy away from discussing Metacritic, while others are already reporting on us (such as Lazygamer and Game Revolution). There's a competing interest that will prevent many larger publications from regularly discussing us. For example, IGN currently has a large market share of the overall the review scene, and any promotion of OpenCritic could potentially take away from their market share. We can make similar claims for Videogamer or Polygon, as we are, in some respects, a direct competitor. Additionally, because of CBS Corp's reach, many of those websites may be forbidden from discussing OpenCritic as part of content or advertising agreements. Giant Bomb and GameStop will never publish or reference OpenCritic because of this interest (both are also owned by CBS), but larger sites that aren't privately owned may have similar deals or clauses, such as Vox Media or Defy Media. MattEnth (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

A fair question on PresN's comment here: Do we agree that OpenCritic is a reliable source? In that they are basically that they are properly linking to external reviews, doing the proper grade assignments, and calculating the resulting score as they state they are doing with no hidden tricks, etc? I am not aware of any issues on this, they seem fully legit since they opened. I would definitely state that a minimum step is to add them to the WP:VG/S table as reliable in that fashion, if there are no objections. --M ASEM (t) 22:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we even need a third aggregator? --The1337gamer (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean we don't need another one. Then again, do we need two? Why do we still use GameRankings? GamerPro64  00:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know why we use GameRankings. It was already in regular use before I began editing. I expect it's because some older video game titles don't have reviews listed on Metacritic. Adding a third aggregator doesn't solve the problem though. It's just gonna cruft up the review box and reception sections further. Seems redundant to list another aggregator when it is essentially repeating the same information. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I will just chime in and say that, compared to GameRankings and Metacritic, OpenCritic is about to provide more context than either of these publications. Here's a screenshot of our next release, which shows a games' score within the context of all scored games. There will also be a % recommended bullet point. We're jamming on this stuff today/tomorrow and intending to ship it out on Monday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattEnth (talk • contribs) 01:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OpenCritic might end up being considered more reliable than our existing aggregators. We should be open to that possibility. How we would actually use it in combination with the other aggregators is going to be a complicated discussion, though. I personally wouldn't want more than two aggregator websites to be mentioned per article, or something along those lines. ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly like it to be considered more reliable- aside from being pretty neat (that screenshot MattEnth posted looks really cool), we all know that every time the aggregator discussion comes up, the only reason anyone really comes up with for why we still use GameRankings is "I guess we need a second aggregator", which isn't much of a recommendation. Not having older reviews is annoying, as is not having print reviews, but it would be useful to have an aggregator that has a clearly different score metric- GameRankings is almost always within a point of Metacritic. It's just hard to justify making them the "official" number 2 or whatever aggregator without commentary about their scores from reliable publications. In the meantime of course, we all here know that you can make up whatever aggregator you want in the reviews box- I'm not seeing any disagreement with the idea that OpenCritic is an RS, and therefore eligible to be used that way? -- Pres N  22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Also as a separate comment since we have @MattEnth here: would you be interested in providing us with a freely-licensed screencap of your website once you go live with the new version? The example one you have for Fallout 4 works well (assuming it is representative) - the only gotcha in copyright are the FO4 images, but we can argue that at the resolution you have that at, those fall under de minimus (we're focused on your site's layout and not the screenshots from the game), and we could still have that freely licensed to include at the OpenCritic article. --M ASEM (t) 22:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm updating our presskit in the morning. We'll include the free license there. I'll edit this comment and update once it's done? Pretty good timing, too, as we just released a new feature called "ranking graphs." EDIT: Alright, so this is taking a bit longer than I'd hoped. We're trying to get some screenshots hooked up that only leverage game assets that we can also distribute under the same license. Sorry for the delay. MattEnth (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sound great, thanks! --M ASEM (t) 14:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Random comment I'd like to perhaps see, in the interest of brevity, that we establish a "One Aggregator Only" rule, with a hierarchy of which to use. If things continue to be positive, OpenCritic would be the primary aggregator. If it does not cover a particular game, Metacritic is next in line, and finally, if Metacritic doesn't have it either, GameRankings. I see almost as little purpose in our current listing of two aggregators as I would in three. On the flip side.... If we aren't going to say "One Aggregator Only", we might as well list all three (Again, assuming ultimately OpenCritic passes muster). Additional thought I'd like to see some sort of Aggregator template as well. Something similar to VG Release Date template, with a parameter for each system. A syntax similar to something like: |XONE|89|source|. Could a template programmatically determine which aggregator name to list by looking at a source URL? -- ferret (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For our articles, somewhere we should provide all possible aggregator links for a title, because what that serves is to provide the reader to a list of reviews for the game, and which set of reviews might differ between the 2/3 sites. (For example, already, I know that OC can accept reviews from more blog-like sites and youtube reviews as long as those sites have demonstrated to OC their significance - that's all in their documentation. MC would never accept those). Now, whether that's in the reviews template or as an EL (akin to a MobyGames linke), it doesn't matter, but we should provide MC and GR, and if we agree OC is fine, that as well, somewhere when they are available.  And I do agree for multiplatform titles, to break it out by platform too. This might make having ELs make more sense. --M ASEM  (t) 15:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with listing them all in the review template, but once we "approve" a third, the current wide-spread practice of listing all the scores for all the platforms for all the aggregators in prose is going to become even more terribly cumbersome. I'd recommend an official guideline be established that they no longer be used in prose, or that platform scores be averaged in some way, such as "Major aggretor scores range between 80 and 84 across all platforms".... etc. -- ferret (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with others above that using OpenCritic as a template-driven aggregator is a bit hasty at this juncture, although it's definitely something to keep an eye on down the road (and I thank the CEO for bringing it to our attention and disclosing his connection!)


 * In regards to the "problem" of too many aggregators, the advantage of using multiple ones is that they provide different takes on the same essential dataset. For films, MC and RT both capture critical sentiment in novel ways that are useful. Realistically I think that GameRankings' actual prevalence is waning, and that in the future OpenCritic might be a good option to replace it in terms of contrasting pure percentages and weighted sentiments that MC uses. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, I've waited for the day when we start to aggregate aggregator scores :3 On a more serious note, I'd be open for stopping using GameRankings for games 2016-onwards, though I think that should be a discussed well (perhaps in a separate section). ~ Mable ( chat ) 16:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've consistently argued for the removal of GameRankings from modern games. See here and here. - hahnch e n 18:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we should move this discussion on how to use OC (in reviews template, elsewhere, etc.) over to the main WT:VG space, once we have resolved one question: Is there any reason to not put OC as a reliable source for the WT:VG project? I see no reason not to include it, there doesn't seem to be any tomfoolery in how the site presents info. Once we add it, then a separate discussion on how to use aggregators is definitely warranted. --M ASEM  (t) 17:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to use OpenCritic when Metacritic is an already established industry standard. We use Metacritic because the games industry uses Metacritic, not whether we like it. If OpenCritic can convince the wider games industry to adopt it, we will, Matt's time is better spent doing that rather than trying to convince us. - hahnch e n 18:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason he's here, as explained to me on his talk page, was because of Search engine optimization. That makes sense if they're trying to get bigger by getting higher Google rankings. He also mentioned a lot of other things make concern, like websites deliberately not mentioning OC. I mean it makes sense why GameSpot or Giant Bomb to not talk about it. GamerPro64  18:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's aim isn't to help new websites get traffic and legitimise its usage within the industry. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not defending them on that aspect I'm saying what he told me. GamerPro64  21:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, we aren't asking to be added to Wikipedia because of SEO or some nebulous business interest - we're asking because we believe that the OpenCritic average is the most unbiased and accurate reflection of a game's critical reception. We're also motivated by simply learning - none of us have gone through this process, and we're already learning a ton about what you guys look for, and where we can improve OpenCritic. The SEO point was more to highlight the competitive conflict. There are many publications that compete for the phrase "Halo 5 reviews." Including references to Metacritic and/or OpenCritic in any context puts that publication at a competitive disadvantage. OpenCritic is trying to boost our SEO, but we aren't trying to leverage Wikipedia to get there. Even if we were added to all the templates and whatnot, we're pretty confident that there would be a marginal improvement on search rankings at best. If there is something there, it's likely come from reports or articles that leverage Wikipedia. Lastly, it's worth mentioning that any Wikipedia-->OpenCritic traffic would likely prove inconsequential to our business interests. We currently only monetize off of affiliate programs, and Wikipedia consumers are pretty unlikely to make a purchase, and even more unlikely to do so through our affiliates. I'm rambling at this point, but the main point I wanted to get across is that we really do believe in our product, and our motivations are solely based in that belief. MattEnth (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Two points: (1) I agree with hahnchen and others on not automatically using GameRankings unless there is some reason to warrant its use. (2) The point of citing aggregators at all is to have some sort of reliable statement or meta-review that summarizes the reception in lieu of our own original research. In this way, citing a number from an aggregator does little good. What matters is how the aggregator characterizes the review in prose—because its scale and grading may be totally different from another. czar  19:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Proposal for Matt: I didn't realize you were with OC. I think it's great that you're in dialogue with us. I hope that you may consider making an API or a tool that will let us easily compile Reception review templates from your data—it would especially help for the non-blockbuster titles that would benefit from some seeding. czar  19:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We're working on our API now with a few alpha partners. Would prefer to discuss specifics in a separate thread or location (hit me up on my talk page? Or point me somewhere more appropriate?) The short version is that I'm not sure our alpha is really appropriately ready for Wikipedia's use, though we could likely get it there within a week or two. MattEnth (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure how long this will be true, but did want to just reference that we were significantly faster than Metacritic again. It's now about 1 hour after the review embargo lifted, and Metacritic still shows 0 reviews for Bloodborne: The Old Hunters. Hoping someone sees this soon so it's not just me! MattEnth (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I just got on now and I see they got 13 reviews up on there currently. I'll take your word for it but I don't think who's faster is much of a factor. GamerPro64  16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd even say that simple speed is unwanted for us. I'd personally feel more comfortable with sources that take there time to make sure everything goes right :p Not that this is actually an argument one way or another - it's mostly just irrelevant. ~ Mable ( chat ) 17:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This site seems really cool. Don't really know if it's reliable. SharkD   Talk  20:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Venturebeat/Gamesbeat
So, I was rather surprised to see that this wasn't on the list as reliable already, as I use it all the time, as do others, and it seems like a clear cut case for reliability. Wanted to document a discussion though:

If you look at http://venturebeat.com/about/ - and the pages that link to it, you'll see: I don't see any issues so far. Thoughts? Sergecross73  msg me  19:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * An established, experienced staff, with defined roles.
 * A history dating back a decade.
 * A detailed ethics statement.
 * Apparently an endorsement by something as big as The New York Times.


 * Reliable per above. Sergecross73   msg me  19:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I would say reliable based on the stuff they provide, about and ethics page and all. Game-related author credentials look really good. I's say there's little doubt this is reliable unless someone brings something up and then we can look into it deeper. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliable per above. AdrianGamer (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Seeing how we haven't talked about Venturebeat here I guess it was a matter of time. Though I thought it was already established as reliable. GamesBeat itself is reliable. Dan Hsu, possibly one of the most prolific games journalists until his retirement last year, was their EiC after his site Bitmob got merged into GamesBeat. I believe Dale North, former EiC of Destructoid, also writes there now as well.  GamerPro64  04:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliable per all above ^_^ ~ Mable ( chat ) 11:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Arcade Sushi
I noticed this currently being argued on List of commercial failures in video gaming with it being called a "worthless source". I've only recently come across this source with OpenCritic being a thing now so I think it should be evaluated on its reliability. GamerPro64 22:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know the website at all, but seeing as no one has responded to this all month, I suppose I'll throw in my own two cents. I just skimmed over some of their recent reviews and they seem well written. The lists are less useful, but they seem of a higher quality than those of a lot of our standard reliable sources (though the 10 Best Games for Kleptomaniacs should never ever be used in an article). The staff list is interesting: editor-in-chief Luke Brown has contributed to Official Xbox Magazine and Games Radar and has done quite a lot of blog-y stuff. We got writers who have gotten experience in various ways that do look impressive. Judging from all that, I'd say these people are reliable, though again, I've never actually heard of the website before. ~ Mable ( chat ) 13:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with Maplestrip and think they are okay on that basis. Their publisher is Townsquare Media, who quote themselves as "media, entertainment and digital marketing services company" and "assets include 309 radio stations and over 325 local companion websites". Somehow I doubt each one of those is given prime attention. I'm sure to remain successful, they have standards and guidelines everyone must follow. But this sounds like cookie-cutter blog conveyor (their sites even look the same) rather than serious interest in the subject.  They probably have budget to hire and initially vet authors who know what they are doing, but they are primarily focused on advertisement and would more than likely axe anyone without profits. Individual sites probably have little independence to suddenly do some quirky content, indie reviews, or opinion pieces.  I don't see any detailed about, history, or editorial policy pages. Their content I can see is the least offensive, most mainstream (least effort) entries. So it's not a serious site network, more like a corporate blog.  I wouldn't call them unreliable, but I wouldn't vet them as reliable either.  I say situational -- if author's credentials are really good, then it could be a GNG source, but otherwise it shouldn't be a primary source and other sources should be given precedence.  —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like to come in and say that, after reading a bit more, I don't think any of the website's lists should ever really be taken seriously. "10 best weapons in Destiny: The Taken King" is a ridiculous topic for a list. A list like their "Top 10 PlayStation RPGs" might be useful as yet another link that a game is successful, but the actual prose below the list is much more useful. I suppose I have no doubt of the factual accuracy of Arcade Sushi's content, but am a bit worried of their critical content. These lists are definitely "lest effort entries". ~ Mable ( chat ) 19:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Changing my opinion to unreliable. I think, as Czar notes, I've made too many assumptions and speculation to put it even in the low end of situational. It should be fully unreliable rather than only including authors with credentials. The very few authors with credentials can find a better place to publish. Browsing a bit more, it's indeed clickbait all around. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait, what? There are a whole lot of assumptions above. In the end this site's entire front page is clickbait with no actual in-depth journalism and the staff writers are extremely uncredentialed! Only one or two of the bunch have prior professional experience and the others either say nothing or are spun to look like they've written for publications before when they haven't. I don't see why the Townsquare Media connection would matter if none of the other Townsquare Media sites are reliable either. No way—unreliable. czar  15:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Ace (Advanced Computer Entertainment)


It seems ACE (Advanced Computer Entertainment) UK print magazine was never discussed before, so bringing it up. Published by Future plc and later EMAP. 55 issues from 197 to 1992 focusing on various PCs and related. Seems like tons of great retro stuff info. Internet Archive has scans available at for reference. Issue 1 says the people behind used to make Personal Computer Games magazine. It also describes in detail their review process/scoring. Unless there's any reason against, I would say it's a reliable source by default. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK
 * I could've sworn this was already a reliable source here. I can get behind it being considered that. GamerPro64  22:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've used ACE in several '80s Commodore games I've brought to GA. They seemed like a popular mainstream magazine at the time and I'd consider them reliable any day. JAG  UAR   23:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Being published by Future in print is enough, but for that length of time, even better. Reliable. czar  15:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Droid Gamers
I'm currently cleaning a fairly promotional draft article (Draft:Walking War Robots) and I'm going through the sources. Long story short, this looks to have been an article created by a game company since the review quotes were cherrypicked to be extremely positive and the article contained a lot of WP:GAMEGUIDE information to make the game more appealing. I do think that the game is likely notable, but it'd be helpful if I could guarantee that all of the sources were usable.

They do have an editorial staff, however this article wasn't written by a staff member. The review in the article is this one. On the minus side, a look for coverage about the site (ie, mentions of it elsewhere as a RS) doesn't bring up anything.

I think that this likely would be usable, but I wanted to verify this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. The content does not look bad, but I see high-level inconsistencies (like article titles). Their articles don't link to author's profile/page though have a short blurb at the end. staff page is minimalistic at best, no credentials given. This page even looks like another entry in their CMS. "All contact, whether about breaking News or a Game tip, Game Review requests, job application or anything else" doesn't feel like good editorial policy. Their jobs lists high-school level of requirements, which doesn't bode well for author credentials. No review/scoring policy, although their reviews are pretty detailed and look decently written. No editorial/fact-checking policy. The impression is that they receive review requests from devs and they do their thing while including some press release material. Overall, I wouldn't call it up to par to be called reliable by default, just another decent blog-type website. I would say highly situational if the authors credentials are okay, though I don't see anyone on staff like that.  —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is why I wanted to post these here, since I didn't know if the editorial staff alone would be enough. Thanks! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. Patently hobbyist blog with no editorial expertise or policy (About). No hallmarks of editorial control or reliability. czar  16:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hardcore Gamer
While the magazine folded, Hardcore Gamer still has its website. However, it was only discussed once nine years ago with no actual consensus. While I think its reliable, we should actually make sure what it should be considered. GamerPro64 03:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is another one I've always used and assumed it was already on the list. Usually if you've got the credentials to get a hardcopy of something published, you can meet the requirements of an RS. Unless its some sort of unofficial/unaffiliated fan continuation or something, I'd go with reliable. Sergecross73   msg me  18:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable. Having been in print (and not going instantly bankrupt) is probably the biggest plus. Looking at their staff page, it's probably okay. Editor-in-chief credentials look good and editorial director's look okay. Then supervising editor's credentials are pretty much only with HCG. And senior editor looks good too. (Whatever all those titles mean.) The rest are individual writers, but I assume the senior editors oversee them. They claim a bunch of things on about page like having "top writers". No dedicated editorial, review, or ethics pages. I see various mentions in other VG/RSes. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Tubefilter
This came up in the JonTron thread at WT:VG—I didn't see what made this site reliable or noteworthy (for notability). Here's its about page. I don't see anything about editorial control here and, aside from the founders, the writers do not have former industry or journalistic experience... czar 15:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. Short about section in about page, no editorial or ethics policy (doesn't look like they do review at all). Author links don't take to any profile more expansive than what the about page has. Most articles seem to be very short and by Sam Gutelle or Bree Brouwer. The people's credentials don't look too bad, but no in-depth journalism in notable outlets. Founders look okay, though they don't produce content. My biggest issue is with article quality (of which there are many per day) -- they are short and pretty shallow, with nothing really in-depth that would even work for GNG. Everything is littered with hyperlinks. They seem to rely on "tips" -- creators mailing them requests for short coverage, essentially PRs. Even with notable authors, such content is fairly useless. Overall, looks like an average blog. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Still, interviews can be considered primary sources no matter the quality of the outlet through which they are published, right? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess the question is whether we think an unreliable outlet will post the interview with no bias or exclusions, whether it will fact-check and call the interviewee out, will they have prepared the questions and done their research, etc. Primary sources are bad because they haven't been reviewed, so would an unreliable source review them diligently enough? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

VNs Now!
This site is used in Break Chance Memento several times. Looks blog-like and I see no easy hallmarks of reliability. czar 20:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. I don't see any difference between this and any other personal blog with video game reviews. There isn't an "about" page or anything that I can see, and the posts I've looked at all seem to be by "ThatVNsNowGuy".--IDVtalk 20:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Unreliable by default; no author credentials, no about/editorial policy/ethics pages. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - pretty much the definition of a self-published, obscure blog. Sergecross73   msg me  01:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

mmogames.com
Just to clarify, mmogames.com is different from our approved MMO Games Magazine, right? It's not exactly clear from the About page—but I would suspect that they'd be clearer about the lineage if it existed. czar 16:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Developer interviews with YouTubers/fansites
So, generally random YouTubers and fansites are not considered reliable sources because content is self published and not curated. However, would an interview with a game developer published by YouTuber or fansite be considered fine to use on an article? There's a lot of interesting coverage on video game companies, industry people, and the development of older games in these sorts of interviews that you wouldn't really find on mainstream video game websites and magazines. As an example, MattChat is a YouTuber that has interviewed many industry veterans, it would be a great source of information for lots of articles but I'm not sure to what extent it would be usuable, if at all, on a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure how much bearing WP:SELFSOURCE/WP:SELFPUB or it being considered a primary source has on this. --The1337gamer (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * An issue that was brought up above by Hellknowz in the section "Tubefilter", is that unreliable sources may post an interview with bias or exclusions to put it in a certain light, or they may no fact-check the information given to them. Primary sources are discouraged in many cases, and interviews like these only add an unreliable second party to primary sources. That being said, I don't want to write them off entirely. If I saw an example of a Youtuber or fansite who's track record is so positive that reliable sources copy the results of their interviews, they may be reliable enough for us to use as well. ~ Mable ( chat ) 23:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Id use it like we use most first party sources - good for background/development type info. Sergecross73   msg me  01:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As for Matt Barton, he also writes for Armchair Arcade and Gamasutra, and has written a great book about classic old-school RPGs. He's not just some YouTuber. SharkD   Talk  05:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Quote from Amazon "About the Author": "Matt Barton is an assistant professor of English at St. Cloud State University in St. Cloud, Minnesota, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in writing and technology. He is the co-founder of Armchair Arcade, a website dedicated to classic videogames and computers, and a frequent contributor to Gamasutra.com and Adventure Classic Gaming." SharkD   Talk  05:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, that sounds pretty good. I'm going to check out some videos of his :3 Anyway, if we do allow certain independant Youtube channels for primary source info, I do believe we have to list those we deem reliable enough. Perhaps Matt Barton is a good source for interviews, but many other Youtubers may not be. ~ Mable ( chat ) 11:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If the author is reliable, then any video of theirs on any video hosting site is reliable (unless it has been tampered with). I don't know if we need to list people for video interviews. It seems very specific -- why videos and why interviews rather than just "reliable" regardless. But then we are looking at a very long hard-to-maintain list. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh no, fansites would also fall under this. It would only be for interviews because we trust that the person will bring over primary sourced information without bias or exclusions. Whether we should then trust all of their research is still a question. I also don't believe this list needs to be long if we only include sources we do trust.
 * Of course, we can always assume that if anything a trustworthy Youtuber finds out in an interview is really interesting and noteworthy, other sources will copy the information and publish it themselves. ~ Mable ( chat ) 14:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the Matt Chat blog by the way. http://www.mattbarton.net/ It hasn't been linked to yet. Maybe people should link to the blog instead of directly to YouTube? SharkD   Talk  01:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * An outlet is usually called "self-published" when it has no body of editorial oversight—that's anyone's random website, a developer blog, an academic's blog. Our assurance with those types of sources is to not trust them but as a last resort for basic personal statements (WP:ABOUTSELF not just WP:SELFPUB). So YouTube interviews are fine when we can reasonably conclude that someone isn't impersonating the interviewee. Now all this aside, video interviews are generally bad sources because they go offline without warning and without accessible backup (always cite the transcription). czar  19:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

AusGamers
Seen this being used on an article or two but haven't seen any discussion about it yet. They got a staff but not sure how credible they are. GamerPro64 17:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * One of the editors have worked as an editor at Red Bull Games Channel and some other places. I'll check some more of the editors later. No opinion yet. ~ Mable ( chat ) 19:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The other editors all have less experience than Farrelly. One seems to have been the owner of some broadband content provider, though this seems unrelated to their current work. It isn't particularly promising. I haven't read any of their reviews, though. ~ Mable ( chat ) 19:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. Nothing to back up claims on the about page. Largely inexperienced staff with no editorial policy. Comes across, overall, as a niche hobbyist site. czar  19:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Screwattack Reassessment
I think we might need to reassess Screwattack. Previously their videos were allowed to be used if they were on GameTrailers. It seems they ended their partnership two years ago. Now they're part of Fullscreen and Rooster Teeth. A lot has changed for that site. GamerPro64 23:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They're at situational right now, do you think they should be moving to reliable or unreliable? Sergecross73   msg me  01:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not fully sure. I wouldn't say unreliable. But at the same time, would it make sense for it to be reliable? GamerPro64  02:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion should be of interest Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_201.--67.68.209.88 (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They were determining Screwattack's reliability by looking at a user-submitted blog post. God sakes. Destructoid has user-submitted posts and we know not to use them. This is why having this Source page is important for the project. GamerPro64  04:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've always thought ScrewAttack was a comedy publisher aside from Video Game Vault (which offers only very basic, common knowledge that could just as easily be sourced from any number of non-controversially reliable sources). Is there any particular program of theirs which would be useful as a source?--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've mostly seen users try to use it to prove notability for fringe notability game characters with its many generic "Top X characters for Y traits" listicle-like content. Not something I'd personally miss...  Sergecross73   msg me  19:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. No hallmarks of editorial quality, etc. I see nothing to encourage use of this site for statements of fact (or opinion, for that matter—especially with video's propensity for linkrot). czar  19:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Situationality
We don't need to mark sources as situational/conditional because there could potentially be some circumstance in which an experienced journalist might write a reliable piece for an otherwise unreliable publication. In those cases, the source should be marked as unreliable because all unreliable sites carry the aforementioned caveat. Calling the site situational just makes it murky for our dealings. czar 15:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Now that you bring this up, I can see how it doesn't really make sense to call the source "situational" when any unreliable source would be situational if the author of a post happens to be a well-credentialed one in a reliable context. I'm guilty of calling sources situational and on reflection that's probably a bad idea for overall clarity. My question would be: what does constitute situational? The main page doesn't really list any generic advice. Is this purely on case-by-case? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I would argue that a situational source is not necessarily one that would normally be unreliable except for a few posts, but instead the reverse, where a good fraction of the site's content is reliable but there are gotchas to watch for, such as sites that have user blogs that appear alongside main stories without necessarily being clear those are user blog posts. (For example, Forbes would be situational in that any non-contributor story should be fine, but the contributors we should be careful on using) Sites where the majority is unreliable save for a few other cases should be marked "unreliable" with the noted factor that their can be exceptional cases. --M ASEM (t) 16:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the same way that all of our reliable sites are situational because they contain unreliable user blogs/content? It's more like Forbes is reliable and we take special notice of the contributor demarcation—same vigilance is required on sites that unvetted mix user blogs with staff entries. czar  16:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * True, that's equivalent. I'd be worried about taking our current "situational" sources and making them as "unreliable" (with the cavaet they may have good information) and then having a editor see this and presume we should proceed to remove all such references without understanding that distinction. If we get rid of "situational" and move that to "reliable" with additional input, that's fair. --M ASEM (t) 17:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Aren't situational sources "situational" because specific authors are considered reliable? ~ Mable ( chat ) 18:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It is kind of a murky concept. My understanding of those sources matches closest to what Masem said. I think it's probably a good idea to review and then merge them cautiously into the RSes with caveats clearly spelled out. -Thibbs (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The Situational tag flags possibly inexperienced users when there are well documented borderline cases. It makes understanding the list easier at a cursory glance. It might be too easy to overlook a source that is reliable/unreliable in special circumstances otherwise. Removing it will cause more problems later. SharkD   Talk  20:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As a disclaimer, I helped create the format this project page currently uses. SharkD   Talk  20:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But the point of situationality is that editors discuss unique cases as they arise—it's not like these sources are blanketly reliable coverage in some areas but not others... It's more that sometimes an exception is made to include voice that would be excluded otherwise (IAR, etc.) and that need not be institutionalized czar  20:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)