Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 13

eSports
We need to get our eSports game together. There's a cottage industry of eSports-related articles that are using their own line of sources and most of them are not good but they're slipping through the notability guidelines because no one is bothering to check. A list of common sources is available here. To copy-paste the reliable and unreliable columns:

English
 * The Daily Dot — http://www.dailydot.com/topics/esports/ (Archive 11)
 * ALL IN Mag — http://www.allinmag.com/e-sports
 * 1337 Magazine — http://www.1337mag.com/
 * TheScore eSports — http://www.thescoreesports.com/
 * eSports Observer — http://esportsobserver.com/
 * Philippine Daily Inquirer — http://esports.inquirer.net/
 * LoL Esports — http://www.lolesports.com
 * OnGamers — http://www.ongamers.com/ (recently offline)
 * Red Bull — http://www.redbull.com/en/esports (Archive 9)
 * SB Nation — http://www.sbnation.com/esports
 * EventHubs — http://www.EventHubs.com/

Questionable/Unreliable
 * GosuGamers — http://www.gosugamers.net/news (Archive 8)
 * News of Legends — http://www.newsoflegends.com
 * HLTV — http://www.hltv.org/
 * Esports Heaven — http://esportsheaven.com/
 * Rakaka — http://rakaka.se/ (defunct)
 * lazygamer.net — http://www.lazygamer.net/esports/
 * SK Gaming — http://www.sk-gaming.com/news/
 * http://www.4gamers.com.tw/
 * Shoryuken.com
 * Ruliweb — http://ruliweb.daum.net/

This doesn't even include the non-English sources. I'd like to get some final calls on these topics, especially the ones sponsored by companies but with no hallmarks of reliability. czar 21:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So...with asking for a "final call" on these...are there prior discussions on them to reference somewhere? Sergecross73   msg me  01:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a few, but you're welcome to help me look for more. I posted this mainly to bring attention to an existing practice—we still need to go through these one by one. I also found a prior discussion in Archive 11. czar  05:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sovetsky Sport (Sovsport)
Sovetsky Sport, "Советский Спорт" (literally "Soviet Sports" abbreviated "Sovsport") is an active Russian daily newspaper founded in 1924 and http://www.sovsport.ru/ is its online website (Russian wiki page). http://www.sovsport.ru/tag-item/100175 is the e-sport ("киберспорт") tagged articles. Most content looks like tertiary sources, not extensive, but most likely fact-checked. Being a long-standing print newspaper, I would call it reliable. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I picked a random article from that tag and ran it through Google Translate. It looked completely fine. I have no idea who the people are behind this, though there are a variety of authors writing eSports-related articles for the website (at least three). A print newspaper that has been published daily for 90 years is probably reliable, though it might not always be the case that their website is as reliable. That all being said, I don't see any reason to oppose this website as a reliable source.
 * Seeing the large amount of article output, however, as well as the fact that the articles are news posts, makes Sovetsky a very weak source to establish notability of esports related events, teams, and people. ~ Mable ( chat ) 16:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, most of the articles are too short to help much with GNG. It doesn't look like they do much original content for e-sports. Many articles are secondary in that their source is primary, many are secondary in that they repeat some other source. As far as I can tell about articles -- they are mostly re-prints from the print version with some extras, like links. E-sports isn't their primary focus, so these would probably appear as blurbs in the "misc." page or something. There are some things, like this interview that's original or this announcement that's Russia-specific and wouldn't appear elsewhere. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I can not read them, but they look really nice, hihi. Do we have anyone else here who can read Russian to confirm this website is legit? ~ Mable ( chat ) 19:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

GosuGamers

 * Unreliable - While they do have an established "crew" (staff), looking through, it doesn't appear anyone has any actual credentials other than being "fans". Its usually not a good sign when writers go by nicknames ("PineappleCake") instead of actual names either. I didn't see anything related to a editorial/ethics policy. Sergecross73   msg me  14:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. No hallmarks of editorial reliability, many articles written by inexperienced volunteers. czar  19:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Redbull
The past conversation seemed to show a general consensus for reliability for RedBull Games and Redbull in general, so I would think unless there's some sort of significant difference to their esports coverage, or some new development, that we'd have them be reliable for the esports area too. Sergecross73  msg me  14:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

All In
Apparently a poker mag that apparently now has an e-sports section. Not sure about the state of the print mag and most posts are from Nick Shively who wrote for mmogames.com (see the separate discussion for them) and has a 2015 journalism degree in his byline. On a larger scale, lots of these sites appear to be other journalism outlets that have opened a small, experimental e-sports section just to see how it fares. czar 20:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolute Games
So many sources, not enough time. I'd like recall Absolute Games, which hasn't had a specific discussion but was cited in a recent AfD. I poked through the site's staff and archives and they do not appear to have any editorial mechanisms apart from paying editors per review... The pay and the real names are a start, but I don't see the editorship or markers of quality that would make its content reliable. I know it has a reputation as one of the oldest Russian gaming sites, but I'm not seeing the professionality that would make it a Russian equivalent of, say, an IGN. czar 17:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. I've never looked through it before, because it was listed at Russian and our RSes via WP:SILENCE. As much as I like non-English coverage, this doesn't look good. Despite having a core team, they actually hire a lot of "editors" and pay them for good contributions. So there's no way to say all editors have credentials or even integrity. The main reviewers that are "on payroll" also don't seem to have any extensive credentials. The site has more author and about information than most Russian sources bother with, but no editorial policy or review policies or just anything to say how contributions get reviews. It is listed as reliable source on Russian wiki and used there a lot, but it was promoted there via basically WP:SILENCE since it's one of the largest Russian game portals. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

PlayStation LifeStyle
I've seen this be used in a couple of articles but there doesn't seem to have been any consensus on its reliability here yet. GamerPro64 20:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've used the website in the past, but I had thought that it was on the list, so I hadn't actually looked into it that deeply... Sergecross73   msg me  20:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * So, firstly Crave Online. about and contact is sparse on details and none about editorial policies or experience/competence in the field. Their parent Evolve Media has a presence, so I'm assuming there is an editorial process, though who knows how strong besides "don't write incorrect stuff". Their (self-claimed) visit stats and worldwide presence for over 10 years probably implies they are fine. Not all authors seem to have dedicated profile pages and some that do (e.g. ) are brief but to the point. Content (looking at entertainment primarily) does not appear to be very in-depth. I would say this is more than likely reliable, or at least situational if author's credentials are in question.
 * Now, the PlayStation LifeStyle, being a child website would inherit some of the above. In addition, they list review policy and proper staff list. Most names don't have credentials, but I assume they don't just hire whoever either and main content like reviews seems to be written by the lead/senior editors. Looking at content, both reviews and shorter news look good to me, professional, even with disclaimer. As previous precedent it's on par with GameRevolution (same Crave Online owner) and that's already listed as reliable. So I say reliable. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. Sites in the Crave network aren't automatically reliable because they make (some) money and were acquired (in some way). The staff has no experience (indeed, the founder didn't either) and this was so even when the site was acquired ("passionate individuals"). I see no reason to trust in its reporting without any editorial structure—plain and simple. czar  15:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , any thoughts? czar  21:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Taking their top people listed on staff page: Alex Co, Anthony Severino, Cameron Teague, Chandler Wood all look okayish. Not great, but fine. It looks like editorial structure to me and they at least have a review policy. I'm all for high author standards, but their work looks decent to me. I have no reason to call it fully unreliable, even if it is basically a blog. I don't mind if it's not explicitly reliable, but I don't believe it should be tagged unreliable. I do agree though that pre-Crave content is subpar and at that point the staff had no credentials. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

GRY Online
Listed as RS per WP:SILENCE. Bringing up as concerns have been expressed.


 * Unreliable. They don't have editorial staff page, or dedicated author pages, closest is generic contact page. In a random sampling, the authors that have links take to their own profile-defined pages. About boasts a lot about media and relations and not much about any useful stuff like editorial or review or ethics policy. It says they have 100+ employees, which is bad where credentials are concerned. (English version is different and mentions "payable premium content", which is a big red flag.) Scoring FAQ says they have dedicated review score, and then some total averages, but no real info who and how reviews stuff. In the end, it looks like a bloggy media site, similar to English ones we've deemed unreliable. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked about this on  talk page. I think we're still waiting to hear back from Polish translators on the disclaimer, but it's doubtful that all of their listings aren't just recycled PR, if they aren't user-contributed.  czar  04:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've been a bit busy off-wiki of late. I did get an answer back from a Polish editor regarding the translation of the disclaimer associated with this source at pl.wiki. According to User:Piotrus, it says "NOTICE: Editors are not anoymous, but sigh with full name only in paid materials, therefore their identity has to be confirmed through manual search. In rating the service (website), you should take into consideration only the rating in the reviews, not combined." Piotrus also adds that "The last sentence is not clear to me, even in Polish". Basically it sounds to me like a version of our own "some content may be reliable, but only if the author can be established as such" which Czar points out above is really just a rewording of our normal WP:RS guidelines. In general I'm inclined to accept the vetting of Polish sources that pl.wikipedia editors have provided for their own WP:VG because their version of WP:VG/RS was nearly word-for-word the same as en.wikipedia's, but I'm not sure how active their WP:VG is and the website may have changed a lot since 2011 when it was added and disclaimered by . I'd be interested in the opinion of as well since he is active with en.wiki's WP:VG and he seems to have been active at pl.wiki's WP:VG in those days. Otherwise I'm happy to accept any consensus on the reliability of the source that we form here. -Thibbs (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, just to note: this is the discussion leading to the source being added to pl.wiki's WP:VG/RS page. It doesn't seem to be particularly in-depth. -Thibbs (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The second sentence likely means that only the reviewer's score should be taken into account, not the user or combined score. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that similarly to Russian VG/RS, they firstly took the EN list and then expanded it with local sources. This is the edit that added all the sources. However, our RS discussions have become mostly about author credentials, whereas they primarily look if the content looks good. A lot of such sites don't pass our bar because we can't find any information on the authors, even when content is on par with other RS sites. But then again, the argument is that the content is by default not on par if the author is without game journalism experience. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that similarly to Russian VG/RS, they firstly took the EN list and then expanded it with local sources. Yep, that's exactly what we've done quite time ago - we took most reliable English sites from en:WP:VG and translated it to Polish to create the list. Then we've added local sources (like gram.pl, gry-online.pl or CD-Action magazine). Actually gry-online.pl is probably the biggest Polish website about video games. We use it mostly for reviews (like for example Witcher 3 one - http://www.gry-online.pl/S020.asp?ID=10464). Hope it helps a little bit. Sir Lothar (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I absolutely can't agree that it's bloggy media site - reviews are written by professional game journalists (like Krystian Smoszna in example above). Still, don't know if the site would be that useful on English Wikipedia (maybe rather as situational source). Sir Lothar (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "bloggy media site" is still a media site and can be written by professional journalists. I didn't say it was a blog, but meant that some content, like, appears to be just announcement and PR rehashes. Most news sites are bloggy nowadays. This is similar to the concern that Czar expresses. Authors that write such content usually have no real credentials, and the site mentions 100+ contributors. Is there a way to check main author credentials? For example, Krystian Smoszna's LinkedIn says nothing. I realize it's one of the biggest sites, but their approach doesn't go with our author-checking standards. I'd be happy to call this reliable (or prehaps review section reliable) if we can show that key editors and people are with experience/credentials. But, as I mentioned, there's no dedicated staff page or authors pages and no editorial/ethics policy description. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about all this mess in Polish Wikipedia which was explained by, but I'd just like to explain the circumstances of Polish gaming journalism. Generally speaking, the practice of using pseudonyms instead of real credentials is common for most of the journalists writing articles about video games in Poland. This bad habit comes from the old gaming magazines from 1990s, especially from now-existing CD-Action. However, it doesn't change the fact that Gry-Online is a very problematic source. It has some potty things like the necessity of buying access to the articles to find out what was the name of the author. Judging by the criteria of a reliable source existing in the English Wikipedia, such things disqualify Gry-Online as a reliable source. The Polish Wikipedia uses it only because it is highly accessible to Polish viewers (and editors as well). Sirmann (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's true. Many of the news are written by anonymous people (like in the example you gave - user nicknamed luckie, I tried to find his real name but with no luck). As far as Krystian Smoszna is concerned, here's his profile in one of Polish social networks - http://www.goldenline.pl/krystian-smoszna/ (his position is vice-editor-in-chief of website). (...) but their approach doesn't go with our author-checking standards - I truly understand that. I was mentioned by Thibbs in upper comment, so I've tried to clear things up. Sir Lothar (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC) EDIT: I think Sirmann's comment even better cleared up the matter. Sir Lothar (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just want to say thank you both for the comments; I know how hard it is to get interest for foreign source review. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you from me as well. The explanations are very helpful! -Thibbs (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Develop
I know I tend to be the bringer of unreliability, so it's nice to have this instead. I think this game dev-oriented mag is an easy add. Published by NewBay Media, and a sister publication to MCV. Team has experience and industry background (access Writers from drop-down on upper right). czar 20:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Reliable, indeed seems like an easy add, though I feel like most of the content isn't particularly useful. The interviews look pretty promising :) ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable --The1337gamer (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable -Thibbs (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable - Seems to be a well enough source to use. GamerPro64  02:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Database situational use
(diff), wouldn't this be the same situation as IGN or Giant Bomb? (In that, we use their writing as reliable but not their database information and wiki pages.) GameSpot is in the "reliable" table up top anyway, so I didn't think the edit would be controversial. Perhaps we can add notes to remind that while articles may have editorial vetting, the databases may or do not? czar 22:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Czar that presence of user content shouldn't place a source in situational, when that is not the primary focus of the source. We should make notes when there are known issues. Every source should be used with care regardless in case the material is dubious, reliable or not. On the obvious spectrum, there are forums, comments, and wikis on many sites. On less obvious end (which we should note if possible) are the cataloging issues, unmarked user content, unverified PRs, copy-pastes from other sites, etc. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. I do believe GS was in "situational" for quite some time, as I believe they were using USERG type information before other websites made it more common, and there's always the issue with sharing release dates with Gamefaqs, but ultimately, they're the same as other sources we classify as reliable - like IGN or Kotaku. We should definitely have a note saying the database and user blogs aren't usable though. Sergecross73   msg me  15:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

VR World
I have happened to find this site when I was in the process of verifying information on Halo 5: Guardians, and one article about its first announced release date actually is comparable to other websites which say the same thing, but I am unsure as to whether the website really verifies the information. Surely, there, I have found some YouTube videos which were published by Microsoft, and those appear to be the only sources of that article, leaving me suspicious about the website's overall quality of reliability. After all, it is powered by WordPress.com, but, then again, the "About Us" area does look promising. Has any of you thoughts about the website's overall reliability? Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 02:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This website has been around since September 2014, according to their about page. Looks nearly barebones. I'm not seeing much reason for this to be considered reliable. GamerPro64  03:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. Nothing about the about page inspires confidence. Editor-in-chief has some background in journalism. czar  04:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (Not in-depth review) Unreliable. Based on their about page and lack of any editorial/policy/author pages. Unless someone wants to argue for reliability. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I figured that it might not have been reliable after all. Fortunately, I have avoided the site during the process of verification. Now, I am starting a new discussion about Inquisitr. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 23:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Digital Trends

 * Previous request: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 8

This site along with Inquisitr seems good, but I need help with knowing about its reliability. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 17:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

AtariAge
This site was brought up twice before with no discussion (Archive_2#Atari Age, Archive_4#Atari Age). About page. They haven't posted anything prominent on their reputation for reliability or fact-checking, and there's no staff list to review their credentials. czar 16:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. No way is this reliable—content pages are apparently user-submitted. czar  19:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. It's a fan/tribute site with community content. Only reliable stuff are the magazines themselves, but those can be located at Internet Archive anyway. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

God is a Geek
Saw this one from Pony Island and this being listed on OpenCritic. I'm not seeing any professionalism from their about page. Though one of them wrote for VICE. But that qualify this site being reliable in my book. Unreliable. GamerPro64 03:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. Hobbyist website. czar  04:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. I don't think the about page instantly discredits them, even if it looks bad. Founder and editor-in-chief  not having credentials, however, does. Haven't examined the rest of the team, but if any have credentials, it would be case-by-case anyway. No editorial/policy/ethics pages. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I think I have used one of their interviews with Atlus USA staff on some page (might be Etrian Mystery Dungeon). Is this fine?--IDVtalk 16:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think interviews are okay. Not fully sure what the consensus is for them in the project, though. GamerPro64  17:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We repeat this discussion often enough that I added some clarifying text about our current practices at WP:VGINT czar  20:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

MMORPG.com
Is this still considered an unreliable source? Here is the previous discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_4. I'm checking because the website is still being used on a bunch of mainspace articles and I'd like to get them citations removed/replaced if so. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. I think 's analysis still holds up. Their staff is hobbyist (there is a glaring lack of editorial and industry expertise). czar  17:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO unreliable. Website is run by amateur team. I'd consider replacing those references with more reliable sources. Sir Lothar (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Games Asylum

 * Previous discussion: Archive 10

This site's about page and Twitter account goes on and on about how it isn't a professional site. I think they made the case for us. Previous discussion cites how the site claims to have been serious back in the day, but I think that's conjecture unless someone can find coverage from that era and any sign that it's reliable. Absent any editorial policy, this is a hobbyist site. czar 21:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Unreliable on quick review, unless someone wants to argue for reliability. The lacking about page, author pages, and lack of anything else like editorial hierarchy. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

RPGamer revisited
So I have lots of questions about this source—I almost exclusively see it used with an author who apparently hasn't written much for the site before. There have been several discussions about the site (our main page links more than several but many don't discuss the site at all), but I wanted to first ask about "reader retroviews" such as the following: These are written by readers, right? Was there any editorial quality process here? czar 17:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Reader content ("reader retroview" here) should definitely be marked unreliable. The authors have no credentials, fact-checking, or anything to their name to justify it as reliable, even if the content is "reviewed" (I don't see the website explaining this, they hardly even point out that the content is by readers). Reading the general tone of some of these, they are definitely by the "readers". — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

PocketGamer
PocketGamer is listed as defunct but the UK site at least is still online. Or is this an unrelated PocketGamer? http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/ -- ferret (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Was it also a print magazine or something? Because yeah, as you're saying, the website is still definitely active, I read it frequently. Sergecross73   msg me  22:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Pocket Gamer suggests it was always a webpage. Webpage first, apparently, and then for a period of time printed as well. Currently just webpage, it seems. -- ferret (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

PCGamesN
I'd like to think they're reliable because if you look on their about page, they have editor staff. I wanna make sure this is okay to use before I put it into other articles (or if I'll have to remove it from the Rust (video game) article I'm working on).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions: 1, 2. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Using game manuals as a source
I assume it's OK to use instruction manuals as a reliable source when citing video game statements about, for example, controls, gameplay systems etc? Popcornduff (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes for using, and all the WP:PRIMARY stuff applies. But they are not necessarily reliable, though. Something like Prima Games guides would be. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But there's no player's guide for the game I'm writing about (Panzer Dragoon Saga). The manual in question seems to be accurate, but, uh... is my own personal judgement gonna cut the mustard in that case? How are these things determined? Popcornduff (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a gray area. Manuals are better than citing the game directly (in other words, not citing), but worse than citing a secondary source. Some editors disapprove of primary sourcing in GAs/FAs. But it's perfectly fine otherwise unless there's something contested. A manual would make sure you don't give undue attention to any particular gameplay. Of course, you can't really know if the manual is complete. But if you play the game, you can verify manual's accuracy, so to speak. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * To clarify, "reliable source" means reputation for editorial quality (which a manual doesn't have)—it's more like we tolerate such sources when nothing better exists simply because of their close affiliation with the topic. The only types of claims that can be used with such primary sources are spelled out at "self-published sources about self". If the claim is beyond what the manual is explicitly saying, the manual's not a good source. But then again, is that fact really necessary to add if no source found it important enough to mention? czar  15:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Yes, your last point is exactly what I'm wondering myself. I'll probably just skip it altogether. Popcornduff (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

App Advice
Is this site reliable? I don't know if it's enough or even matters, but it has been mentioned in some books about smartphones and smartphone apps: The Business of iPhone and iPad App Development, iPhone 4S Made Simple, Apps for Librarians.--IDVtalk 16:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The site based upon my understanding looks fairly professional, and their job policies are verification-reassuring. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 04:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Retro Gamer
Is Retro Gamer (retrogamer.net) a reliable source for WP? 152.250.143.1 (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I had assumed yes, but I see it's not actually explicitly listed. It's a print mag by Imagine, so that's pretty much above and beyond most our stuff. Their content is also really good. Their site doesn't have quite the same content as the magazine though. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, it looks professionally done, and I think that I might have cited this source beforehand. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 04:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The print magazine is definitely reliable and probably very useful. The website... I would generally stay away from this kind of stuff, even though they do seem pretty decently written. Looking at the about page, only Darran Jones and Dan Hutchinson are listed, as editor and editor-in-chief respectively. Hutchinson seems like a good name to have attached to your website. I haven't actually read much of the website's articles, but I saw they are described as posts and are "submitted by" contributers. I wonder how much editorial oversight the website has, but it's difficult to tell. It's probably a lot better than any other blog, and the content hardly seems controversial. It may be a source for developer, publisher, genre, release year, and other such info. I really don't know. ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. You are right about that we hardly have a list of editors, and the question as for blogs posted on the homepage is whether they have been checked for editorial quality. What is worse is that, on the mobile version of the website, I cannot tap names of authors who have written these blogs. I would assume that contributors' blogs posted on the website version of the magazine Retro Gamer do not belong on the website's homepage, but, for now, I would say "Situational.". Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 18:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Zelda Informer
This site currently shows up as a source on the situational search and I'm wondering if it really should be there because it's just a fan site. Staff page, About page. Here's the previous discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_10. One person decided it should be listed as situational but nobody else really gave a definitive opinion. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. Fansite spinoff of a fansite, per about page. EIC has no background in journalism as it's a fan operation. No hallmarks of editorial quality. czar  13:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ' Unreliable - per Czar - its a fansite. I'm kind of surprised it was put as "situational", but I guess it largely got there by a 1-0 vote in its favor... Sergecross73   msg me  18:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

GamerNode
When I was in the process of verifying content of Halo 5: Guardians, I eventually came across with GamerNode, a website which I vaguely remember. There are only a few contributors in the "About" section, and I am not sure about the website's overall reliability, so I need a clear consensus, concerning its reliability. It is likely to be "Nay." (which would make the website "Unreliable."). Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 04:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. From the simple idea of an independent site “for gamers, by gamers” GamerNode is seeking diligent, hard-working games industry enthusiasts ... At the moment, this is a volunteer position, so “enthusiast” is the key word here. Hobbyist website, no hallmarks of editorial quality. czar  05:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The frequency of articles' being made and the lack of being told about their policies both respectively suggest a non-professional and blog website, so I also am leaning towards unreliable. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 05:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable per quick review of "by gamers",  not listing much (Edward Inzauto looks okay, though a bit "all over the place") and  saying basically "volunteer". —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - Really, any of these "We're not journalist, but we're some fans with passion who decided to start blogging" aren't going to meet WP:RS. (No offense, gamer opinions by gamers can provide some great insight on video games...but that's not what Wikipedia looks for in its sources.) Sergecross73   msg me  18:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

TechCrunch needs a consensus
This has been heavily discussed only to have no formed consensus, so I would like to find out whether it is a reliable source or not. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 04:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable - I'm pretty sure it's been discussed before somewhere. If you look at their About Us page, you can see they have a sizable, established, experienced staff of writers. They've been around for a decade too. They're far more than the typical "Blog started by gamers who are fans" that are typically proposed around here - I see no issues with them meeting WP:RS. Sergecross73   msg me  18:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was about to say that they had a lot of staff members, but I also was going to say that they had a lot of "Columnists & Contributors", which may indicate poor reliability of their blogs, so I therefore recommend sticking only to blogs made by staff members. At least, now, I can source Weebly with that website without causing any problems. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 18:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Tech In Asia
Came across this when looking at Rise of Mana. Saw they have an ethics statement. GamerPro64 02:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Reliable. about sounds good, though their team is really large. join looks decent with at least requiring writing experience. coverage syndicated content looks good. ethics looks really good. It also suggest they are often tertiary source. culture is nice description, though fluffy and not directly related to editorial stuff. Sampling some of their editors looks great. A bunch of authors don't have full names, but otherwise it seems they have decent hiring policy and people have experience. No extra dedicated editorial page, and author pages are bare bones. Considering they deal with start-up funding, I'd expect them to be thorough. I would go with reliable on this. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-English IGN
What's our stance on using IGN non-English versions, i.e. all the ? Do we consider them reliable as part of IGN network or do we have to vet them and do we go one at a time? It does seem like these are partnerships and name licensing with "local media experts". — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like it's at least a "good guess" to use non-English IGNs. I'm currently looking at the Dutch IGN, and their staff looks pretty good. Editor-in-chief used to work at Power Unlimited and the "content director" used to be a copy editor at IDG. These people moved up too: they didn't start out at these ranks on nl.ign. I think checking the staff of all languages individually wouldn't be a good investment of resources, but I'd like to hear how well other countries do in this regard.
 * Also, should we prefer any version of IGN over the others? I assume the United States IGN would tend to deliver the best content... but can we even really prove that? ~ Mable ( chat ) 13:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the content in foreign IGNs doesn't appear in English IGNs. I guess we'd prefer English if it's the same, but it can be different even for the same topic. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've always considered other-language-IGNs to be just as worthy as the English version. I've had at least one instance (Mordheim: City of the Damned, work in progress for Reception) where there were reviews from IGN Italia and IGN Spain but not IGN English. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Same here. I've seen no reason to treat them differently. Sergecross73   msg me  14:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Shmuplations
This is a large collection of materials about Japanese games - things like interviews with Japanese developers - translated into English. To me it looks like the translations are pretty thorough (I speak a little Japanese), but I don't know if it meets Wiki standards for reliability. What do you guys think? Popcornduff (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally: what are the rules for using translations generally? If this site is considered unreliable, could I track down the original materials in Japanese (eg a Japanese strategy guide or magazine), translate them myself, and cite that? Or does that constitute original research, because there might be no way I can demonstrate my translation was accurate, or something? Popcornduff (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The language of a work (assuming it is a living language) is theoretically irrelevant. You can cite Japanese media directly. Translations can be useful for verifiability, though. Shmupulations translations would need to be particularly trustworthy, with its own kind of editorial oversight, I believe. It's fine to translate something yourself and quote it as such in an article's talk page, though I have no idea what our guidelines are on foreign language quotations in article prose. ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this site and the possible use of it on Wikipedia several times. I feel that it's different from just a fan site/blog/whatever writing its own articles, since the material this person translates generally comes from publications that would be considered reliable... but it still comes down to the question of whether we can rely on this site regarding the accuracy of the translations and authenticity of the material. Regarding the language of sources: it's perfectly fine to use non-English sources, as long as you are reasonably sure that you're understanding them correctly. It's no more original research than it is to use a source written in English.--IDVtalk 02:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Still thinking about it. I did a search for "Shmuplations" on the project's custom google search for reliable sources, and it seems that sources we consider reliable do cite Shmuplation interviews. I'm leaning towards reliable.--IDVtalk 04:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning that way too, because the translations seem so thorough, and, well... reliable. Would be great to get a decision on it as, if we decide it's kosher, it's a great resource. Popcornduff (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We often link translations for non-English pieces with the benefit of the doubt that the translation is sufficient, but it doesn't mean the source itself has a reputation for fact-checking or reliability. So to mark a source for its reliability, as we do here, has more to do with its reputation for original content and analysis. This said, we could also look at the quality of its translations. I wouldn't judge the site's translation quality on citations in video game media alone (not exactly the best judges of translations). czar  08:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Shmuplations is directed by a single person, who has studied Japanese as a teenager, graduated in the language at UC Berkeley, and lived in Japan for a while after that. They allow various contributors onto their website, and I hope they fact-check the translations of these contributors. It's hard to say, though. Has the creator of Shmuplations been involved with professional translating companies? I can't even figure out their name, let alone their background other than what they shared through the About-page. ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Browsergamez.com
I'm curious what everyone makes of Browsergamez.com, currently being used as a source at Dawn of gods. It has an editorial staff but one apparently without journalistic credentials or experience. A representative article is short on details and features a prominent "play this game now" button. And, perhaps most importantly, it doesn't appear to be cited by any reliable sources, which generally indicates no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I'd consider this yet another unreliable, light-on-content, heavy-on-advertising browser game site. Opinions? Woodroar (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All of the above, plus it doesn't even have a Web of Trust rating. I think it's neither notable nor reliable. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely wouldn't use it. Seems unreliable from all of the above. ~ Mable ( chat ) 07:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely nay as per the above comments. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 06:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

148Apps revisited
As I've previously alluded, I think we've been a little too lenient on our mobile game review sites. I've written a fair amount of GAs in this area, and the one that bothers me most is 148Apps. Previous discussions: 1, 2. It was accepted on the basis of how other sources wrote about it, but I followed the links and the site was either one among many mobile sites (many of which we do not find reliable) or only praised as an aside—not as a real qualitative measure of its content. All in all, the site does not have the pedigree we require of other sites or any of the hallmarks of editorial quality (editorial policy, reputation, editor background, etc.) I think it needs another look. I should add that I've written a number of mobile game GAs—perhaps the most in the project—and have used this site many times in my work. Still, I think it's the weakest of our vetted mobile sites. czar 19:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a hard call, it's definitely not strong. I've definitely used it, including in AfD discussions for GNG. It's certainly prominent in searches. I want to say it should be comparable to other sites of Steel Media. About looks okay, though devoid of real info. I do like the endorsements from other sites. Staff looks very incomplete. There's no other real info about editorial, review policy, ethics, etc. Their reviews are definitely not really in-depth. Some author credentials look okay, some not so much. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Another reason I think we should remove this: noting that its editorial quality is admittedly gray (or resting on its Steel Media credentials—whatever that signifies), 148Apps often serves to just push a game over the GNG. So a game might have reviews from Pocket Gamer and Gamezebo, and a 148Apps review (even if it's generally weak and of unclear cultural import) pushes it over the notability edge. I have an issue with 148Apps being the cultural marker of game notability—there isn't enough evidence that the site's opinions are consequential or vetted for that, and the reviews just barely have sufficient depth. And just to reiterate, I've used 148Apps to build out many an article... I just think it wasn't a good move. czar  15:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Inquisitr
I have recently used the site as a source for Halo 5: Guardians, and, now, I am going to look at the "About" section just to make sure that I had done it right. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 23:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A "bump" was made for this discussion because it seemed to be ignored. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 03:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article says that its an aggregator. Is that correct? If so, then we'd probably treat it more like we do N4G, (which we list here) where you don't cite it directly, but rather, you'd cite the source they're aggregating, making the call largely about what source they were using. Sergecross73   msg me  18:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have looked in their "About" page just to read about their editorial process, but I have read nothing about aggregation unlike what the article stated. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 19:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's talk about the WP:VG custom search engines
Currently we have two custom search engines available - one for RSes and one for Situational RSes. I maintain them and I've had a lot of help from and  in tweaking them. My initial philosophy was that the less filtering they received, the better. I would rather have had too many results and have had to ignore the ones that were unusable than to lose possibly good results. So at first the tweaks were entirely based on removal of non-RS portions (e.g. user-generated areas of RS websites, user blogs, forum posts, etc.). As time has gone on I've had a change of heart and there has been an undiscussed change (topic #1 below) that I'd be interested in receiving comment on. Other issues have also come up and should be discussed here at the community level. If it seems like a good idea then please cross post this to the main talk (WT:VG), and feel free to ping anyone that might be interested in this topic. Sorry about the longwinded post. Thanks for your consideration. -Thibbs (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) The filters have been expanded to exclude material that is technically reliable, but that is not really very helpful for topic-research and article-crafting either. For example, filters have recently been erected to block image subdirectories (e.g. coverart and screenshots), downloads subdirectories (e.g. demos and patches), and even cheats and codes subdirectories. Although there might be a rare situation when something like a RS-sourced cheat code could be needed (e.g. in a hypothetical list of games with an active Konami Code), mostly these kinds of results just clutter up the search results and since the custom search is limited to 10 pages this means that we are losing results that would otherwise have appeared on page 11. So it seems like a good idea to me. Does anyone have any objections to this? Does anyone want to ratify the decision?
 * 2) A new proposal has been made to filter out results that consist of nothing but tag listings on websites. There would obviously be no reason to cite such a page when writing an article at Wikipedia (even if it would, I suppose, technically constitute an RS), but on the other hand it does represent a navigational tool or discovery aid to locate additional articles related to the topic being researched. So it's not clear that it should be removed, and it may even be considered helpful. Another related suggestions has been floated to create an entirely new custom search engine for RS-based tag pages. What do people think about either of these ideas?
 * 3) I'm quite happy to continue maintaining the custom searches by myself if that's what everyone wants, but it might be a good idea to have a contingency plan in case I am eaten by a bear during one of my weekend hikes, or in case I go rogue and start vandalizing the joint until I'm perma-blocked, or even in case I want to take a WikiSabbatical at some point down the road. So I'd like to have a discussion about sharing the responsibility with a small team of coordinators. Possible upsides might include having multiple points of contact for questions, suggestions, and tweaks, sharing what intermittent workload there is for updating and improving the custom searches, there would be oversight built into the process, and it would allow me to move this info out of my userspace and into a new WP:VG subpage (the talk page of which could serve as a sounding board for ideas for future tweaks to the search). So let's discuss this. How many people should this be shared between? Is there even any interest in this?
 * The search has been really helpful for me at AfDs and I think it's caught on. I think there could be value in the edge cases you describe, but they aren't edge cases that would apply to me or any immediate situation I can imagine on WP. I think it's smart to keep the search to reliable articles with as minimal unreliable extras as possible. This said, I'd be careful about wildcards that block large swathes of the site unless someone checks those pages to verify their lack of relevance. I think it's fine to start other engines as needed (I've made my own half-assed attempt at custom searches for different topic areas—art, music, tech), but I'm grateful for the VGRS search as it is. If I understand them correctly, I think it's fine to include tag hits (e.g., example.com/tag/name-of-game) in the VGRS search, as we're not using a controlled vocabulary and sometimes tags capture alternative names of things. (And for the sake of AfD, a tag page with multiple hits is better than pasting 10 links.) As for the contingency plan, I'm happy to help however you think it should be maintained. czar  15:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * No issue here.
 * Tag listings can be valuable in making sure you've scraped everything off a website related to a particular game or genre or whatnot. So they're a good thing to double-check but usually aren't the first port of call for e.g. AFD. My inclination is to remove them from the main search; I've no opinion on setting them up to be included in a secondary search.
 * We should move that info to a subpage of this one, regardless, since we do use the engine so much. I'm inclined to maintenance as a group, but how? Can the backside of the custom search be accessed as a group? (Mind you, maintenance as a group doesn't necessarily protect us from a rouge....)
 * --Izno (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The majority of recent exclusions were proposed as either redundant or near-useless. The pages selected are those that primarily appear as tabs/subpages of the main game page. In other words, the content is still easily accessible from the main page, but it is always subpar and less relevant than the main page. Mostly it's just useless for any AfD or content, like cheats or downloads. The only caveat would be when trying to look specifically for that content. But I think having more to the point results far outweighs hypothetical need for such pages. These tend to appear in searches where the topic has little content and mostly directory entries.
 * I can see the value in having tag pages listed, although I don't personally find them relevant. They give a topic overview, but mostly they just trigger hits for every keyword (I have seen searches with an article follow by tag pages followed by most of articles from those tag pages). I find that pages linked from tag listings would appear in the search regardless should their content be relevant. But I can concede that they have use cases. I wish there was a better way to filter and group the results, such as an extra link "here be tag listings".
 * We probably don't want to have "everyone" edit the search. But I definitely support a more organized and centralized list, especially if we are to have more exclusions and we want to keep them organized. I had parsed the list when I wanted to see what exactly was in it and what sites excluded what (in doing so, also finding a couple issues). I'd be awesome if there was a central place. No strong feeling about who wished to (co-)maintain the actual search account/listing, whatever Thibbs finds best unless we want to propose something.
 * — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

ESC Magazine (ESCmag)
Doesn't have any hallmarks of editorial quality from its about page alone, but perhaps it had wider influence? czar 15:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Indie Game Reviewer
This page was recently deleted and its reliability was questioned at Featured article candidates/Ancient Trader/archive2. I, myself, do not see any hallmarks of editorial quality or discretion. No indication that it isn't more than a hobbyist site. czar 14:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. Looks like a run-of-the-mill gaming blog. About has some big red flags re quote above. "Check out our Indie Game Reviewer Wikipedia entry to learn more about IGR’s history." is just poor. Contact lists "send two samples of your writing" and mentions plagiarism checks -- there is no way, if they hired people with credentials, that they would need to tell people with credentials such things. No editorial, no author information. I did not check authors individually (and they have many authors), but I doubt of their extensive experience. In short, there is no argument for reliability. Their reviews look average to subpar at a cursory glance: not really substantial and there are various issue I can spot (like spelling errors, really?). — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. "Without any corporate agenda looming over its shoulder, IGR is a collective of independent gamers and developers – or in other words – just people who love games and writing about them,...". Really? This sounds like a bad case of a blog website full of people who have a few credentials (if not "no") and write whatsoever comes to their minds, and they even discuss about their history by linking that to the entry of IGR on Wikipedia (which does not even exist anymore). It also lacks notability, suggesting that it may as well just be a website full of fans. Without editorial policies, the blog website is just awful. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 18:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Tablet Magazine
I was trying to source Wolfenstein 3D—specifically the Gameplay section in order to keep the video game itself from being a primary source—, but, then, I saw this magazine. Is it reliable? Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 03:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * According to their "About Us" page, although they welcome freelance writers, they are supposed to submit their "pitches", and the following says something important:

Successful pitches will display a working knowledge of Tablet Magazine and the content it publishes.
 * That said, they show some degree of editorial quality, so I am partly leaning towards reliable, but I need some more thoughts from you Wikipedians just in case of disagreement with my semi-conclusion. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 02:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (Can we really not do better than a "daily online magazine of Jewish news, ideas, and culture" for gameplay details on what is a classic game?) czar  14:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that I might know what you mean, but I am only partly understanding what your point is. Can you clarify what you mean? Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 18:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would think that we could use existing, vetted sources for Wolfenstein 3D's gameplay details. We tend to only assess outlets that regularly run games coverage (otherwise we'd be vetting all sorts of political and cultural magazines, etc.), unless Tablet does run games coverage that I don't see? czar  20:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Behind the Voice Actors
Appears to be a hobbyist site, but used frequently on character articles. FAQ (about) page czar  05:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I like this indiscriminate database, but I think it's just that. I don't think the administrators are "experts in the field" per se, and regardless, they get their information from primary sources, per this quote:


 * the website definitely doesn't establish notability, but they check primary sources for information that may be useful for us. I don't know what to do with them, but maybe it would be valuable to contact them for verification of information? Or something like that... The website may also be highly valuable as an external link, assuming its content is consistently of high quality. ~ Mable ( chat ) 07:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

MMObomb.com
At first glance, I thought MMObomb may be reliable, but now that I'm digging I think the opposite. The site has an editorial staff, some with experience, but others without experience. It has opinion/editorial articles that are labeled as such, but they're only labeled as editorials from the homepage, plus they're...anonymous? Some typical articles (the first three I opened) are short on details and pseudonymously written. It seems like their only reviews are user-submitted–essentially what every other site would call "comments"–and their game database information is provided by the game developers. (See this game and scroll down for an example.) They make it easy for developers to submit their game (though that functionality is currently broken) which makes me question their independence, and that entire page looks like an advertisement to developers. MMObomb is mentioned in Google News, but they all look to be press releases. They're also cited in a handful of university student theses. I am unable to find widespread citing by other reliable sources, which speaks against their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Opinions? Woodroar (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Site is known on the Web, though isn't too big. Your concerns look legit since there's no sense in taking sources from a suspicious site. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't really like the website from what I see, but the editors may have some interesting backgrounds. Though I haven't been able to figure out the background of the website's editor-in-chief, I did find out editor Brittany Vincent used to write for Destructoid and various other reliable websites, and Jason Winter has written for magazines Massive Online Gamer and Fun Online Games, as well as the website GameBreaker.tv. Michael Dunaway used to be the website's editor-in-chief, and now works as a community manager at Obsidian, though he is still listed as an editor on MMOBomb's website. MMOBomb's founder, Luis Paulo Dobreira, is also surprisingly prolific. I wouldn't discount the website just yet. All I've done is look these people up, though: I haven't read any of the articles ^_^; ~ Mable ( chat ) 07:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now had some time to browse through ~50 articles, and I still wouldn't consider this site reliable. Virtually everything they publish is a short, 3-4 paragraph summary of a developer update/changelog or press release, along with a link to that source. The rare longer articles are editorials, but they're all very simple "the games industry is like this for this reason" pieces. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just rather obvious stuff: "developers did a lot of such-and-such, but the market is now saturated with such-and-such, so developers don't do a lot of such-and-such anymore". I think we can find those opinions elsewhere (and without the advertisements), and apparently other sites feel the same way, because basically no reliable sources are citing them. Woodroar (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

4Players.de
I don't know much about this German site—does anyone else? czar 14:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)