Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 14

Adventure Classic Gaming
The second quote is good, but the first part isn't. There are not many signs that the site is treated as experts by their peers, and this is corroborated by their lack of strict author pedigrees. This said, their content might be fine if they actually follow their editorial policy... it just doesn't mean that we take them at their word. czar 20:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not exactly like we're low on sources to use. I wonder what this means exactly for the content they deliver. Some good editorial review process should mean that the website is fine for interviews and technical information. The fact that these are "gamers' opinions" makes the website feel a lot less reliable than website that make use of professional reviewers when it comes to opinions. We should also keep in mind that the website describes its editorial policy as a "peer review process". With a website of 140+ contributors, I can imagine a peer review from any dozen of them not meaning much.
 * Something else that I noticed: "We have been quoted by major game developers, publishers, and industry media in news stories, press excerpts, trailers, and advertisements (including retail box cover art)." This seems true:, , and makes me feel like the website is indeed reliable for objective information. ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But being quoted is not itself endorsement by major publications. Major publications also quote people off the street and users from online forums... I think this is a case of having a good (stated) editorial practice outweighed by other weak qualifications. czar  14:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple sources
Someone said recently that the sources listed here are unreliable. So I thought I would list the ones that haven't been discussed already here for everyone to comment upon. What are your thoughts? SharkD  Talk  03:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll have better luck listing these one at a time with links to their about pages and reasons for/against (e.g., coverage in other outlets). As for what "someone said recently", they said that "GR also uses far more unreliable sites [than Metacritic], on the whole", not that these listed above are, by virtue of their inclusion in GR, unreliable. It isn't looking good for the vast majority of those listed above, though. czar  04:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, while anyone's free to list whatever here, when people go into with a "look into this for me" approach, they tend to get a lot less input. You're usually better off if you start the discussion off with a bit of evaluation of your own... Sergecross73   msg me  13:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because there is a dispute I wanted to let other people try to handle this. SharkD   Talk  07:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

AceGamez

 * Previous discussion: 1


 * (not in-depth review) Unreliable per previous discussion and staff page. No editorial/review/ethics policy. May be usable if author has credentials, but they have a bunch of various writers. .co.uk version doesn't seem to be different. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Quandary

 * (not in-depth review) Unreliable. About us says "coming soon" for staff list. No staff/author pages/editorial/ethics policies. Review policy looks decent. It looks likely some of the authors went on to write other stuff, so we might use their earlier articles. Overall content looks good though, so if someone wants to give some arguments for reliability, I'm all ears. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Just RPG

 * Previous discussion: 1


 * (not in-depth review) Unreliable per previous discussion and no author pages, near-empty about, no staff/editorial/review/ethics policies. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

PC Gameplay
Unfortunately, I cannot speak Dutch (although I do understand 39% of German [according to my Duolingo statistics], which is closely related to the language thereof), but what I do see is what appears to be the front cover of a magazine, suggesting that PC Gameplay may be a reliable source after all. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 17:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, haha, I read Gameplay magazine regularly. It's well edited video game reviews and news. Nothing you can't find anywhere else and nothing particularly different, but good stuff regardless. I was thinking about using some of their retro reviews at some point: those may prove useful. Definitely reliable. ~ Mable ( chat ) 18:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

AntKids.com

 * Unreliable per their content. There's not much to say. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - it looks like an old Geocities blogging website from years past. I have a hard time taking a source that has a "Booger Brigade" seriously. There is like zero percent chance this doesn't fail WP:USERG. Sergecross73   msg me  18:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Games First!

 * (not in-depth review) Unreliable. The site's authors also post the content (Shawn Rider and Sarah Wichlacz). Their assistant editor Aaron Stanton has better credentials. Don't see much editorial oversight otherwise. Quick search doesn't reveal much credentials for other authors. About says some good things, but also "correspondents all over the world". No staff page/ethics/review/editorial policies. Unsure if site is deliberately this "retro" in 2016. Content looks decent though, so I wouldn't dismiss it if a reliable author posts something or for unique things like interviews. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yahoo! Games

 * Reliable: A lot of these articles on the front page of the "News" section appear to be published by reliable sources; in fact, these pages' content are linked to their origins, which would be websites on which they were originally published. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 03:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But the point of finding a site reliable is that it has its own standards of editorial quality. Why would we approve this on the basis that it carries content from other sites wholesale? czar  04:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I am new and trying to be like everyone else on this talk page. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 23:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Situational. The website as a whole appears to be a targeted ad store-front first and content second and this by itself fails a lot of what makes a reliable source. Most of their news/review content is from other websites making it a tertiary source and we cannot assume all original content is reliable. If we need to use this, we would just use the original sources and base inclusion on original sources. Links to developer/publisher location is not any indication of reliability. So unreliable as a whole. Now, their "Plugged In" blog section actually appears reliable. Majority of authors behind posts look good to me (despite author pages taking to just other author posts). Lacking in staff/editorial/policy/review pages, but that's a side-effect of being a store-front. Actual review content looks well-written. I doubt they cover anything controversial or actual industry news, but for just games it looks decent. I would say Yahoo as a "publisher" adds a little credibility.  —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would personally prefer that we find individual Yahoo! Games blogs reliable than call the whole source (tertiary content and all) situational. Would you argue for any YG blog or section besides Plugged In? (Or we could find the source reliable but note not to use it for tertiary content) czar  14:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean only the "Plugged In" portion. No other blogs and not tertiary content. That is, everything is unreliable except for "Plugged In" = situational. May be I'm using "situational" wrong again. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am actually able to find content written by reliable websites such as GameSpot other than just Plugged In, and that was what made me find it reliable. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 06:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But then we wouldn't cite Plugged In, we would use the original GameSpot article. In other words, we prefer to cite secondary rather than tertiary sources. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So does that make it unreliable now that I have pointed out that the website is a tertiary source of a lot of reliable sources? Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 16:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But it does have original content in the "Plugged In" section. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I have had a question which I have been wanting to ask but never took the time to do so until finally now, and, here, it is: "Is it possible to use too much of one source all in one article? By definition, for example, would it be considered bad to cite IGN's 100 sources in one article? I am asking this because it may have the potential to decrease an article's notability.". That sounded off-topic, but it is what I have been wanting to ask, and here is another question: "Is it equally as bad to cite IGN's 50 sources and Yahoo! News's 50 sources which cite IGN's other 50 sources as it is just to cite IGN's 100 sources in one article?", which actually sounds logical now that I have brought it up. I hope that what I said made sense because it is complex. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 18:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't affected by content quality -- it doesn't matter if a source is cited or not, because notability is established in principle, not based on what is in the article. Now, article quality would drop if we don't use other sources because one source has 100 cites. But there is nothing inherently wrong citing a source multiple times. The more we cite, the more we might summarize to not give it undue attention though. But these are editorial decisions. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wasn't Yahoo! Games something else before this recent redesign? I vaguely recall them having other sorts of features that all went down once they changed their URL structure (there was a period of several months of downtime while they restructured). E.g., this Orange Box review or this Madden retrospective czar  14:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Yahoo! underwent changes at some point. Maybe in the past they did their own actual reviews. SharkD   Talk  04:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This one might not matter too much anymore, since the website is going under. Any content we've got can be reviewed individually and either replaced with a more reliable source or the related content removed. --Izno (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Pregaming

 * I cannot find the website anywhere, indicating that it may not be notable after all. Sorry. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 06:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Happy Puppy

 * Old version and Relaunch. Doesn't seem to be reliable with no staff/author/editorial/review/ethics policy pages. Some authors, like Vincent Daly might be considered reliable. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

ZAM
Zam was previously a MMO website, it operated a series of fansites and communities such as Wowhead. In late 2015, Zam was relaunched as a generalist video games website. (It still operates the fansites) The previous iteration of Zam had very little editorial, and I would not consider it a reliable source. However the new version pays its writers its core team (Laura Michet, Brandon Sheffield, Kris Ligman and Danielle Riendeau) have experience at other publications such as Gamasutra and Polygon. I consider the new version reliable. - hahnch e n 22:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do they have an editorial/ethics policy? I do recognize Ligman and Riendeau from previous works but I want to be certain about how Zam works. GamerPro64  02:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't even need to look him up to be able to tell you that Brandon Sheffield is an experienced editor and an expert in the field. Besides that, I don't know. ~ Mable ( chat ) 07:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

VRFocus
There are a bunch of specialty sites popping up to cover VR games and, as expected, most are junk. VRFocus is affiliated with Gamer Network, though, and this is their about page. Wanted to get some feedback. czar 01:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are they part of Gamer Network? I can't find a source on that nor are they on the Gamer Network website. GamerPro64  01:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * They have a big logo in their footer but who knows—I don't see them in the Gamer Network list either czar  01:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I emailed the Gamer Network and their CEO replied saying, while not formally announced yet, the network will be "helping out VRfocus with their advertising sales & business development." GamerPro64  14:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Syfy Games
So with Syfy Games, G4 is back by name. But name brand alone doesn't decide its status of reliability. Just find it interesting that this is a thing now. GamerPro64 03:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

GameZone revisited
I only see this site used for repackaged press releases. This is its current About page and I see no editorial policy. Previous discussions were also skeptical. Why does this site get a pass? (Links from main page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) czar  03:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that comment about "repackaged PR"? I feel like I've used them for good, detailed articles of their own writing. Also of note, they do have a dedicated team of writers and editorial staff - see http://www.gamezone.com/about_us - that's usually a point in their favor by itself.  Sergecross73   msg me  03:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When I'm in the custom Google search, GameZone usually signifies that I've hit the dregs. I spent a little time looking at the author pedigrees and wasn't too impressed. The publisher lists Playwire instead of GameZone on his CV, and describes the former as an ad network, not an outlet of journalism. Similarly, I'm not seeing the editor-in-chief's background in the field. Mosts of the posts on the front page are written by a freelancer. And, I don't know... typos in the titles... It may be more organized than a run-of-the-mill blog but I don't see how it meets any of our other usual standards. News editor has no previous background. The fact that I have to dig this hard to find a reason to assert its credibility, etc. Perhaps it used to be something different? czar  03:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should contact them, asking if they have an editorial policy but its not shown. Or if they have an ethics policy. Or anything. GamerPro64  03:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Might want to check that third discussion link above before contacting them—there's bad blood czar  04:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Geez. How the heck are we talking about this now? Why didn't we attempt a reassessment after that incident? GamerPro64  05:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, spamming links and being not so nice isn't really one of the criteria for being a reliable source. Its unfortunate and irritating, but at the same time, we can't make decisions that make it look like reliability is reactionary to us not liking them or being offended. Sergecross73   msg me  13:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it's also understood that an EIC wouldn't need to send this email if there wasn't any question of their status. My main question is whether something has changed in the site over time and if we were to evaluate the site today without the previous discussions, what evidence we'd find to include it in the first place. czar  14:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

So are we planning on demoting this source from Reliable? Or at the very least change it to Situational? GamerPro64 18:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't think so, not yet anyways. I'm not convinced it's unreliable. I've used it in the past, and it's been helpful to flesh out development sections. I'm not convinced they're "mostly PR", and they do have a dedicated team of editors. More digging is needed. Sergecross73   msg me  18:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I still think Gamezone is a reliable source from references cited when it was originally discussed. Reliable publications still reference it.  But its one of the many sources that I never use, anything that it covers has generally already been covered by a more prominent and influential publication. - hahnch e n 23:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, the original DarkBlade4658 here. Figured I'd respond to this before it spirals out of control. I'm actually not with the site anymore, and I'm not going to justify their behavior here but more so shed light on what was happening at the time when I was adding content to Wikipedia. I was hired there part time, and aside from contributing some articles, I was also tasked to raise "awareness" of the site (mind you I had no experience in this) through very specific directions. One of them (among others) being to create account on WP, learn how to add sources, and then go through pages of games we reviewed and add us as a source, if we weren't already. Having never done that before, or had any prior knowledge of the rules behind this, I was surprised when I was banned for that reason, since I thought Wikipedia existed for things like that. My bosses also weren't up to speed on WP, hence the reply by the then EIC. A few months later, he was replaced by another EIC and that guy also told me to once again start sourcing on WP. Of course, I told him that I've already been banned, and that sourcing a site which you worked for is against their policy. His response was to simply create new accounts and just keep doing it. As a part timer working at a gaming site at the time, I honestly had a hard time saying no, and hence the dummy accounts. I have actually worked at the site full time until a few months ago, and the EICs which tasked me with doing that have been gone since about 2011. As far as CZAR's accusations of repackaging press releases, well, I can't talk of the site now since I've left, but when I was there we made a point to not simply copy and paste a press release, and offer our opinion on the matter as well. Is it a reliable source, I'd say yes, though I understand how that would seem biased, but I will say that I'm certainly not fond of the direction some of the pieces are going now. Hope I could finally clear up some of the mess you guys sourced up there. I'm certainly not proud of it by any means, and it's clear my bosses at the time were clueless about this kind of stuff too. Devotedgmr17 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Event Hub
http://www.eventhubs.com

It keeps being used in more recent articles, especially fighting games, but I don't see evidence of it meeting the requirements of an RS, so I wanted to get a consensus here. Writers aren't journalists, but just random people who's only credentials seem to be being a "passionate it hardcore gamer". They seem to allow reader submissions. Seems to fail WP:USERG.
 * Unreliable per above. Sergecross73   msg me  01:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. I also do not like the website's About Us page. Although content under the "About EventHubs" header looks promising, content in the "EventHubs community" section, however, is a repellent; it makes the website seem as though it were relying upon its members in general to keep the site alive. Also, the lack of information as to EventHubs' headquarters strengthens my curiosity as to whether the website really is a hobbyist website after all. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 06:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, as much as they've got an established staff, the ones I spot checked really didn't have much in the way of credentials. The website's president's main credential was...being the website's president. Nate "Nyoro" Young's credentials are "writing gameguides and finding crazy Youtube videos" or something to that capacity. The website reminds me of just a slightly more organized GameFaqs, where its mostly user-submitted, and the content is reviewed, but very briefly to confirm its not our equivalent to "pure vandalism", not in the capacity of a typical editor at IGN or Polygon or something. Sergecross73   msg me  12:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

TrustedReviews
I have seen it being used in articles, but whether it is reliable hasn't been discussed. It is owned by Time Inc. UK but its about page is not really that convincing. It also supports content from contributors as well, so I am not sure whether this should be counted as a reliable source or not. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Gaming on Linux
A user on Talk:Steam (software) requested that a reference, originating on Gaming on Linux, be added to the talk page's article, and I truly doubt its reliability. Here is what I have replied to the requester: In my opinion (with absolutely no offense intended for the original poster), no, someone must not add the reference to the article, and here is why:
 * I politely presume that did not take his or her time to determine the website's reliability, and my reason for doing so is here:"A little bit of information on who GamingOnLinux are, we are just a small group of passionate Linux fans who wish to bring you nothing but the best in Linux gaming news. Started by liamdawe on his own in 2009 on a .info address, we later switched to using a .com domain name."
 * Nowhere in that statement does it reassure us the website's overall quality; rather, it indicates that the website is in fact a hobbyist website.
 * On the mobile version of Gaming on Linux, I cannot seem to find editorial/credential/ethics policy pages (which are required for all writers of high-quality websites), and that is a big error.
 * The website's authors' profiles do not exactly tell me everything which I need to know (such as their real names), and I doubt that, on the "About Us" page, they really know how to write high-quality articles. At the same time, the website also appears to be a blog site, which without editorial quality can result in possibly false information.
 * So, after what I have said, the conclusion is that Gaming on Linux fails WP:RS and WP:BLOG. It would also be good for either of us to add to the list on WikiProject Video games/Sources, which one can use to know exactly which sources to use. Now that the topic is resolved, at least, we can continue to make more progress on Wikipedia. Happy editing! Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 06:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree with me upon my opinion about the website? Do others besides just me find this website unreliable? Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 06:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - Generally, when a websites main credentials are something to capacity of "passionate fans who started up their own website", that means they don't usually meet WP:RS or WP:SPS. Sergecross73   msg me  15:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Cliqist
This website focuses on crowdfunded games. Only seen it be used for the Undertale article but I'm not positive this is a reliable source. GamerPro64 01:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Rift Herald
This should be an easy add—it's a new esports reporting joint venture between Polygon and SB Nation—two established, reliable sources in Vox Media. Not sure if we will need to sort out community posts, but any post from their staff (which is shared with other Vox Media sites) should be assumed to have been through editorial process. We'll have a bit more details on masthead in the coming days, but I'd like to add it to the search. czar 15:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems like anything that isn't a "fanpost" or "fanshot" is definitely reliable. Everything else... I have no idea yet. Not really sure what the difference is. The website has some blog-y aspects. We can really use some good esports news websites, though! ~ Mable ( chat ) 18:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a thread that I opened about esports sources in the archives somewhere. Didn't get much traction, but could be worth bringing up again now that it's exploding czar  02:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Den of Geek
I see that the website has not been listed, so let us all find out about the website's overall quality. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll check out the website's editors later today, but for now I'd like to say that have some good experiences with the website. They write good stuff. ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Official sites?
Are they considered reliable sources?. Mainly for release date?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.130.80 (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They are primary sources. Usage of primary sources must be handled carefully. -- ferret (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You need secondary sources to prove notability. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but a primary source should be fine to verify a release date. -- ferret (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I believed it depends on what kind of articles they are. If it is a typical video game article, then yes. If we include anything/everything with a primary source in list articles, I am quite sure that it is not going to work. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Currently i'm undergoing a edit war btw Rhain & Lordtobi for a game called Videoball at 2016 in video gaming. This games does not have a concentrate release date. All it says "coming May 2016". None of the game titles in 2016 in video gaming has a official site has a source. Most of the links are from this sites |WP:VG Reliable Sources

What make this particular game to have official sites and what is stopping me from adding various titles with only "official sites" with no secondary links to this page?. I would prefer if we waited for sources mentioned on that wiki and also i'm not particular fond of titles with no concentrate release date on 2016 video gaming or any page. --117.192.130.80 (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The primary source is only being used to confirm a May release date. The article Videoball has many more sources as far as establishing notability goes (And WP:VG/RS google search shows tons more available sources). I don't see an issue with  here. There's no OR or synthesis occurring. -- ferret (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This discussion should be occurring at Talk:2016 in video gaming. -- ferret (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Nintendo Force
This is a print magazine (also available digitally through their website), created as a sort of follow-up to Nintendo Power, featuring developer interviews, reviews, previews, and other features. When I first heard about it, I thought it was going to be some amateur fan project, but they've actually kept going for over three years now, and have several experienced staff members: Rebecca Rudeen has written for RPGamer; Tony Ponce has written for Destructoid; Jonathan Holmes is the editor-in-chief for Destructoid; Nintendo Force editor-in-chief Lucas M. Thomas has written for IGN; Nadia Oxford has written for USgamer, IGN, 1UP.com and PlayStation: The Official Magazine; Neal Ronaghan has written for Nintendo World Report, 1UP.com, GamePro and IGN; Chris Charter has written for Destructoid; David Oxford has written for 1UP.com; and Evan Campbell has written for IGN. So yeah, I definitely support its inclusion as a reliable source.--IDVtalk 00:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The site certainly has people with credentials working on it. I can support it too. Though Jonathan Holmes stepped down as EiC for Destructoid last year. Chris Carter was his replacement. GamerPro64  01:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up,, as I too thought this was just some fan project. If this is the caliber of writers they have on staff, then I'd support its use as well. Sergecross73   msg me  15:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't even think this needed discussion TBH. The RS status of NF should be evident. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree now, but I'm glad it was discussed. Like IDV, I had the misconception that it was one of many amateur fan projects out there. There's a lot of "fans banding together to support a dying medium" projects that wouldn't meet RS standards. As a Vita fan, I would know, haha. Sergecross73   msg me  16:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Audyssey Magazine
I don't hold any great hopes for this one, but I'd like to request it be evaluated. Points in its favor are that it's important within the community it serves and that editorial credits are consistently listed. A point that might otherwise count against it but shouldn't is its presentation, which is optimized for said community and therefore differs greatly from what we might otherwise expect in a Serious Publication. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * From Articles for deletion/Nanvaent (2nd nomination): "Audyssey has zero hallmarks of reliability (reputation for fact-checking, editor pedigree) so there is no chance that it would be considered a reliable source." czar  16:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

RS?
I'm working on Space Marshals and I came across the following sources. I'm not sure which ones are reliable (if any) and which aren't. Omni Flames   let's talk about it  23:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Before this one times out, I see no reason to accept any of the above as reliable, especially without any evidence/argument to the contrary czar  18:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Multiplayer.it
I feel like I've come in contact with this website before, but I have no idea how or when. I can't read Italian, but looking at the website, it has the following paragraph in its footer: (translated through Google Translate). It also has a staff page, which looks decent enough, though I do not know the background of any of these people. Multiplayer.it is apparently part of the Netaddiction network, so I can imagine some editorial oversight. I would lean to reliable by default (as it's good to have some foreign-language sources we can use and the website looks decent), but wouldn't officially list it as such until someone with better insights comes along. ~ Mable ( chat ) 07:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be cautious about accepting PR language on its face, for exactly the reasons you spell out below. Also, check the list, we're not exactly hurting for non-English RS that we need to drop the bar. czar  04:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What I intended to say was that I haven't seen much that negatively affects my stance on the website yet. I wouldn't remove the source from an article unless the claim it supports is exceptional, but I don't want to encourage usage of this source yet either because I simply don't know anything about it yet ^_^; ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Gamer.nl
Dutch, however, I can read. Sadly, clicking any of the links in the footer (which boil down to "staff" or "about") redirect to a 404 page. The owner of the online magazine, Reshift, seems to own a variety of reliable Dutch sources (I can vouch for many of the magazines listed on that page). Reshift gives us more insight in what they think of Gamer.nl:

Honestly, I don't like it. I've been looking at some of the articles to find out something about the regular contributors or staff, and though they list some personal information on their bio's, they don't seem to have any experience at other magazines or websites. Two translated examples:

I would add that these bio's are not particularly professionally written, which I suppose is fine (that's pretty much the norm for some gaming magazines), but it also doesn't add anything in terms of reliability. I'd personally suggest to evade this website if possible (18 May edit: unreliable), though it's difficult to tell. ~ Mable ( chat ) 07:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It has fared better in the past, but I'm with you. I think this is an example of a site that looks good on paper (age, owner) but Reshift's properties are uneven. I'd much sooner trust Power Unlimited than even insidegamer.nl. When your staff page is 404'ing, you're unreliable. czar  04:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

madewith.unity.com
"Made With Unity" by Unity Technologies is a showcase of games officially approved by Unity Technologies staff members, only after they prove the legitimacy of the game - or the game will be rejected. Due to the prestigious nature of Unity Technologies and their approval/rejection system, Made with Unity should be considered a reliable, secondary source.Dylanh724 (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliability is about reputation for editorial accuracy—where is that in this case? czar  06:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Destructoid
Should this be moved to Situational? According to the notes it is a blog site and thus should only be used if the author can be established as reliable. Anarchyte  (work  &#124; talk )   04:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We made a decision a while back to move it from Situational to Reliable. The discussion is linked in the checklist section. GamerPro64  12:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean really, its not any different from GameSpot or IGN, where the staff is usable, and the user-generated blogs are not. I think the only difference is that they have a more prolific user-blog community, so you probably need to check a little more. But the staff are all usually pretty clearly labeled as staff, editor, etc. Sergecross73   msg me  13:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

eSports revisited
Okay, now that we're knee-deep in garbage sources, it's time to do some more sorting.
 * Last thread

Consensus slate

 * I think we should establish that the following are reliable/unreliable, and I don't think they will require much discussion, but feel free to remove one from the list and discuss it on its own if necessary.

 Reliable
 * SBNation (Vox Media property, established sports site) – I'd include Rift Herald (mentioned above) with this too

Unreliable
 * LoL Esports is owned by Riot Games (LoL dev)
 * All In appears to have dropped its byline since the last discussion and only posts clickbait—no high hopes that they have an editorial process
 * E-Sports Earnings – no hallmarks of reliability, no active staff page, yet still widely used in our articles (why?)
 * Esports Heaven – hobbyist blog? No staff listing. User-contributed posts?
 * Esports Observer – staff has weak pedigree, another new "brand" looking to take advantage of the young field
 * Melee It on Me – hobbyist blog
 * My Nintendo News – "Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com"
 * Nintendo Enthusiast – another "enthusiast" blog (staff)
 * Smashboards, an online forum
 * Shoryuken – "enthusiast" blog, no staff listing or hallmarks of quality
 * Vicio Juegos – staff by nickname, no reputation for fact-checking or quality
 * HLTV – No editorial oversight
 * And, of course, we note that team sites (teamliquidpro.com, evilgeniuses.gg, etc.) are primary sources that should only be used as self-published, non-independent sources and cannot be used to prove the noteworthiness of an event or of an individual


 * I think that should get us started. czar  04:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So... does anyone have any idea for possible reliable sources? Surely, there must be something! ~ Mable ( chat ) 11:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the other dedicated eSports sites live in sections of previously vetted sources (Daily Dot, Red Bull, Polygon, GameSpot, etc.) czar  12:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the websites I'm familiar with on the consensus slate. "My Nintendo News" is an especially bad offender, I've found many errors in their work, and some particularly inaccurate statements or misleading headlines. Nintendo Enthusiast, I don't have as many problems with, but they still have quite the Nintendo slant, and probably closer classified to "fans blogging" than "RS". I stumbled upon "Shoryuken" while trying to help clean up the Tekken 7 article some, and I came to the same conclusion that it's probably not an RS... Sergecross73   msg me  17:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

TheScore
This is a business that manages an app with eSports score data, but their quality of reporting leaves much to be desired. Here's a random sample of three of their contributors: Dozsa, Rosen, Feldkamp. And nothing on editorial oversight. I was hopeful, based on its production value, but looks unreliable. czar 04:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I have a hard time finding out much about this website other than its "mobile first" focus and its use of social media. Joe Ross seems to be in charge of content of both The Score and The Score Esports (according to the about page), though his qualifications are that he's been with the company for ages and "Joe oversaw the creation of the company’s innovative ‘mobile first’ newsroom ...". However, as for the actual people you linked, there is Dozsa, who has worked the Toronto Observer and Hooked Gamers (for which they went to Gamescom and PAX to do interviews and such), and Feldkamp has apparently been a professional League player himself? I have seen worse sources, though I don't like how all the articles are just a few lines of facts. ~ Mable ( chat ) 11:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Player -> coach or other related entity is a normal movement in esports (and perhaps non-esports). --Izno (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We do have an article on the company at TheScore Inc. I would be shocked if there wasn't any oversight whatsoever. We may want to investigate. As an aside, The Score seems to be referenced some 300 times (some of which are deadlinks)--some may need to be removed. There was a blogs subdomain at one point--I wonder where that went. It might be worthwhile to get an opinion from WP:WikiProject Canada or WP:WikiProject Sports. --Izno (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to separate the idea of company oversight (heavy focus on score app) from editorial oversight (over quality of original reporting). czar  18:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure; my point is to suggest that there is likely to be editorial oversight, less they be answerable to their shareholders for some particularly grievous errors in reporting. --Izno (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

1337

 * 1337 Magazine ← see the staff page, low credibility apart from maybe Rasmus Lund-Hansen, but one editor with experience at Gamereactor doesn't make the publication credible. Unreliable. czar  04:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Executive editor Niels Thornberg also seems to have some reliability, though he may not work for the website anymore. A line in Michael Cohen's bio suggests that editors are paid, which is always a good sign. The website is part of Aller Media, and Thornberg's Linkedin states that he was "Responsible for developing a new gaming brand for a global market. This includes overall strategy, marketing, hiring of personel, budgets and creative involvement." Just based on what I've seen thus far, I wouldn't write the website off. Something that annoys me is that every single article on the front-page is written by Lund-Hansen. ~ Mable ( chat ) 07:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

eSports by Inquirer.net

 * "eSports by Inquirer.Net is the home of the Philippine eSports Organization (PeSO). The website was founded in 2014 through the partnership between PeSO and Inquirer.net." (about us) Philippine Daily Inquirer is the real deal, but I can't make heads or tails of this website. The authors do not appear to have an official pedigree, there is no listing of senior/editorial staff, and the whole thing appears to be a marketing partnership with the Philippine eSports Organization? Unreliable. czar  04:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why in the world does their about page have a comment section?? *ahem* anyway, you can often learn a lot from a website being looking at what kind of jobs they offer. Ignoring the fact that they want a live event coordinator, marketing associate, etc, I reached "VOLUNTEER NEWS WRITER / REPORTER". Looking at it, I think I'd describe it as "basic": "has a working knowledge of the eSports and gaming industry; has basic knowledge of news writing and other writing-related techniques; has average written communication skills; has basic interviewing and research skills;" etc. They want people to write articles on a daily basis, which may mean the regular staff has some good experience writing articles, but I don't think this would result in quality material. The word "volunteer" is really what kills it, though: if I would write a daily article for a website for free (next to my day job), I'd imagine myself cutting corners at some point. I think unreliable is accurate. ~ Mable ( chat ) 11:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

HLTV.org

 * What's the stance on this website? It posts CS:GO related content. Anarchyte  (work  &#124; talk )   04:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do they have original reporting? I only see scores/stats. Not seeing any credentialing to warrant our trust either czar  06:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's in the middle of the screen (screenshot). Anarchyte  (work  &#124; talk )   06:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't that user-contributed content? czar  06:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "MIRAA", "Striker", "BenjaCS", these people don't seem to be "experts in the field" or anything like that. I don't see any reason to think it isn't a news blog by random people yet. I'm not able to find any kind of "about" page, so if they do have well-edited content, they manage to hide it well. ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I've listed HLTV as unreliable in the box above. <font face="Papyrus"><font color="#ff0000">Anarchyte <font color="#000"> (<font color="#EB4E4F">work  &#124; <font color="#EB4E4F">talk )   07:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)