Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 15

Why is Old-Games.com blacklisted?
Just wondering why this site is blacklisted? It has many great reviews on obscure games from the 90's and 00's. Has this site been discussed at VG/Sources before?

(I can't even link the site here because it "has triggered a protection filter"--Coin945 (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's on the global blacklist. Here is the proposal that led to its addition. Reach Out to the Truth 03:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was fair for Old-Games to be lumped in with a mass-site blacklisting. It seems like a reliable source to me. I request for this site to be reevaluated.--Coin945 (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The website does still seem to be hosting download links to copyrighted games (search for "Mario", for example). Do we have any reason to believe that the descriptions/reviews are reliable? Is there editorial oversight, or are the writers of the articles well-known experts in the field? ~ Mable ( chat ) 04:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The site is owned by San Pedro Software, which is "a small software development company based in Belize. Our staff operates from Czech Republic". Here's some other stuff:   . There's also an email address listed on the site that we could contact for further information on editorial oversight etc: info@old-games.com.--Coin945 (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Before we contact the website, may I ask what your relationship to the company that owns it is? Seeing as you said "our staff". ~ Mable ( chat ) 07:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're misreading Coin945's comment - that is a quote from San Pedro's website, where they speak of themselves in first person.--IDVtalk 09:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I missed the quotation marks - my bad ^_^; Should we contact the company to ask about its editorial oversight? Is the fact that they host copyrighted content possibly unlawfully an issue when linking to it from Wikipedia? I honestly don't know what the best course of action is. ~ Mable ( chat ) 10:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ELNEVER would answer your latter question in the affirmative. --Izno (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Wikipedia takes copyright violations/illegal content stuff pretty seriously. If they still link to illegal downloads, I kind of doubt any conclusions we come to here is going to revert Wikipedia-on-a-whole's stance on the website. Sergecross73   msg me  12:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to cite the review itself without linking to the website that hosts copyrighted material? Like for example is there a way to just link the review text without the offending material? If the answer is yes, then the next course of action is to discuss the editorial oversight of this content. If the answer is no, then I guess Old-Games and Wikipedia can never be friends... :)--Coin945 (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not just go and attempt to get the website un-blacklisted? GamerPro64  16:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If they are unabashedly offering copyrighted games illegally, we can never unblacklist it. We recognize that a normal RS may once in a while link to a copyright infringement material, but usually not intentionally and likely with a fair use argument, but if they have full copyrighted games up to download without permission, that's never going to fly for us. --M ASEM (t) 16:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ever. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 01:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

NPD?
NPD Group = reliable or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.25.109 (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 100% absolutely reliable, though the data they produce nowadays is of limited usefulness (they rarely include sales #) They are the key NA sales tracking org. --M ASEM (t) 01:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What Masem said. They're a professional tracking firm. I don't see any reason not to. Sergecross73   msg me  02:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

SteamSpy
Looking to add SteamSpy to the list of unreliable sources, per discussions like Talk:List of best-selling PC games. SteamSpy itself notes that it's figures should not be considered reliable and that they are estimates. The primary usage of SteamSpy would be to try to source sales figures, as the site offers no commentary. Like VGChartz, we should officially note its unreliability, with similar text. Any objections? -- ferret (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not reliable for sales numbers directly, but SteamSpy is often cited by RSes with estimates of sales or patterns of sale behavior, so if it is cited by these sources, then it is fair game to include with the secondary attribution. (FWIW, the site's sales estimates are based only on sampling random Steam users libraries, its fully statistical analysis, and not exact counts) --M ASEM (t) 16:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What you've described sounds similar to how the entry for VGChartz is worded here. -- ferret (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So what do we do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.25.109 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't use SteamSpy directly for sales info. But if a site references sales figures from Steam Spy (as Gamasutra has done), that's a fair source to use. --M ASEM (t) 01:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case, I would vote situational. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 04:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

These Metacritic reviewers
These are all listed at A Bird Story's Metacritic reviews.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   08:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed Gamer.nl and Multiplayer.it in a section above, and it didn't look good for the two. Though I wasn't able to give a objective opinion about the latter because I do not speak the language, I personally consider Gamer.nl unreliable.
 * In general, many of these are probably unreliable. I'd be more interested to see which ones are reliable. ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

NinDB
This website is being used on a bunch of Nintendo-related articles:. A lot of link rot at the moment as nearly all the urls 404, site must have reorganised their content at some point. Doesn't seem reliable to me. Basically one guy's side project. Thoughts? Site FAQ:. Previous discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_5. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable The FAQ page you supplied shows that it's run by a hobbyist. "If I was going to continue working on the site, I needed to turn it into something I would enjoy, something that would only contain the games I originally set out to discover as Nintendo games".  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

NeoGAF?
I think we should evaluate this site, as the quite a bit of leaks come from this site. Many of those leaks are verified by NeoGAF staff. (Supposedly, they base the verifiability on the how connected the NeoGAF account is to the company in question.) Even if it isn't reliable, I believe we should say as much on WikiProject Video games/Sources since many legitimate news sites often use NeoGAF as their source. (An example of this would be IGN sourcing NeoGAF.) I would suggest a look at their TOS before deciding on the matter, as there are only certain kinds of people allowed to have an account. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC) User:Czar added it to the checklist earlier after my initial post. He marked it as unreliable. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable per WP:SPS. This doesn't need discussion or further evaluation. --The1337gamer (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been adequately discussed in the archives. Forums are not reliable sources. If IGN wants to run with a rumor from NeoGAF, we rely on the reliable source's discretion. This said, we very rarely cover speculation/rumor, even when reported by reliable sources (also ethics). czar  00:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Never. GamerPro64  02:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - per WP:USERG. There's literally no way to rationalize otherwise. Sergecross73   msg me  02:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A few websites
I may want to revive one of my drafts and if I'm gonna do that, I'd need to know if these are reliable.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   08:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Twinfinite: unreliable because "Twinfinite is a video game enthusiast site...". Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 03:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know... Crave handles their advertising, but the team does not appear to have a pedigree. I thought Crave was more selective than that, but maybe not. Unreliable czar  01:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

DailyGame
I am currently checking DOOM's sources for reliability; I then stumbled upon DailyGame, a website that I have never heard of. Although this page does say that they had been an ex-hobbyist website since 2002, I am still fairly suspicious about the website's overall quality. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 01:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. Where do you see "ex-hobbyist"? Because they seem to be the definition of a hobbyist site—no reputation or pedigree for reliability, no editorial policy... run by hobbyists... czar  02:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Lazygamer
Another website to check. Personally don't think its reliable but I have seen it be used, recently for the Tracer article. GamerPro64 03:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable: the website seems to greatly have user-generated content, and there is no sign of editorial/ethics policies (from what I have seen on the mobile version), and the authors' autobiographies appear to not look very professional. I also hate the limited accessibility (also in the mobile version) to useful fundamental areas of the website (such as "Contact" and "About" pages), so the conclusion: lazygamer.net's gamers as writers perform lazy editorial work on the lazily rushed website. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 04:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. No hallmarks of editorial reputation or pedigree for reliability. No about page, no editor bios, no signs of editorial oversight, etc. czar  02:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

TheSixthAxis
Also in the DOOM article, there is a source whose link leads to TheSixthAxis, which I do not know whether is reliable or not. I doubt it, but let us find out. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 02:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am already considering this source to be unreliable because of the website's message at the bottom of the screen: "All content should be considered opinion. Article posters are the individual owner of the article content.", so we can consider this to be a blog website which is unreliable (although some blog websites are reliable). Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 02:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * However, the reviews written by the website's editors may be appropriate. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 03:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Unreliable. Hobbyists, no hallmarks of reputation for reliability czar  02:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

PC Invasion
Originally known as IncGamers, I've seen this be used in some of the articles here but there hasn't been a consensus on its use yet. about, welcome page. GamerPro64 22:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Staff page is oddly vague—I imagine the experience it touts refers to their own site unless we have evidence otherwise. My impression is also that IncGamers still exists as a company and PC Invasion is a spin-off. I'd view them as gaming community websites and not sources with established esteem for their reliability/reporting. (Unreliable.) czar  19:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

PVP Live
eSports news website, not sure if reliable or not.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Their about us page is not very encouraging. There is nothing in regards to editorial policy. --Teancum (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Zelda Universe
Personally, I think this site should at least be situational, as some of its content is pretty informative. Take, for example, its most recent episode of Zelda Mailbag, where they discuss the Philips CD-i and what happened with it. Given the way they report news, it seems to be in the same vein as Zelda Informer, which is currently situationally allowed. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's a fansite. This was discussed recently: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_13.--The1337gamer (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's Zelda Informer, not Zelda Universe. They're two different sites. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. Well the same rationale still applies here. Zelda Universe is just a fansite . So I still think unreliable. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Point taken. But I'd still like a little more consensus on this because, regardless of that conversation, Zelda Informer still shows up as situational on the checklist. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Massively Overpowered
I just declined a draft at Draft:Villagers and Heroes since it only had two sources, both of which appear to be based off the same press release. One of the two was Massively Overpowered, which looks to be the new version of Massively, per this Kickstarter. Massively was previously seen as a RS on here and as far as I can tell the site has the same staff - although I'm not really all that familiar with Massive so I can't entirely tell. They do have their editorial and writing staff listed and they have their ethics policy posted.

Massively OP was launched in 2015 so it's relatively new, which is the main thing that it might have going against it. I wanted to double check here because while Massively was seen as a RS, I know that this doesn't always mean that the new spinoff would automatically be a RS by extension. It looks like it should be OK, but it's better to check and make sure. This is more something I'm asking for the future, since this being a RS wouldn't really help the draft article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thunderbolt revisited
Discussed in 2009 and last year. It's marked as unreliable in our list. recently challenged the previous discussion, so perhaps you'd like to chime in? The main argument for it has been that it's listed in Metacritic/GR/etc. (which hasn't been a reason for reliability in the past, considering that many/most of the sites in Metacritic/GR are trash), and that it has been used at FAC (though I haven't seen any citation of it being specifically vetted at FAC rather than unchallenged, and someone actually spoke against this angle in 2009). I've registered my own thoughts in the discussion from last year—open to new voices on this. czar 19:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, I encourage editors to read last year's discussion on it, as Czar's summarization of our stance is rather misleading. If one were to read it, I'm pretty sure you'd see that makes far more points in its favor than "its on Metacritic". Don't bother trying to summarize opposing views if you can't do it objectively.  Sergecross73   msg me  19:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No need for the hostility. The main points from 2015, to be more specific, were (1) that it's used in multiple featured articles, (2) that it's used in multiple aggregators, (3) that its press is referenced by game publishers, (4) that it is a volunteer but editorial staff, and (5) that its EIC has worked in the games industry. I wouldn't interpret the latter three points as main arguments or even significant details towards its reliability, so I do think I fairly summarized the main points, but yes, I encourage everyone to read the previous discussions for themselves. czar  23:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies, but I get rather irritated when people misrepresent their opposition so badly, and it's doubly bad when said person doesn't have the excuse of lack of knowledge in Wikipedia or lack of writing ability. In other words, you're better than that. Sergecross73   msg me  02:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also wondering who added the "unreliable x mark" to it - I don't see any consensus for that at all in either discussion. Sergecross73   msg me  19:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the red mark doesn't just mean "consensus for unreliability" but also "no consensus on reliability", which was clearly the case here. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * - No, linking to the discussions, but not having any symbols, is the current sign for "no consensus". (That's why there's no symbol at all on so many.) Per the page currently:
 * This is a checklist/index of past discussions. Sources with green checkmarks (✅) are currently considered to meet reliability requirements; sources with red Xs (❌) are currently considered unreliable; sources with orange exclamation marks are currently "situational" and may not be used in every circumstance (see the individual notes, above). Other sources have not been discussed at sufficient length to achieve consensus. Remember that consensus can change, so sites listed here may be upgraded or downgraded based on further discussion.
 * Unless whoever added it has the same misconception as you, somebody made a bad call on this. Sergecross73   msg me  20:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Reliable - per Salvidrim's 2015 argument. Has an established editorial team, an editorial policy, been around for 12+ years, currently used in a number of FA's, etc. Sergecross73   msg me  20:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable—I find the previous defenses quite unsatisfactory; as established, getting put on an aggregator doesn't convey any real notability, and getting mentioned by publishers isn't either—the many cases of "use a small publication that makes our game look good for the pull quotes" is a time-honored tradition. A website entirely crewed by volunteers as opposed to freelance or staff professionals does not inspire confidence, especially since their about page reads like every shitty justification I've heard as to why you don't get paid in a creative field ("We'll make you a better writer! You care about games, right? Why do you care about money?!") Longevity alone is all this site has going for it, and that's simply not enough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable - Reading over both sides of the argument, Salvidrim and Sergecross73's argument is the more convincing one to me. Sure, their about page isn't too great, but they have other things going for them, such as having an editorial policy, and is being accepted in FA's, as pointed out. Kokoro20 (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not an editorial policy, and slipping through a FA nomination is not tacit approval. Where is the reputation for editorial quality and fact-checking? czar  19:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't mean that no such editorial policy exists for them. As for right now, I'm just not convinced that should be unreliable. The initial agreement in the 2015 discussion sums it up pretty well. Kokoro20 (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * At least for an FA, "they might be reliable" isn't good enough; sources have to be interrogated and prove that record, rather than presuming one exists. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

MacGamer
A website (now only accessible through Internet Archive) that ran from 1999 to 2011, and in 2012 redirected to deliver2mac.com, which now redirects to deliver2.com (I'm not sure if Deliver2 and MacGamer are the same company, but seems not to be). I've noticed its use in some articles and I've found an archived review of a game whose article I'm working on, and I'm posting to certify the reliability of this source. Here's the homepage archived in 2007. Cheers, κατάστασ  η  05:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Jay Is Games
Just wanted some comments on Jay is Games, as the last discussion was from 2013. To wit, why was Jay Bibby considered special above the other reviewers? Does the blog being disbanded as of April 2016 have any effect on past reviews, and the credibility of reviews past that date? Should the blog be only used for descriptions of games and not as an opinion? It's been a while, so what do you think?  Catfrog (Edits 🐸 Talk) 04:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The last discussion was in 2015 actually. I have no real opinion otherwise. -- ferret (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have much of a stance either, since it never seems to have covered games of articles I work on. Ferret's link covers how we arrived at the current consensus (its a pretty weak one) and I'll add that its closing up April 2016 doesn't really have any effect on their notability. That being said, I went to the website, and saw updates from as recently as less than a week ago, so I don't know what that means either... Sergecross73   msg me  12:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Cubed3

 * Cubed3 current status: 1, 2, 3, 4

Cubed3's about page is a list of hobbyists. The site has no hallmarks of editorial quality like editorial policy or vouching from other sites. We have plenty of other Nintendo sites with stronger backing, if that was a concern. czar 23:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, yeah, I've never seen such an extensive staff listing of writers without any real credentials listed other than liking video games. I only caught one person having a mention of writing for another site, and then don't even mention it by name (their words - "some French website") Its hard to come up with an argument that based around Wikipedia's WP:RS standards... Sergecross73   msg me  12:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

RPG Site
Currently reviewing Resonance of Fate at GAN and saw this website being used. I heard of it before but it looks like its never been discussed here before. Has a Staff page and Ethics Statement which was updated back in December. GamerPro64 15:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've used them historically, with no objections. They've got established staff and an ethics policy, and many of the writers have various credentials - writing for other sites, college degrees, are actually journalists, etc. Sergecross73   msg me  16:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

MoeGamer
Could very well join my "big three" of sources for info on Japanese niche video game news (Gematsu, Siliconera, and Operation Rainfall). Full of exclusive stuff as it specializes in visual novels and other "moe" games, which Western press either cover poorly or don't cover at all. According to its about page, the author, Pete Davison, is a former professional video game journalist whom has worked at New Atari User, PC Zone, Official Nintendo Magazine, GamePro, GOG.com, What They Play, IGN, and USgamer. If that's not an indicator of reliability, I don't know what is.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  08:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliability is about an outlet's reputation for getting facts right. All signs point to this being a personal site for Pete Davison since it only contains his writing (apparently opinions) and no editorial process. So if he is seen as an expert in his area, he can be used as a self-published source (see re: experts) for certain claims, but this isn't a journalistic outlet with any sort of repute like most of the others you listed. We don't add personal blogs and Twitter accounts as reliable sources because the policy advice is to be cautious when there is no editorial review process. czar  14:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But what makes this different from Jim Sterling's website? GamerPro64  22:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If his website is more or less his personal blog, there's little difference. I'd treat that sort of website the same way. czar  23:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't use Jim Sterling's personal website though really, do we? More just his work on Destructoid and other places he contributed. No comment on MoeGamer yet though, need to look into it still. Sergecross73   msg me  13:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We still consider it to be Situational so there is a precedent. GamerPro64  17:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't realize that until now. I'm kinda surprised. Fair enough. Sergecross73   msg me  19:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be marked as situational (whatever situational means anyway). It's only "situational" in that it's used as a self-published source, so just as "situational" as we'd have cause to cite any other expert. Situational is mean to refer to sources that are sometimes good and sometimes not, which is really the default for all sources that aren't categorically reliable/unreliable... czar  19:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I proposed Jim as situational based on previous experience with Destructoid and The Escapist before going independent. Unlike the always independent, that gave him enough of a leg up to make me think he's useful as a source. Also, he was IMMEDIATELY added to Metacritic upon independence, so if nothing else his notability and credibility is pretty strong. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Easy Allies
So, for anyone who doesn't know, GameTrailers (a reliable source) shut down earlier this year. The former GT staff formed a new outlet called Easy Allies, where they do similar content - reviews, panel-style discussions, and so on. While text sources generally are better than video sources due to the smaller risk of link rot, I do think that this should be reliable due to the experienced staff working on it. They do not seem to have a website of their own; instead their videos are uploaded on their YouTube channel, and they post updates on their Patreon page.--IDVtalk 15:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, I should note that not all their content is usable on Wikipedia. A video of someone on their team just playing a game and making casual observations as he goes wouldn't really make for good reception section material, for instance, while their Frame Trap episodes and reviews seem usable.--IDVtalk 15:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Situational for now. Let them earn the reliable like all the others. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (...We say just after being all excited about the Glixel on the main Project page) - I agree, though. I would feel a lot more comfortable if their content were covered by other reliable sources first. Youtube is always an uncomfortable source to use on Wikipedia as it can be difficult to figure out the editorial oversight. ~ Mable ( chat ) 18:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This website is run completely by the former staff of GameTrailers, which is classified as a reliable source. (You may remember that GameTrailers was unceremoniously shutdown earlier this year.)  The staff of EasyAllies were all allowed access to E3 this year, as well.  Some (if not all) of them work for IGN (also classified as reliable). -- Gestrid (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Moved from duplicate thread czar  02:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I wanted to comment that reliability is not automatic—it's not like everything games journalists do after writing/producing for one outlet makes them experts. In fact, that's kind of the point of this page. We use secondary sources that have reputations as a proxy so that we don't have to determine amongst ourselves what is worth covering. Those secondary sources are responsible for deciding whether the stuff written by fans and other unreliable sites is indeed true or worth publishing. So especially while they have no website, no editorial functions, and no reputation as an outlet, we should assume them unreliable. Also, we had an earlier discussion about what "situational" meant and it doesn't mean much, because every source is already situational. If the claim is that someone is an expert, that claim is made dependent on the context of what is being cited and what expertise that author has, and then it's subject to the guideline on self-published expert sources for the types of claims it can safely make. czar  02:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Website! I can't view it currently but that has got to help. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Nightmare Mode
I've just found an archive of the now offline nightmaremode.net. According to its about page, the magazine had a regular staff of professional writers. Diego (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Porpentine: i hate video games". Professional writers. Right. Though I see Kotaku's Patricia Hernandez founded it. So I wonder if that cancels each other out. GamerPro64  02:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because one source is credible doesn't mean a related one is credible, as seen at the EasyAllies discussion above. EasyAllies is run by the entire former staff of GameTrailers. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't serious about that comment. Just find it odd how someone randomly writes "i hate video games" in their description on a gaming website. GamerPro64  02:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You should see the silly af Twitter bios of some of the highest-level journos and execs in the VG world. :p ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Shoryuken
See http://shoryuken.com/ - website keeps on being used at various fighting game articles. I'd like to get a clear consensus on this one. Sergecross73  msg me  14:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - It doesn't seem to have any of the trademarks we look for in an WP:RS. Doesn't even have an "About Us" page, but rather a tiny blurb at the bottom of the website that says From your daily dose of fighting game news, to matchmaking forums, strategy guides, and more, SRK (Shoryuken) is home to the biggest community of fighting game players and enthusiasts. There's no staff list, and whenever I've clicked on the name of an author, all it does is send you to a link of every article they've written for the website. Basically, another website that's best "credential" is being a video game "fan/enthusiast". Likely WP:USERG issues too. Sergecross73   msg me  14:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - LinkSearch counts 304 places that a link to Shoryuken is used on English Wikipedia. -- Gestrid (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Briefly discussed at WT:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 14. --Izno (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I had forgotten about that discussion. It looks like I voiced my disapproval there before, and it seems was against it as well? Unless he was summarizing my thoughts...but it looks more like he wrote it first in that big list in the box, and I responded to it.  Sergecross73   msg me  15:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's already marked as ❌ in the main list. We have some delinking to do czar  18:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove sources indiscriminately. Some of them might be useful from reliable authors (http://shoryuken.com/2011/12/12/guest-editorial-momentum-matters-a-historical-perspective-on-the-fgc-and-esports-communities-2 might be estalished), most are used more as news pieces than opinions (meaning the Skoryuken ref could be replaced by a citation to the news itself (trailer, press release) as the primary source), and the rest should be tagged with unreliable source, not delinked/removed, so that can be identified and replaced. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Esports Betting Report
Only because of the work I've been doing on skin gambling, I would like to get comments on Esports Betting Report (ESBR for short). It appears edited. It is not affiliated with betting sites, though its owner is a partner at a firm that develops esports-related assets, so seems reasonably independent. Note that I'm looking for sources that go on the state of gambling (legal or otherwise) in esports, so other suggestions would also help. --M ASEM (t) 23:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Is a metacritic reference sufficient for a game to be considered notable?
I am not sure how to read this page, but is a metacritic reference sufficient for a game to be considered notable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Metacritic will create a page for most games that are released, but that itself doesn't show any secondary coverage. A metacritic page may lead to reviews from reliable sources which with notability can be met, but having an MC page alone isn't enough. --M ASEM (t) 13:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd appreciate if you could coach me a bit so I don't AfD or prod some notable games. Occasionally I run into entries like Ant Raid, with next to no content but Metacritic score. Looking at, I see there are a number of critic reviews. Is the right procedure to check each one of them against sources on this page? I see for example that Slide to Play, Gamezebo, 148Apps and TouchArcade are listed here as reliable. Based on this, can we conclude that this game is notable and move on? Is there some template we could add, something like primary but of course one that would better note that Metacritic is not sufficient? I wonder if we shouldn't have a Metacritic template for sources. Based on cursory look at stubs in Category:iOS games, there are quite a few or articles that look no better then this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, those specific review sources would be sufficient for the moment to presume that it could be expanded and AFD at this point would probably not be a recommended option. But you could add something like refimprove to have it expanded, and potentially address issues on the talk page. If after a years the only things we can find are those reviews and nothing else about the game, maybe deletion or merging may make sense. --M ASEM (t) 16:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would estimate that there's probably around an 80% overlap between the sources MC uses, and the sources we deem reliable. So, for example, chances are, if you found a game with 10 MC reviews, chances are, 7-8 are probably RS reviews, and as such, there's probably enough there to meet the WP:GNG/not nominate it for deletion. There's no hard rule on that or anything, just more of a thought-process. Sergecross73   msg me  12:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Metacritic reviews
Hey, I had a question: are Metacritic reviews usable for the purpose of notability? I'm asking because of the article Looney Tunes: Galactic Sports, where another user said that the reviews were non-notable. I have no objection to his proposal that the page be merged/redirected to a list, but I wanted some clarification about whether or not the critic reviews (not the random user reviews) are usable for establishing notability, as I've frequently used Metacritic as a way to establish notability for various things (movies, games, etc). If the site isn't usable because the site hosts junk reviews then that's sort of a game changer. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See current discussion . --The1337gamer (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

eSports Yearbook
http://esportsyearbook.com/ This is a bi-annual published book about eSports. There is a print version that can be obtained, but it seems to be available for free online in its entirety. The publisher is some self-publishing firm called. Here are the editor bios from the website:

Julia Christophers was born in 1983 in Westerstede, Germany. She established eMAG – an online eSports magazine – with Tobias Scholz in 2004. She has been a working student at the Electronic Sports League (Turtle Entertainment GmbH) since Feb. 2006, achieved her Mas- ter of Arts degree in International Comparative Literature and Media, English and German at Bonn University in June 2009 and has been working at ESL since. As Game Head Coordina- tor she is involved in the development of ESL’s tools and the website. She is supervising the Game Heads who are running tournaments in ESL’s most played eSports titles.

Tobias M. Scholz was born 1983 in Regensburg, Germany. He was team leader at GameSports and co-founded the eMAG – an online eSports magazine, with Julia Christophers in 2004. He achieved his Diploma in Business Administration at the Goethe University Frankfurt in February 2009. He is a Doctoral Candidate at the University of Siegen. He works as a Research Assistant and a Teaching Assistant at the Chair for Human Resource Management and Organisational Behavior.

--Prisencolin (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So...it sounds like the source is self-published, and run by two people who ran their own self-published websites? Sergecross73   msg me  14:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Remeshed.com
Video aggregator site which also publishes original news, reviews, interviews and commentary with a regular staff, some of which have published at The Mary Sue, Offworld and Paste. Diego (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

1UP's "The Grind" blog feed
This came up in a GAN. I'm speaking specifically about this blogpost but also curious about the blog feed in general. It seems to be a "featured blog" feed, whatever that means, and it's mostly populated by material from people like Bob Mackey, Jeremy Parish, and Kat Bailey ("RS people"). Anyone mind giving a second opinion? Axem Titanium (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would think that the combination of it being writers from reliable sources (Parish, Bailey, etc), combined with being a "featured" blog, which would almost certainly have some sort of editorial review, (The fact that its been singled out as "Featured" means it must have been reviewed by the website in some capacity.) would make it be reliable. But I wouldn't use it if it was written by some rando like "SuperFrankTheSquirrel69" or something though... Sergecross73   msg me  13:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is 1UP being questioned? It's already on the defunct-but-reliable list. --Izno (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * They're asking specifically about the "featured blog" aspect of it, as 1UP is one of the websites, like Destructoid or IGN, that also has a prominent user-blog community, which we of course don't allow for use. My stance was that, if it was from a known journalist, and singled out by the website as noteworthy, then it should be usable, unlike the typical random blogging they do. Sergecross73   msg me  13:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, drp, 'blog'. --Izno (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Softonic.com
Is it a reliable source? It appears to be a large website, but I am not sure about its reliability. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 21:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

FOX News
Is FOX News a reliable source? It seems that it was an unreliable source in its early times because of its fictitious reports such as about aliens, but it seems to have improved to become more serious. I would say that it is reliable when it comes to rather recent articles. They do add sources to their articles, they do occasionally report about video games, and they seldom make mistakes. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 19:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On the basic coverage of video games equal to most of our other RSes, I would think it's reasonably reliable, but if it starts going into the political side of video games (eg "does video games lead to gun violence?" type opinion) then caution should be used --M ASEM (t) 19:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, any nationwide news outlet is going to easily meet the RS standards, though you'd want to exclude it if they make any common mistakes that non-video game experts may make. ("Nintendo developed Pojemon Go", etc). Sergecross73   msg me  19:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The Sixth Axis
See their website here.

Was surprised to see that we haven't really discussed this website outside of a 2009 discussion that pretty much went nowhere, as I see the website around a lot. I was under the impression it was considered unreliable. Actually looking through the website, I think my hunch was right. They've got an established staff, but their "about us" page is pretty barren, and there's really not much else to go by. Its hard to even search much further about individual writers outside of the site when they go by names like "Matt S". I'm thinking unreliable? Any other thoughts? Sergecross73  msg me  14:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've always considered them unreliable, with little recognition in other sites to elevate it past a blog. --M ASEM (t) 14:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking closer, it even makes mention of being a WordPress site towards the bottom of the page, which is just about always a death knell for reliability discussions on Wikipedia. Sergecross73   msg me  19:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought this website was already considered unreliable. Been thinking that for a while so that's my vote. GamerPro64 00:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh, that's 3 of us now that could have sworn it was already in unreliable. I wonder why. For me, I think I confused it with DualShockers, another unreliable site. Maybe because they're both Sony-centric blogs? Regardless, unless someone objects soon, I'll add it to the unreliable list... Sergecross73   msg me  01:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Has Dualshockers officially been considered unreliable? GamerPro64  02:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It looked like there was a weak consensus against its use in the last discussion about it. There wasn't much of an argument in favor of it other than other websites reference it...but that alone isn't really enough. (I mean, websites reference neogaf all the time, but there's no way around the WP:USERG issues there.) Sergecross73   msg me  03:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Definitely unreliable. But it has such amazing articles by "Tuffcub", and who could forget the works of "gazzagb"? --Odie5533 (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Massively Overpowered
This is probably a formality but I just wanted to officially discuss Massively Overpowered (Massivelyop.com). It's the successor to Joystiq's Massively site about MMOs after Engadget shut them down, with virtually the same staff. http://massivelyop.com/about/ Axem Titanium (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You aren't the first. --Izno (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It's the same people who ran Massively, right? If so then its reliable. GamerPro64 02:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

TechnologyTell
So I've been looking at the consensus with TechnologyTell's reliability (then known as GamerTell) and the thread for the decision doesn't have me thinking there was a strong enough reason to consider it reliable. As well as it not updating since May 2016. So I'm requesting a reassessment on the status of this website for use. GamerPro64 02:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)