Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 16

A few sites
I'm using theses sites as references on Razer Naga, but I'd like confirmation that they're reliable. --  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This page is for video game sources, and they're not video game websites... --The1337gamer (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They all cover video-game related content, a few examples: BGR, BGR, BGR, BetaNews, Tom's Guide, Tom's Hardware. But if you believe this is the wrong venue for these types of sites, should I take them to WP:RSN?  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * At the very least, I do think it'd be good to discuss Toms Hardware, as it seems people try to use it every time new hardware releases, and there's usually disputes about it. Sergecross73   msg me  12:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Nintendo Everything
Just another Nintendo-focused website that needs to be vetted. Saw it be used on different articles so it would be helpful to see other peoples take on it. GamerPro64 18:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I personally read it, and see it used a lot across Wikipedia. I used to remove it, because I don't think it technically meets the RS criteria, but eventually stopped, as in my time reading it, I don't recall them ever reporting anything incorrectly or with inappropriate slant on the subject, and I do believe other websites cite it a lot themselves too. On the plus side, the do have a Reviews/Ethics policy listed. On the minus side, the writers seem to go by pseudonyms and don't have much info on them other than "I like video games" and "I own these systems" for qualifications. I only spot-checked a few though...  Sergecross73   msg me  18:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone know if the staff at least gets paid for their work? I don't really see anything worth having yet... ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hardcore Gaming 101
I understand this website has been brought up before, but can we establish the site as a completely reputable source instead of conditional? The site's head editor Kurt Kalata, has already been proven to be a reliable source and fact checks all submissions. From the about page: ''All submitted articles are subject to fact checking and editing by staff. Contributors should nonetheless always strife to write as accurately and fairly as possible. We reserve the option to not publish any submitted articles for content, completion or quality concerns. We'll always write back to discuss whatever improvements may be necessary to bring it up to standards.'' In addition to this, many site articles have been published in physical format in the "Hardcore Gaming 101" series of books, also run by Kalata. This website is a tremendous source of information for older more obscure games. Thoughts? I just can't believe that this site is yellow and that garbage website Kotaku is green. TarkusAB 02:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a grey area on whether they are reliable or situational so hopefully we can finally decide if it is or not. I vote that it is reliable. Their article are very much informative and useful for articles here. As well as its pedigree making it worth using. GamerPro64  02:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There was just a recent discussion on this I think, which I believe generally had support for it too. I agree, their retrospectives are very in-depth, and I've used it many times to save articles at AFD. There's been an exception here or there, but I believe it's reliable. Sergecross73   msg me  03:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK so far we have three in favor (including me) and none opposed. Also, I just emailed Kurt Kalata requesting a more detailed explanation of his editing policy so hopefully that will aid the discussion. TarkusAB 13:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Still haven't heard anything back from Kurt. Any other thoughts? TarkusAB  23:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't claim to have taken a serious look at their editing policies or standing in the community, but I've read several articles from the site and have yet to see anything to make me question their reliability. I'd support bumping them to reliable.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Power Up Gaming
I think that this is an unreliable source because I can not find policies concerning ethics and credentials, but I want to double-check just to be sure. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 02:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Their About Us page does not look so good, so I am going to have to vote unreliable. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 02:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor-in-chief is a journalism graduate, but that seems to be all. He doesn't seem to have any experience. None of his staff seems to be any better. I suppose it's better than any given website without editorial content, and their stated goal fits well, but I would definitely advice against using the website. Looks unreliable for now. I assume they're rarely ever linked to by more well-established news websites? ~ Mable ( chat ) 12:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Shmuplations
Hey guys, I want to send an email to the site owner, but I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what I'm trying to ask. As you may or may not know, this guy translates interviews from old Japanese publications to English. My main issue with the site is he often doesn't say WHERE he got the interview from. For example, there's a great interview about Ikaruga on there, but it only says it's an interview with Masato Maegawa from 2001, no source mentioned.

Ultimately, I think determining the quality of the translator's skill is not important. It's no different from me opening an old Famicom issue, and translating it as I write it into Wikipedia. Many editors don't have English as their primary language too. That is why we source, so that if other editors doubt information, they can go to the source and check it themselves and verify. Given the amount of work and effort put into the website, I think we can safely say he doesn't have malicious intent.

So is it really the reliability of Shmuplations we are looking for here? Honestly, I think if he sources back to the original source (issue number and everything), than I say use his translations all you want, just footnote the ORIGINAL source he listed into wiki. I was going to send him an email to suggest to start putting that information in more often. What do you think? And I mean hey if we determine shmuplations itself is reliable, I won't complain :) TarkusAB  23:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, this website can serve greatly as a portal to reliable foreign-language content. I would recommend against citing him directly, but using his translations as an editor can be very helpful. If you're unsure if the translation is accurate, you can always try using Google Translate to read the original work yourself. Sending the translator a mail to say that you would appreciate it if he'd list his sources more often sounds like a very good idea :) ~ Mable ( chat ) 13:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Times
Recently, I have told Steam users in the forums that something bad was going to happen to the Internet, and I have used this source, The Washington Times (Yes, they do cover video game subjects as well.), but they say that it will not happen, and two of them said that The Washington Times is a "fearmongering tabloid with no credibility whatsoever". However, I think that they are lying (simply because the newspaper is conservative), and I want to know whether this is a good source to use to cover video game subjects. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 02:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, like most large newspapers like this, it would generally meet Wikipedia's standards for being a reliable source. I mean, look out for the occasional typo that mainstream press often makes when they're not focused on video games (Super Mario 64 is the 8th entry in the Super Mario series) but they're generally useable. What in the world are you using it to source though? Sergecross73   msg me  02:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was using it to source the news about the Obama Administration's Internet giveaway. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 02:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For something that political, you probably need more than one paper's opinion on the situation. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I forgot to follow up this, but I meant to say something to this effect as well. For something political, and talking about a hypothetical future thing, you'd probably either want multiple sources, or directly attribute the stance to the paper. (ie "According to John Smith of the Washington Times, the internet is...") Sergecross73   msg me  12:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Pocket Tactics
Noticed this at the bottom of the Wargamer page. Seems they're both owned by Slitherine Software and, according to their about page, they're on Metacritic. Of course that doesn't mean it'll be considered reliable here automatically. So what does everyone else thing of the website? GamerPro64 23:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Its a bit hard to say.
 * Positive: The Editor-In-Chief, has been in the industry for 8+ years, and has written for Rock Paper Shotgun.
 * Neutral: He's also written for PCGameN and Strategy Informer, two sources WP:VG haven't been able to find a consensus on.
 * Neutral: Another writer teaches college courses in game design.
 * Negative: The rest of the Staff has no bios at all. They're listed as "coming soon"...but the website has been up since 2012, so...


 * They've also got a reviews policy, though its' not all that detailed. Currently unsure. Having a hard time committing to "reliable" or "unreliable" honestly... Anyone else? Sergecross73   msg me  19:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In the event this does get voted unreliable, how would it fare with Wargamer? Looking at the only discussion of the site, there wasn't even consensus of its use. Just one person agreeing with another that its reliable. GamerPro64  23:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Millenium
http://www.millenium.org/, French gaming and eSports website.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know French, and you didn't really give anything to go off of, so its hard to help much here., you know French, right? Any thoughts one way or another on this website? Sergecross73   msg me  17:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Like Jeuxvideo.com, it is hosted by the network. Millenium itself is owned by a SARL Gameo-Consulting. Millenium is backed by Orange S.A., France's leading telco, and Millenium eSport is described elsewhere as "France's first pro-gaming structure, attached to the Webedia group". I can't find anything even close to a staff page or editorial oversight so I would classify it as an esport org's website, not as a news site (say, similar to http://www.sk-gaming.com). Maybe useful as a primary source about itself. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Reevaluating The Escapist
The site has been rather turbulent since that one event in 2014 took the gaming world by storm. Between replacing or firing most all of its staff, axing its office and generally just not being discussed in my circles, is it still considered a reliable source for news an opinions? I went for a quick look and the editorial policy doesn't seem to exist, but I did find an ethics policy. The drama surrounding Star Citizen shows that oversight is weak and since then it doesn't seem to have gotten better. Alex's questionable statements also do not bode well for reliability (or a sort of neutral stance). For the sake of making this easy, let's ignore Zero Punctuation.

Are we sure we want to keep this as reliable? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "and generally just not being discussed in my circles" What the heck kind of argument is that? Is there seriously a call for re-evaluting The Escapist because of GamerGate? I'm sorry but just because they may be on deaths door due to the layoffs and the closing of one of their offices doesn't mean we should not find them reliable anymore. They're still writing game reviews, reporting on news (even though it doesn't seem to be original reporting anymore), and all that stuff other websites do. Heck, you mentioned an ethics policy that they have. That's pretty all right with me that they have it.


 * I don't think this should be knocked down from being a reliable source. Situational, I can see the argument. But if the argument is changing it to unreliable then I am against that idea. We might as well remove every citation from The Escapist, removing ten plus years of journalism from Wikipedia. GamerPro64  23:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * VG247 and iDigitalTimes still use The Escapist as a reliable source for factual information as of Sept 17, so I think it's still reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting unreliable. But I am deeply concerned after the Star Citizen kerfuffle that it hasn't seemed to get any better. As for "my circles", yeah, that's a bad argument, but it is what prompted me to ask "do people still go here for gaming news?" Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 20:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do people still go on Gameplanet or Shacknews for gaming news? To be honest I don't hear people talk about those websites at all and yet they're considered reliable sources. Websites have a tendency to mess things up. VG247 previewed the Uncharted Collection thinking it was Uncharted 4. Just today I saw Randy Pitchford from Gearbox call out Kotaku for saying Battleborn was going free-to-play when that wasn't the case. I don't know how much of an impact the Star Citizen article made onto The Escapist but I do not see it being the deal breaker for its usage here. GamerPro64  00:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm curious - what exactly did you have in mind? Its at "reliable", and you didn't intend to send it to "unreliable", right? Situational? But even then, you'd have to define the parameters of its conditions... Sergecross73   msg me  15:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well he did say not use Zero Punctuation as a source. Which we kinda don't anyway besides his end of year best/worst list. His written pieces are still used, though. GamerPro64  16:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I interpreted his comment about ZP to mean that he didn't want to discuss it at all. Like he wasn't factoring it in to the discussion. I could be wrong though. Anyways, I was just curious anyway. I don't have much experience with TE or ZP. I don't recall really reading, using, or coming across either all that often... Sergecross73   msg me  16:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The Escapist hasn't changed its policies, and staff turnover shouldn't matter as long as their policies remain in place. An individual piece here or there with errors in it is something that happens to pretty much everybody at one point or another. —Torchiest talkedits 17:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Classic Game Room
Is Classic Game Room a reliable source? I was searching for sources about Star Wars: Jedi Arena, and I have stumbled upon this source, but I am thinking that it is just a fan website with no credentials (I cannot find its policies). Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 18:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's Play Video Games
This site recently came up in a discussion at Talk:Nintendo Switch, and I don't see the site listed anywhere here, including the archives. If it turns out not to be VGRS and non-credible rumors keep coming out of it, we should have something to point to if we have to remove it from Nintendo Switch. Is this site reliable or not?  — Gestrid  ( talk ) 05:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If I remember correctly the founders of this website used to be part of Destructoid but got laid off a couple months ago. That said, it doesn't mean the site is automatically reliable. I don't see any policies stated on the site so that's a red flag right there. So I'm unsure about this source. GamerPro64 17:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course. It's the same kind of situation as Easy Allies was.  They used to be the staff of GameTrailers before that got shut down.  —  Gestrid  ( talk ) 18:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile we don't consider Easy Allies to be reliable, at least not yet. Granted you can say its like Giant Bomb's case but again, this site doesn't have a policy or standards. I have no faith in a website that doesn't take itself seriously. GamerPro64  20:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the following eSports sites.
I know that EventHubs and SRK are unreliable, but what do you people think of the following sites?


 * TheScore
 * Daily Dot
 * ESPN
 * Red Bull
 * Yahoo! eSports
 * PVP Live

As for unreliable sources, I would like to point out that SmashBoards which is an unreliable source, uses XenForo to function. Notably Test Your Might, 8WayRun, Skullheart, FreeStepDodge and VFDC also share this trait.

So what's your thoughts on my six sources that are on here? ULTRA-DARKNESS  :) 2 CHAT 13:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Last Daily Dot discussion -- deemed reliable
 * Last TheScore discussion -- leaning unreliable
 * ESPN - Doesn't even bear mentioning--reliable
 * Last Redbull discussion -- deemed reliable, but probably should be caveated regarding events that they run per WP:SPS.
 * Yahoo--questionable. They're known to republish work--c.f. last discussion regarding Yahoo Games (is not Yahoo esports).
 * Last PVP Live discussion -- leaning unreliable
 * --Izno (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That all sounds about right, though I would think Yahoo Games would be usable unless its rando WP:USERG content, right? Sergecross73   msg me  14:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The listed sources (except for The Score, which doesn't pop up much for me for some reason) I use a lot in esports articles. I wish we had some better knowledge of Yahoo! and PVP Live. I know Yahoo! Esports articles on fighting games sometimes have the same author as Red Bull: Martin Michael. He's apparently written for IGN and Playboy as well. Credentials look fine.
 * Looking through the website a bit more, I see that the main writer for article on League of Legends is Taylor Cocke. He doesn't really sell himself on his Linkedin page, but it seems like he's got a university degree in relevant fields and has been a freelance writer for six years. Doesn't look bad. At least these people are professional. ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Quarter To Three
I've heard of this website before but don't think there's ever been consensus of use here. The site is run by Tom Chick, who has freelanced for multiple websites that have been deemed reliable here. GamerPro64 18:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

GameRant
This one has been discussed twice in the past, but without much input either time. Was hoping to get a solid word on it this time. They have an about page, but there's just two people listed as dedicated staff, and neither seem to have any credentials other than "being video game enthusiasts" and writing for GameRant. One has a college degree, but its in Film, so not particularly helpful. Other contributors don't have any info listed at all other than a name as far as I can tell. I'm leaning unreliable. Thoughts? Sergecross73  msg me  22:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised with the disappointing results I get from searching more of the website's staff. I mean, Gamerant is professional and has more staff than currently listed, but it's not like Jasmine Henry has much experience, and most editors are freelance writers with even less experience... Too bad, because I have good experiences with the website. I wonder what's up with its editorial control. ~ Mable ( chat ) 15:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Flaregamer
When working in some Final Fantasy articles, I've found this website, Flaregamer, which has been writing articles for many years. Here is the staff that created the website. They also contacted some people though. The main reason I bring this up here is because I was planning to nominate Tidus in the future and one of Flaregamer's articles has a lot about how he was designed. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

PlayStation LifeStyle.net
I just started editing the article Star Wars Battlefront, and I have noticed that one passage cites two sources, one of which is this. I doubt the reliability of the website, but I would like to double-check, and I do not have time to review the website myself (and I do not always trust myself anyway when it comes to determining the reliability of a source). Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 18:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The site is owned by CraveOnline. Previous CraveOnline sites like RPGamer have been deemed reliable. -- ferret (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've used it in the past for obscure articles and for saving articles at AFD, without issue. I can't say I recall taking a close look though, so I should probably do that before giving a certain call on it... Sergecross73   msg me  19:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still leaning reliable. They're owned by CraveOnline, have a dedicated staff, and and their founder/director also manages GameRevolution, which we also find reliable. My only hesitation is that the other writers don't have much in the way of credentials other than writing for the site, though that's not as bad as many websites considering they've been around since 2008, and many have been around for that long as well. Sergecross73   msg me  19:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I lean towards Reliable as well. Don't really see much in terms of policies besides a Review policy but that's better than nothing. GamerPro64 19:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Previously discussed here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 13
 * As mentioned there, the CraveOnline affiliation has more to do with marketing or advertising than with any semblance of reliability. What kind of original reporting are they doing? Every article I click is a repost from another already reliable source. I see no compelling reason to change my assessment as unreliable. czar  17:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

LGBTQ Video Game Archive
This academic source is specialized in LGBT themes in video games. It was discussed at Talk:LGBT characters in video games and the reliable source noticeboard, where it has been deemed reliable for the commentary and analysis of their academic authors.

The specifics of particular details about the games should be taken with a grain of salt though, as the primary author has said that she hasn't played all the 350+ games directly and has been relying on other reliable sources for their descriptions of specific LGBT-related episodes within the games. Diego (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd say that either the talk page discussion or the RS noticeboard deemed it reliable. There's only one reply at the notice board thus far. That said, the about us ("Who we are") looks rather promising and is a lot more than we typically see in detailing the goal, credits and methodology of a site. However, as noted by Serge at the article talk page, there's cases where they clearly source back to Wikipedia/Wikia. If we use it, it needs to be marked situational and include text along the lines that we can't use it where it indicates Wiki based sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I said "reliable for the opinions of the author" ;-), i.e. akin to WP:RSOPINION reliability.
 * I agree that this doesn't automatically confer full-featured reliability. In particular, their methodology of using descriptions of the games found at online wikis and cross-checking them with news sources prompted me to add the above caveat about relying on it for the game details; although those same details are the kind that should be easy to verify from the game itself as a primary source.
 * Maybe we should label the source as "situational", so people who want to use it will check under which conditions it can be used? Diego (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Ok, we agree to label it situational then. Diego (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've listed this discussion at WikiProject LGBT studies and WikiProject Video games to try and get some more input. Diego (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Give it at least one more day, but doesn't seem like anyone wants to comment. Please ensure it is clearly labelled as being situational with the caveats/concerns me and Serge have highlighted. -- ferret (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd view this as a personal site from an academic (unless there is some information on how editorship works). Many of the entries are written by Ph.D. students, and being as the humanities are, I wonder to what degree any of the information is checked/verified. I'd only cite it on a case-by-case basis to provide extra details that aren't covered in a better source, as part of the self-published sources guideline. Don't think it needs to be listed here unless someone thinks it needs to be explicitly stated as a situational resource... czar  15:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in roughly the same boat as czar, for the same reasons, and had started typing up but was fairly certain he would get to it before me. :D --Izno (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that's not an accurate assessment. The site is not a simple case of self-publishing, it has been financed by two independent research projects. Their methodology is best described in their academic peer-reviewed publication at the International Journal of Communication:
 * Communication scholars have analyzed LGBTQ representation in a variety of other media. In doing so, they offer a contextualized, historical accounting of representation. We hope that our archive can serve as a jumpingoff point for future LGBTQ game studies in this respect. Before describing the construction and content of the archive, however, we should be clear that it is not an archive in the traditional sense, but a heavily curated site of knowledge production about this kind of game content. As Kate Eichhorn (2013) described in her book on feminist archives, “Rather than a destination for knowledges already produced or a place to recover histories and ideas placed under erasure, the making of the archives is frequently where knowledge production begins” (p. 3). In addition to documenting content, this project maps the various ways LGBTQ representation exists in games.
 * "To compile our archive, we began with existing lists of LGBTQ characters in games. The earliest games we have found are from 1986, but we continue to add games as we learn about them. The archive includes explicit LGBTQ content and implicitly coded or queerly read content for two reasons: First, given the long history of queer readings being a key form of resistant reception for LGBTQ audiences, it felt proscriptive to limit ourselves to explicit content. Second, we felt it was important to see whether explicit or implicit representation was more common at different points in time in games as it was in other media. [...] For each game, we began with the original source that listed the game as having LGBTQ content and followed any citations for that claim. When those links were exhausted we used search engines to track down any additional information about the LGBTQ content in the games. We also dug through game wikis and walkthroughs, watched videos of gameplay posted online, played games ourselves, and looked for academic and popular articles or books that addressed the games’ LGBTQ content. Throughout this process we created a coding system using a grounded theoretical approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967/2006) to provide a conceptual map of LGBTQ game content. We classified this content into nine categories: characters, relationships/romance/sex, actions, locations, mentions, artifacts, traits, queer games/narratives, and homophobia/transphobia."
 * The main researcher is an associate professor, Adrienne Shaw, who has published regularly at commercial magazines and newspapers; and the project has received editorial assistance from other PhDs. As I mentioned above, they say they've cross-checked the lists of characters found at fan sites with articles published at reliable sources ("These lists were primarily from pages on Wikipedia, TV Tropes, GayGamer.Net, and the “Can I Play Gay?” Tumblr and were cross-referenced with articles from IGN, Huffington Post, The Daily Dot, and many others"). Diego (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * So I'm looking at it and, yes, it all seems reliable, but articles like this or this or this just don't seem useful. I mean, many of them are completely sourced to fanwikis, but the real issue I have with these is that they aren't really anything. What exactly would we be sourcing here? It's not a journal or an article or... what? There doesn't seem to be any specific editorial control on what should or shouldn't get its own 'article' here. If there is somekind of consensus that a character is LGBT, then they're listed. I'd feel very uncomfortable using this as a source, and would rather pick something more... usual. ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - The main purpose would be to source entries in the List of LGBT characters in video games list mentioned in the first comment. I believe you participated in the AFD for the article, which closed as essentially "Keep, but work on cleaning it up/reworking it". The source would hypothetically used in those clean up efforts. I asked Diego to get an consensus on the source before proceeding, because it could probably actually be sourced a lot at that article, but I didn't want the new version of the article to be too heavily based on an source that could be deemed unreliable in the future. I thought it was best to get a consensus on it on the front end, because I share some of the rest of your concerns - namely that its a Wordpress blog that routinely cites Wikis and Wikipedia itself, though it seems much of the time the citations are to cite tangential details, like release dates or platforms, rather than the actual content on LBGT content. Sergecross73   msg me  20:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, I think we're best evaluating each page of the site on its own merits. I'd only use it as a last resort to mainstream press, and it would even then depend on the credentials of the author (as an "expert") and their sources used. czar  20:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - As mentioned below by Maple, currently, the only inclusion criteria we've agreed upon for the list is basically sourcing each entry. Would you agree with Maple's stance it basically shouldn't be used as the only source to verify an entry? (And as such, shouldn't be used to satisfy inclusion criteria?) Just wanted to confirm your stance, since that was the context that initially spurred this discussion. I apologize to Maple if I have misconstrued your stance. Sergecross73   msg me  21:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict - I understood the purpose of it; I'm just saying that, if anything, no item in that list should be sourced only to this website, as there are no inclusion criteria on that website. If the content is written by PhD graduates, I am sure that it's reliable, but that doesn't make it a high-quality source... ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, I must have misunderstood your comment. I thought you had meant that there wasn't anything it could possibly be used to source, when my concern had been the opposite, that it could be very useful for verifying a lot of entries - since the only inclusion criteria for the list is basically "that sources mention it" - but that could lead to future issues if, hypothetically, the source was deemed entirely unusable in a year, causing the need for yet another massive reworking of the article.  Sergecross73   msg me  21:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Grad students aren't experts—they haven't been established in a field or necessarily even vetted by their community. That's partly why we discourage dissertations and theses as references (not as good as an edited volume). To Serge's point, I see a number of issues with that article (is it a list or prose?) All in all, I wouldn't use the LGBTQ Archive as the sole proof that Mukki is a gay character. If the character is notably gay, that fact will be covered in secondary, reliable sources. (If you needed to make a side point about the Mukki plot, the source could work if the author checks out, but the emphasis should be on what secondary sources have already identified as major LGBTQ characters in video game history. I'd argue that editors on that article would be even better off relying on secondary source material on "LGBT characters in video games"—i.e., write about the topic in prose as a set rather than as list items. This way editors won't be deciding for themselves which LGBTQ characters are most noteworthy for inclusion in a list. But I wasn't involved in that discussion so I don't know the details. To Diego, American universities love to establish all kinds of "centers" for kinds of study. Getting a $1000 grant (fellowship?) from your university is peanuts and doesn't necessarily connote any kind of editorial quality improvement. The articles in this archive are still reliant on the reputation/expertise of its writers, which is to say that they are self-published sources (as mentioned above). If the project is anything like normal university humanities projects, it will rely on mostly volunteered grad student labor and the editing/quality will not be fact-checked, so on par with a scholar-only wiki. Unless there is proof that this isn't the case—and I see no such proof—there is little reason to quibble about their editorial policy. And for the record, the Mukki page from the original discussion is sourced to user-submitted wikis and YouTube, making it much closer to repeating primary source information than any secondary source analysis (indeed it quotes the wiki at length). That's not how we determine notability or even process due weight. czar  05:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so what is the difference between this and what, say, a news reporter would do on a magazine when they repeat information from primary sources, which we then happen to consider reliable? The grad students are being supervised by several professors, and the main professor publishes regularly as a journalist in specialized news websites. When the publisher (a renowned expert in the topic) explicitly says that they are cross-checking the wikis with what we consider reliable sources, in order to verify that the characters are indeed LGBTQ, why do you assume that they don't do it as the default?
 * And how is including a Youtube video of the particular scenes in the game, not considered fact-checking? Youtube is not a valid source for Wikipedians because of WP:OR, but they can be used when someone else is doing the research: it does provide proof of a video game content, which we would consider reliable if a journalist used it for their reviews. So we can rely on them as being accurate when an independent third party uses them for their fact-checking, which is the case here. Why do you consider it not reliable when it is an specialized university professor the one who follows exactly the same process, rather than a specialized journalist? Diego (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * When an academic or journalist publishes on their own, without a dedicated editorial process, we call it an expert-written self-published source. Because they might know what they're talking about, but they're still fallible and the editing process catches errors that slip even experts. The point of WP's source reliability and verifiability is that we trust secondary sources to do the work of distinguishing what content is noteworthy for the public to consume. I'm afraid that that grad student supervision you mention may not be much supervision at all unless explicitly stated. Not the same as editorial process, at least. "Renowned expert" is puffery in this case, as far as I'm concerned. The result is a bit muddled: you say they cross-check the wikis against reliable sources—that would mean that they are checking against secondary sources with edit staff, and if that's the case, we should just use those secondary sources and not the archive. Primary sources are not reliable sources for what should be obvious reasons: an expert analyzes primary source material (the game) to create a secondary analysis, but what makes it reliable is the editing that checks the writer, not the fact that it's secondary to the primary source. czar  17:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The site has been submitted to the International Journal of Communication, as it forms the base data for the peer-reviewed paper (in which the URL for the site has been provided for the review of the referees that approved the paper), so I wouldn't say it goes "without a dedicated editorial process"; peer-reviewed academic research is the best possible review process according to our RS standards.
 * The fact-checking of characters as being LGBTQ has been cross-referenced to other RSs, but the analysis and comment is exclusive to the site; you can't get it from other sources - in fact, one of the conclusions of the paper is that such analysis didn't exist previous to the compilation performed by this project. Sincerely, I don't understand why you consider the editorial process of news sites to be superior to that performed by academics for publication at journals, when articles for news sites have are subject to tight deadlines and academics are not; nor why would the fallibility of the first renders the source untrustworthy but not the fallibility of the second. Diego (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As a reply to Maple, it is not true that "there are no inclusion criteria" on the LGBTQ Archive. They set their criteria as "a list of all of the games we could find that were listed in popular, academic, and web spaces as having some LGBTQ content", and "the posts are categorized by the type of content" using "a coding  system  using  a  grounded  theoretical  approach (Glaser  &  Strauss,  1967/2006) to  provide  a  conceptual  map  of  LGBTQ  game  content". IMHO this is much more than what we get when we use content from the typical WP:NEWSBLOG, as academic published sources subject to peer-review are typically considered more reliable than mass media given their theoretical basis. Diego (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking through all the comments given here and above, I guess I would list it as reliable... It doesn't look like it, but the website seems to have fine editorial control and is well-respected by other people and organizations in the field. As noted above, I would advice highly against using this source as the only source for an item in the LGBT video game characters list (it doesn't establish ""notability"" of an item), but I suppose it is otherwise reliable and accurate. ~ Mable ( chat ) 11:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Lots of confusion here about what constitutes reliability. Reliability = editorial process, fact-checking, etc. Trustworthiness. As a researcher actually familiar with Strauss & Glaser (grounded theory), I haven't seen any page on their website that uses it (associate parts of the game with summative words called "codes" and then group examples similarly coded to find themes, then build a theory of how they're connected from the ground up). "Seeming" is not the same as editorial policy. The idea of calling this source "reliable" given the above means that it would be a fine source to use at AfD to prove notability, which goes to show how nutty it is to call this page a reliable source, given its deficiencies. You requested third opinions and there is mine. At risk of repeating myself, that's all I'll say on the matter. czar  17:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , have you actually read the academic paper that summarizes the results learned from the Archive project? That analytic process has been described there in some detail. I don't know if it adequately follows the grounded theory approach, but that grouping of the examples found in the Archive certainly exists (and the pages in the Archive do exhibit the codes for the groups, these are the tags found at the bottom of each character page). Diego (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, like you said, they use subcats for each individual character. If they synthesized those subcats to make larger points about LGBTQ characters in games, that source would be usable as an expert SPS. And if it's published in a peer review journal, the source could be used with little restriction in the article in question. By the same token, I wouldn't use an archive finding aid (example) or its summary as a reliable source but as an expert self-published source because it does not have secondary editorial vetting. My point about editorial process and reliability still stands. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  18:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Adrenaline Vault/Zone
I'm not familiar with this site—does anyone know more about it?

Was it once reliable? Or only in comparison to other early Internet sites? I only took a cursory look through the archives but I didn't see any basis for calling it reliable. Perhaps someone with more background can comment. Also is it related to PCM&E's Adrenaline Zone? czar 17:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also Archive 3
 * Well that's a quote from forever ago... I think mostly my observations hold, although in 2013 it was knocked offline by a DDoS attack and shuttered as a result of data loss. Its longevity (est. 1995) and people working on it probably give it some reliability, but especially since the stuff most likely to be still around is probably from its latter volunteer "blog phase" it seems like it would under normal circumstances be better to use another source. No relation to Adrenaline Zone as far as I know. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 10:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Unless someone has more info on their editorial practices or an argument on why this site is reliable, I agree that we have no real case for calling it such (and much better alternatives) czar  16:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

www.kotaku.com.au
Can we get www.kotaku.com.au added to the custom google searches? I believe we're only searching kotaku.com. Is there any reason to think the AU site is less reliable? -- ferret (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Think you're gonna have to talk to about it. I think he's the one who controls the custom search. The search needs updating anyway.  GamerPro64  00:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What custom Google search are you talking about?  — Gestrid  ( talk ) 01:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * They're talking about the custom searches mentioned at WP:VG/RS, Gestrid. Czar and I share access to them at present. Sorry it's gotten out of date. My work schedule these days is wrecking havoc with my rate of editing, but I'll delve into it and make adjustments to the search engine this weekend. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -Thibbs (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it something can do? He's still pretty active around here these days.  Sergecross73   msg me  13:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ✓ done. I haven't been actively pruning the engine because I wasn't sure how to keep its contents transparent on WP. I think we'll update WikiProject_Video_games/Search_engine (WP:VGSE) as entries are added/removed. (So someone should leave a comment on each VGRS conversation as they close if they're added. I don't watch most pages though, so the pings are helpful.) czar  16:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That reminds me. The Escapist and Hardcore Gaming 101 should be moved to the Reliable Source search engine. GamerPro64  16:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add a section for 'processing' on WP:VG/SE. It may help know when something needs to change. --Izno (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Czar. -Thibbs (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is kotaku.co.uk on there? --The1337gamer (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Zelda Informer/ Gamnesia/ Nintendo Prime
I feel like the websites mentioned above should be (re-)evaluated for several reasons. For one, Zelda Informer and Gamnesia are no longer "bundled together" by contract. They are now completely separate entities. (After this discussion is finished, they should also be listed separately.) Also, the head of Zelda Informer (Nathanial Rumphol-Janc) was able to get into E3 2016, likely using his credentials from Zelda Informer. (Remember that E3 is only open to the press unless you actually win tickets.) I feel Gamnesia, which I admittedly don't follow as much as Zelda Informer, should be re-evaluated simply because it was originally evaluated in connection with Zelda Informer. As I said above, it is now its own entity. Nintendo Prime should be evaluated because it is created and maintained by the creator and head of Zelda Informer.  — Gestrid  ( talk ) 22:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Gamnesia unreliable - Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm remembering right, the issue was that they yet another new(ish) website that had no real credentials other than being fans and loving gaming. They take user-submissions, (creating a WP:USERG issue) and have have no staff list or editorial policy or anything. Sergecross73   msg me  22:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the WP:USERG issue. I haven't seen any USERG content recently on the site.  Anyway, you apparently haven't seen the site since they updated it since they now have a staff listing.  The link you gave led to a 404.  Zelda Informer also now has a staff listing since they've updated their look.  —  Gestrid  ( talk ) 22:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, what about any of the Gamnesia staff would you say are relevant credentials beyond being "fans"? Sergecross73   msg me  00:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, I haven't followed Gamnesia as closely as Zelda Informer recently. I just thought they should be re-evaluated separately from Zelda Informer now that they actually are separate and have been for a while.  —  Gestrid  ( talk ) 00:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My USERG concern was along the lines of the fact that they actively encourage anyone to write for them, and when the strongest credential listed on their established staff is "graduating high school", I imagine they'd accept articles from just about anyone. Regardless of how you label it, I don't quite see how they'd meet the requirements we typically look for at WP:RS... Sergecross73   msg me  13:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Zelda Informer is unreliable. It's a fansite. Already discussed earlier this year Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_13. A series as popular as Zelda gets plenty of coverage from reliable sources anyway, so it should be necessary to use it. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can't think of any fansites that have been considered an RS. All the Sonic ones certainly fail it. The staff list doesn't help much either - most of their massive 40 person staff list have nothing written about them, and the few I checked that did, had zero credentials other than "loving Zelda" and being a teenager in art school. I can't make an argument in their favor, and if "Nintendo Prime's" main credential is "being founded by ZeldaInformer staff" then I don't see much to work with there either. As 1337gamer mentions above though, at least with ZI, with a series as popular as Zelda, there really shouldn't be any shortage of sourcing available for it, and if ZI is the only place mentioning it, there's a good chance its minutia we'd usually declare fancruft. Sergecross73   msg me  16:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

FanSided
This site is apparently owned by Time, but that doesn't mean that the editorial control descends downwards. There is no apparent editorial structure to this site, so it should be marked as unreliable. czar 17:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Niche Gamer
In the middle of reviewing Mortal Kombat X and seeing it using a source from Niche Gamer. Previous consensus was that it was deemed unreliable. Looking at the site now they have their own ethics policy and review policy. Seems to be a step up from last time it was checked, though I'm not sure what the site was back in 2014. Is the site still considered to be unreliable here? GamerPro64 20:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The ethics and review stuff seems better than what I remember about them, though their bare-bones "About Us" page is concerning - listing only one member of the "staff", the founder, who founded it a couple of years ago with no real credentials other than "being a video game enthusiast". On a content side, its more of a subjective call I know, but some of their articles on stuff can sound more like sensationalized/angry message board type stuff than than an article from a site like your typical IGN/GameSpot/Eurogamer etc. I'll try to dig some examples up, but in short, I'm leaning unreliable. Sergecross73   msg me  20:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much more to say: I agree with Sergecross, both in that those two pages are a big step up and that the website in general just isn't quite on the right level yet because of a lack of experienced staff. I want to look up some of the listed staff, though, as I am curious: Brandon Orselli indeed had no prior experience when starting up the website, but has a college degree. Chris Gregoria seems to have some writing experience, and is a paid writer. Maciej Miszczyk has written for Hardcore Gaming 101 once. The best I've found is contributor Nieves Roberto, who has written for Dual Pixels and just generally has a lot of work experience. I have difficulty finding much about most of the staff, and they don't seem particularly special, but I don't know either way. ~ Mable ( chat ) 21:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with what has already been said. My sense is that those explicit policy elements were added to be GG-responsive (1, 2), though I wasn't around to have visited them in advance. czar  17:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

My Summer Car and reliable sources
I and User:Dohvahkiin are having a little debate conserning this guideline page; please see my talk page and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Summer_Car&action=history the article's history]. If possible, please comment. 88.113.105.231 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to get others opinions on whether this is reliable: http://www.iltasanomat.fi/digitoday/art-2000001939410.html. User claims it's reliable, but I'd like more voice on the subject, as the website is in a different language and I alone cannot verify whether it's reliable based on Wikipedia Guide for Reliable Sources either, but there are sources not listed there that could be argued as reliable. Nothing against the above user, just want to make sure the games page has as much accurate info as possible so others will not have to debate this again. Thank you.Dohvahkiin (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Usually, this is just where we discuss source reliability, not solve disputes, so I don't know how much input you'll get, but I'll try to help mediate. So, first off, why is the one Kotaku source not enough to source this? Is there a particular reason why this claim is controversial and requires further verification? It's reasonable to ask for more than one source to verify something, but you'd need a reason why one isn't enough of its own. I'm particularly concerned because your talk page shows you've had significant problems with this... Sergecross73   msg me  00:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've researched it and so far, the Kotaku source is the only source that even describes it as such. That's why it's an issue, because no other sources which talk about the game describe it as open world, at least from the sources listed. That's why he added that second source, and why I asked someone to verify its reliable. With a game such as this, where not much info is known, it's wise to try to get multiple sources to back up a claim. That's all that's needed here because of the fact that we have to be factual, and the opinion of one Kotaku person doesn't mean it's true. Case in point: my addition of Bloodborne to the category was reverted due to the fact that the only source I could provide to support this is one from Eurogamer. Ever since, I've been making sure each game I add has at least two sources behind it, so as not to have that situation happen again. But again, the issue is that only Kotaku calls it an open world, when none of the other limited sources do.Dohvahkiin (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but as far as I can tell, very few sources cover this game at all, which is different from Bloodborne, which has hundreds of sources covering it. 1 out of 10 is less of a fluke than 1 out of 200, you know? Do you have an actual concern, or are you just making things difficult for this person because someone did something similar to you in the past?  Sergecross73   msg me  00:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I do have an actual concern. I just don't want to see this added and then someone else comes along and removes it later because we find out that it's not enough, you know what I mean. It's like that scene in Twelve Angry Men, where 11 vote guilty, and one not guilty. Just want to discuss and see if there is anything more concrete before making a final decision on the subject. That's why this discussion is here, to see if anyone else can provide any info. Like I said to him earlier, it's nothing against him, I'm just trying to prevent the category from becoming convoluted. I did the same with with two recent edits, Astroneer and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword. Someone added them or removed them from the category, and I went back to verify it was the correct call. Once I verified it, I left it as is. But again, the way you described it above with the differences between the situations, I can understand it.Dohvahkiin (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the need for a second source here. One source is fine, there's no requirement for there to be two.  Sergecross73   msg me  00:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There isn't a requirement for two. It's just better to provide more than one in most instances. This is probably one of the rare instances where since there isn't a lot of info available, just one suffices. I can agree with that after discussing it fully. So I'll add it back in. I just wanted an experienced editor to provide input is all. I'll be sure to take this into account in these situations for future reference. Thank you.Dohvahkiin (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

What if Gameranx is cited by the Complex magazine's website?
Would using the website for the Complex magazine be all right? Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 04:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Complex owns GameRanx. GamerPro64  04:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source quotes an unreliable source, then you can use the quoted text by citing the reliable source. In the prose, you can write something like "John Doe, who was later quoted by Reliable Mag, noted that the game was 'swag'." ~ Mable ( chat ) 11:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Something Complex would say czar  17:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Video Game Console Library
Website at. I found this one in a ref on the Nintendo 64 article and was disturbed when I saw the referenced page says that Alien vs Predator (Jaguar game) was released near the end of the Jaguar's lifetime. (Wherever they got that idea from, they didn't need to do any hardcore research to check it; just glance at the copyright year and you'll see Alien vs Predator wasn't released anywhere near the Jaguar's end.) Checking on the about section, the fact that the editors' profiles cite only their gaming history, with no hint of journalistic experience or credentials, makes me suspect this source is indeed unreliable.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Run by enthusiasts, no editorial pedigree. They have a golden Wikipedia logo on their front page under "Trusted resource for gaming hardware" ...  czar  17:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Add NowGamer to List
NowGamer.com is by UK magazine publisher Imagine Publishing. I believe they are a reliable source for video game news, reviews, and opinions and should be added to the list. Here are some reliable sources that have considered NowGamer's opinions, reviews, and news reliable and noteworthy: PushSquare, Geek.com, Engadget, GameSpot, IBTimes, VG247, BGR (Penske Media Corporation). --Odie5533 (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Previously discussed: Archive 8, Archive 4. Its clickbait content doesn't do much to inspire confidence, and did they get rid of bylines or is that an issue with my browser? If the authors have a pedigree and there is editorial precedent, then this is a closed case, but could someone link evidence of this? (By the way, I wouldn't consider quoted opinions evidence of source endorsement, especially in Brave New Blog World.) czar  17:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the content on Nowgamer is shared from GamesTM, Retro Gamer and other magazines that were published under Imagine. A number of articles are taken directly from those magazines. E.g. their The Making of Tetris feature is a carbon copy from Retro Gamer #42, so I would definitely consider specific articles as reliable and useful as it is web alternative that is easily accessible. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to know your opinion on these sites.

 * TVTropes : This one I personally think is unreliable as it violates WP:USERG.
 * WatchMojo: I don't know, but it ain't violating WP:USERG like the one above.

What do you folks think about the two sources. ULTRA-DARKNESS  :) 2 CHAT 20:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, TV Tropes is a wiki, making it automatically unreliable. It seems like people had concerns with WatchMojo as well, but I don't recall what they were, and I don't usually use the site, so I'll have to look into it. Sergecross73   msg me  20:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Both unreliable. TVTropes is a wiki which anyone can edit, so clearly unreliable. WatchMojo does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and so is not reliable either. The site mostly publishes click-bait puff pieces which are of no encyclopedic value. Being listed on one of WatchMojo's Top 10 X is not worth mentioning in a video game article on an encyclopedia. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I found out from one of my Facebook friends that WatchMojo gathers their Top 10 lists via forum surveys. Since surveys are user generated content, I am going to change my opinion to it being an unreliable source. Hopefully this can help Sergecross73, Czar, etc. ULTRA-DARKNESS  :) 2 CHAT  16:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like there is agreement that they're both unreliable then. Sounds good. Thanks. Sergecross73   msg me  16:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Glixel
Glixel is Rolling Stone's video-game news site. It has been running on the rolling stone domain for the last several months but it is officially launched today as its own brand. (See ). It is implied that the same editorial aspects Rolling Stone has done still apply here. --M ASEM (t) 01:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable Seeing that the staff are veterans in journalism, I would think they're safe to use. Also, it is there enough to write an article on the site yet? GamerPro64  02:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not (yet) seeing much 3rd party coverage, though there is a significant NYTimes article, and this from AdWeek. At worst, a subsection on the main Rolling Stone article, with redirects, would 100% be appropriate. --M ASEM (t) 03:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely Reliable with those sort of credentials. Sergecross73   msg me  14:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What part of that link suggests anything about editorial oversight? That their early coverage was published in Rolling Stone? Is there evidence that they follow the same editorial process? Not pooh-poohing this, but want to remind that many, many publishers have spun out video game-specific blogs/publications with very little editorial oversight in this brave new clickbait world (see the eSports discussion in the archive for many prominent examples). czar  15:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * They really need an "about us" page, but from the May announcement John Davison is acting as general manager and editor oversight, with Simon Cox as content director, so it's not right-out a blog. --M ASEM  (t) 15:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This New York Times article really make it sound like they're putting a lot into this - it doesn't sound like they're just starting up an IGN user-blog section or something, they're referring it as "the Rolling Stone of video games. Are we ready to add it to the list? Its starting to come up as a point of contention with new game reviews. (The contention being "What is Glixel", not any sort of actual concern.) Sergecross73   msg me  15:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that I just put a section in the RS article about Glixel and fixed the redirect with the sources above. --M ASEM (t) 15:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to hold off further on adding it to the list. — zziccardi ( talk ) 20:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Reliable: Per The New York Times, Rolling Stones writers contribute to the site and Glixels staffers are industry veterans. — zziccardi ( talk ) 20:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Electric Playground in the 90s
Electric Playground was added as a RS in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 4. How far back does their reliability go? It started as what appears to be an amateur website in 1994 (anyone have more info?) and went in the air a few years later. What year/period would it become credible? And should reviews from 1995 be deemed reliable if there is no perceptible editorial policy? It's kind of like citing early Kotaku... czar 22:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Chris Hoffman's blog
Link

Just found out that Nintendo Power Chris Hoffman is still writing reviews and opinion pieces, on his own site, and wondered what the wikiproject thinks about this. According to WP:SPS, self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, and Hoffman has been editor for Gamers' Republic, a freelance video game writer for "various companies", senior editor for Play, writer and senior editor for Nintendo Power, and managing editor for MacLife. I'm thinking that it'd be a situational source: I see his own articles as reliable, self-published expert sources, while reblogged posts (unsure if there are any as I haven't looked through the archives) of course would be unreliable.--IDVtalk 15:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)