Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 32

Aftermath again
Revisiting this discussion (previous 1 previous 2). I've been consistently impressed with the caliber of writing here, both in editorial (e.g. )and in reported journalism work (e.g., ). I especially like that there are some sickos on staff that cover older/retro topics in great detail (e.g., ). We've already talked about the contributors' (owners) pedigree, so I'm comfortable going with reliable. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with calling them reliable. Compared to more mainstream sites, I feel more comfortable with their work than, say, IGN, which has its fair share of churnalism and listicles. When sites are lowering standards of quality, it's important to keep around a site that's embracing quality reporting and content. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I also feel they're reliable per past discussions and their quality of work.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Situational (changing to Unreliable due to concerns over WP:SELFPUB given ownership situation) - Probably repeating myself, given the writers involved are former recent Kotaku (which has had a very choppy history when it comes to editorial standards) and looking at Aftermath's output so far it still feels very much in that Kotaku vein of being more personality-driven than the journalistic merits itself. Therefore while I wouldn't label the site as "unreliable" across the board I wouldn't feel comfortable giving it a similar "reliable" one either.
 * Comment - IIRC a concern someone had previously was there wasn't a public policy on editorial standards, has this been resolved? Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That was Cukie and she contacted them directly to clarify. They have industry standard editorial protocols. Are there particular incidents of journalistic 'malpractice' you can point to for the writers involved? AFAIK all of them left Kotaku before the AI article stuff. As for the personality-driven vs journalistic merit stuff, I think their reported work is of high quality and the personality-driven stuff falls under WP:RSOPINION. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know if any of them were there at the exact time of the AI stuff, but pretty much all of them were there for most of the G/O Media era that's most come under scrutiny in terms of just general output being unreliable/situational. And going by RSOPINION, given the type of outlet this is, still feels like it'd result in a situational designation. I think maybe it's best to start with situational and then down the line once they've had time to become established it's reviewed given it's only March. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In terms of "malpractice" or rather general behaviour, I'd say that's covered in general by discussions about Kotaku, though Luke Plunkett's recent history comes to mind, such as last year where they responded to Nintendo blacklisting by posting "kill markings" with the Imperial Japanese Flag. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I don't know that I would agree at all with the sentiment of them being attached to the worst of Kotaku's era. They weren't brought in with G/O, they left because of G/O, so it can't be tied to them. Secondly, having bad takes isn't alien for people tied to reliable sources. I feel that, if a bad action by an editor at IGN wouldn't impugn IGN as a source, that shouldn't be used to argue against the reliability of a new source. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * They weren't brought in with G/O, they left because of G/O, so it can't be tied to them.
 * If people raised issues with the journalistic quality of the outlet during the G/O Media era which they worked at for some years then that is tied to them as well (if not all to do with them), given they're the writers of said output people questioned. And I don't think your allegory about IGN really works in the way you think it does. Here the issue is that if an employee at an outlet (with a somewhat dodgy reputation) leaves and starts their own one as a part-owner can we really just decide very soon after it's established that they're reliable now?
 * tl;dr, basically I think this is a case of too soon and that at best we should consider it situational given their previous recent ties to other outlets of questionable reliability and then revisit the issue in another six months given this is the third discussion on the site in as many months. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cukie. You're reversing effect and cause. G/O management caused the issues through unreasonable article quotas and SEO policies; this is well documented. Frankly, it's tantamount to career sabotage. Also I feel like you're painting Kotaku in too broad a brush. Their journalism bonafides have always been high, even during their supposed questionable eras. Many of the best shoeleather reporters in the industry got their start or big break at Kotaku including Totilo, Schreier, and D'Anastasio. As our own advice notes, News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable. The situational element only comes in for tossed off geeky/bloggy/joke-y posts and for possible AI-generated articles since 2023.
 * And I hope it doesn't have to be said but disliking a person or disagreeing with a person's opinions does not make them a bad journalist. Bad people can still be highly skilled journalists (not that I'm suggesting Aftermath staff are bad people), and reliability of a source depends fully on the latter and not at all on the former. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I find these arguments extremely uncompelling. In what way would the lowering of quality be all on them? For that to be true, you would need to demonstrate that the lowering of quality happened prior to its purchase by G/O, and that doesn't seem to be something people agree with. A comparably strange argument would be to say that, if Kotaku went down for a month, that reflects poorly on the writers rather than the server host. That you argued this may be "all" to do with them is something so utterly confusing that I don't even remotely understand how you can argue that point with a straight face.
 * As far as the reputation of an individual author among a group, as Axem notes, that's honestly a completely tangential argument to make. The moral character of a journalist does not inherently impact their ability to do journalism. I do not believe that Wikipedians would argue that some writer for NY Times is unreliable if they committed a serious crime that's not related to the things they write about, so why is a stupid and awful take relevant to Luke Plunkett's ability to do journalism? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Axem Titanium "News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable. The situational element only comes in for tossed off geeky/bloggy/joke-y posts.", but that's the point. From what I've seen of Aftermath so far it's that exact same mix of everything so I really don't see why that same situationality suddenly doesn't apply.
 * Many of the best shoeleather reporters in the industry got their start or big break at Kotaku including Totilo, Schreier, and D'Anastasio. All of whom stayed as reporters at outlets, and didn't become effectively self-published.
 * And I hope it doesn't have to be said but disliking a person or disagreeing with a person's opinions does not make them a bad journalist. Bad people can still be highly skilled journalists (not that I'm suggesting Aftermath staff are bad people), and reliability of a source depends fully on the latter and not at all on the former.
 * It's somewhat different though when they go from "they were a journalist under someone else's payroll" to being an owner of the business, in which case their behaviour does reflect on it because it effectively becomes a form of self-publishing (which is a whole other minefield).
 * Many of the best shoeleather reporters in the industry got their start or big break at Kotaku including Totilo, Schreier, and D'Anastasio.
 * But as how one bad reporter doesn't make everyone bad, some being exceptional doesn't make all exceptional. Also all those names listed (until December) after Kotaku stayed as reporters and joined outlets of repute, they didn't start a self-published operation.
 * @Cukie Gherkin I think you've gotten the wrong end of the stick, by "(if not all to do with them)" I mean as in it's not entirely to do with them, but likewise you can't entirely blame bad management when unless there's evidence otherwise the editorial decision-making in regards to coverage and output was still independent of ownership. If there were questions on the quality of what writers were putting out then that is partially on the staff involved.
 * The moral character of a journalist does not inherently impact their ability to do journalism. I do not believe that Wikipedians would argue that some writer for NY Times is unreliable if they committed a serious crime that's not related to the things they write about, so why is a stupid and awful take relevant to Luke Plunkett's ability to do journalism?
 * As said above, it changes because Luke Plunkett is a part-owner of the site. He isn't simply some staff writer at a major publication that can be held to account by an editorial board. He is effectively self-publishing. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Now you're just talking out of both sides of your mouth, making the argument from every angle to see what sticks. They were being paid by G/O media to put out shitty unreliable work, which makes them unreliable, but now they're not being paid so now they're unreliable. What?? Self-publishing is more relevant in the fringe/conspiracy theory world. Was the New York Times "self-published" when it first started out? The editorial board of Aftermath is the other owners who edit and fact check each others' work. This is a reputation-based business and I've yet to see an tangible example of journalistic malpractice that might impact reputation. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * They were being paid by G/O media to put out shitty unreliable work, which makes them unreliable, but now they're not being paid so now they're unreliable. What??
 * Didn't say that. Did say that they previously worked at outlets which had a questionable reputation for its output and they are now self-publishing which means they're in control of their own output without any editorial oversight. They are separate causes for concern.
 * Self-publishing is more relevant in the fringe/conspiracy theory world.
 * No it's not, the policy clearly applies to any publication, with the only consideration of potential reliability being Subject-Matter Experts. And I seriously doubt that applies to games journalists/bloggers.
 * Was the New York Times "self-published" when it first started out?
 * That's quite literally a mainstay of my argument. NYT is considered reliable because it's got a body of journalistic merit and standards going back nearly two centuries. Big difference to a self-published blog/site that started a few months ago.
 * The editorial board of Aftermath is the other owners who edit and fact check each others' work.
 * Well not only can I not find that anywhere on their site, or anything to demonstrate in writing how their site operates in terms of editorial standards, but that still means it's self-published and covered under the self-published policy ("personal or group blogs") Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not mean this as a comment on Cukie's personal character/trustworthiness, but I do raise an eyebrow at a source not stating their editorial policy and us relying on an editor's personal correspondence of it instead.` Hackerman67 (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Cukie did contact them (and I thank Cukie for being proactive), but unless there's something I missed, industry standard protocols were not confirmed.
 * The response was "Yep! Every piece we run is edited. Riley mostly handles that, but we're a pretty small team, so for some pieces another one of us will do it".
 * While at best that means they have an unstated editorial policy and meet industry standards, at worst it means they have someone edit it for spelling and grammar. The source text doesn't confirm either way. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While at best that means they have an unstated editorial policy and meet industry standards, at worst it means they have someone edit it for spelling and grammar. The source text doesn't confirm either way. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * But that's the thing, when we are examining a dip in quality, we can point to a timeline. It happened when G/O purchased Kotaku. If the quality of the writers was partly the issue, why was it only recognized after G/O bought them? Why is it that Kotaku getting even worse happened when the staff from before G/O largely left? We can't prove G/O is responsible, but if it's not G/O that's to blame, it leaves many unanswered questions why the staff was better before them, and why the site worsened after the staff left. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Except that's really not the case at all is it. Let's actually look at the current listing of Kotaku for a minute, which says this:
 * News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance (such as [13 ]). Articles published before 2010 had comparatively weaker editorial standards, while articles published from 2023 onward should generally be avoided due to content farming concerns and unmarked AI-written content. It should be noted that this is not a definitive cut-off—editorial deterioration is gradual, and editors have noted instances of low-quality reporting in preceding years—so articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
 * So breaking that down for a moment:
 * 1 - News reporting at G/O Media era was considered reliable for three years, so the idea it simply "happened when G/O purchased Kotaku" isn't true.
 * 2 - The article used to emphasis the unreliability of certain styles of posting quite literally uses Luke Plunkett from 2012 as an example. So clearly he's been viewed by editors here as a problem for at least a decade.
 * 3 - It specifically points out that the "editorial deterioration is gradual", presumably because looking back at previous discussions no one could actually agree when the site "got bad". Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But no one is arguing that Kotaku has never had issues, the point is that the period before they were bought was seen as good enough to upgrade them, and then G/O represented a gradual decline rather than an immediate one, with the staff leaving almost immediately seeing a sharp drop in quality. Also, again, Luke's bad takes don't matter for this unless they can be shown to affect his journalism. I do not think that Luke Plunkett made a geeky blog because he has a bad take, for instance. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * One of his "bad takes" is literally still used to highlight concerns about Kotaku's reliability years prior to G/O Media existing. You can't discount that when talking about the reliability of a site he's part owner of and self-publishing under. And again, read the actual description, it doesn't state when the "gradual decline" began, only that its decline happened at some point prior to 2023 (because as shown in prior linked discussions about Aftermath, the issue about them being former Kotaku writers and therefore how to discuss reliability was brought up). Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We actually can look at the discussions to identify when the decline seemed to happen. In this discussion, a number of Kotaku's editors left the site due to 2019 Deadspin layoffs. The fact that it took two years for such a discussion to happen suggests to me that the notion that G/O's management wasn't to blame a strange one, considering the staff during the period most people agree was Kotaku's most reliable saw a significant migration from the site explicitly because of what G/O did to Deadspin. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Even in that discussion though, the first reply debunks it:
 * "Also for further context, Totilo only left back in February 2021, well after the Deadspin controversy in late 2019, with Patricia Hernandez officially taking over in late June 2021. So Kotaku had an interim EiC (Riley Macleod) in between Totilo's departure and Hernandez's return, who also left just before she was announced as EiC" (source for evidence)
 * So they didn't leave because of Deadspin in 2019, instead they stuck around for multiple years after. It's even notable that all but one of the Aftermath Founders was there at the point Totilo left in 2021, so if you're considering that G/O Media's purchase marks the degrading of their reliability, well then these founders were putting out that poor content for some years (Luke Plunkett was the last to leave in July 2023).
 * Just from my own anecdotal experience, as someone who's read Kotaku (at differing levels) since probably around 2009, I've seen people decry that site as "not what it once was" even before a certain lawsuit took place. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Reliable per Axem. Sergecross73   msg me  22:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable website is clearly high quality, and many of its writers have notable credentials. Skyshifter   talk  23:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Situational. Speculation about the writers' history aside, their actual current site's editorial policies give me pause.
 * Hackerman67 (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * May I ask what's giving you question? No offense, but as of writing this, you're about 80 edits into your editing career. I know that 80 edits into my time on Wikipedia, I had no idea how Wikipedia assessed sources yet. Sergecross73   msg me  13:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not to reply for Hackerman67, but as it's been a couple days, I imagine it refers to their statement:
 * "I do raise an eyebrow at a source not stating their editorial policy and us relying on an editor's personal correspondence of it instead" DarkeruTomoe (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Reliable. I see no issues with their content. Woodroar (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable based on what I see so far. If any issues come up, we can always revisit this discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * On the fence, but leaning reliable Wait and see. Their work has so far been great, but the lack of published editorial policy/standards is enough to make me a bit cautious about giving them a blanket reliable classification right now. If they actually articulate them and put them up on the site for us to vet, I'd have no issues classifying them as reliable. JOE BRO 64  13:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Situational (Edit: Now leaning unreliable considering the lack of Conflict of Interest notice on their recent posts about the game journalist industry and that most of their recent posts big posts involved it or were Kotaku style posts like 'I’ve Had The Same PC Speakers For 20 Years, Almost My Entire Adult Life') / Wait and See - at least six months before bringing it up again
 * - It's still quite new, there's no posted editorial policy (and I don't believe the minimal response to Cutie's email was satisfactory in place of that), and while the staff do seem accomplished and the work I've seen seems good at face value, the majority of them were still working at Kotaku during their weaker years (most left during 2020 - 2021 and people were questioning it long before the AI stuff). It has also been mentioned that the co-owner was one of the earliest posted examples of weaker articles.
 * I'm also a little wary because of articles like this one about Gamurs and the state of the industry, which are very interesting (and in this case was published by the co-owner) but are very likely subject to bias. Bias of course is expected, but including things like an anonymous Indeed review of the company as an example and the potential to misrepresent the situation and present it as fact are concerns.
 * Edit: I'd also note articles like this one make me wary of their ethics. It's reporting negatively about Kotaku, without adding a disclaimer mentioning their previous association with and decision to leave it (and most likely association with friends/colleagues working there), unlike for example slate's previous article on Kotaku which clearly states what they describe as a conflict of interest (Follow up Edit: For context, the article when originally posted as shown via WayBack Machine didn't include any mention of their CoI. It was later edited to mention Riley's involvement, but no-one else's at the site including the co-author Gita who also worked there). DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:BIASED covers this. All sources are biased and sources are not required to follow NPOV. The deciding factor for reliability is the reputation and caliber of work, not lack of bias. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It does which is why I said it's expected. It's the concerns over the reputation/caliber that are higher when it comes to these sort of things, which is why I highlighted using an anonymous Indeed review as an example to build a narrative, which seems even worse than using an embedded tweet. something that sources are often called out for.


 * Edit: To clarify, my concern is that this is a piece of work where there is a clear bias and this is where less than reliable reporting is most likely to show through potentially not adhering to journalist processes in favor of making their point - not that the bias itself is an issue. But if they present information where sources such as an anonymous review posted online is supporting evidence to drive a point that they're clearly in favor of presenting, then can we trust their anonymous sources are all vetted? That they've interviewed a wide selection of people and not just their friends in the industry who they know are unhappy? Cascading on from that, is their process for other articles up to spec?


 * At this point, we've not seen much evidence of how this outlet operates (not helped by it's lack of editorial policy). As a new outlet, it doesn't *have* much of a a reputation, much less one for reliability.


 * DarkeruTomoe (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that journalists can't report on other journalists? If not them, then who is allowed to report on problems in journalism?
 * If you're concerned about the use of anonymous sources in general, check source (journalism) for more information about why we as a society allow professional journalists to report news based on undisclosed sources, and by extension, why news outlets that use undisclosed sources are still considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. It's part of the social contract that we agree to when we empower journalists to investigate. Without protection of anonymous sources, there would be no such thing as whistleblowing. If you assume little enough faith, no journalist is reliable because there's a chance they could be making anything up at any time. But that's not a workable state of affairs. Instead, we trust news organizations to responsibly report the news, based on anonymous sources when applicable, and that trust is given according to their reputation for good work.
 * For this anonymous "source" in particular, it's just a publicly posted review on Indeed that anyone can go look at and verify. They didn't track down who posted the review and it's actually not referred to in the text of the article; it's just flavor. It's a completely different thing from protecting an anonymous source in the journalistic sense and the presence of the quote in that article doesn't reflect on the website's integrity about using anonymous sources in general. They're not related.
 * And while the website might not have much of a reputation yet, the people certainly do. All/most of their posts are still up at other sites. You can look at them yourself to decide if they meet your standards for reliable journalism. They certainly meet mine. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Wait and see I agree with the comments above in that vein. They simply do not have the length of time I'd want before evaluating the sum of their coverage. As mentioned, Kotaku suffers from a gradual erosion of quality, and these writers aren't necessarily responsible for that but they're not free and clear, either. I agree with Darkeru that failing to note a conflict of interest in your reporting is a major red flag (The Washington Post, for example, always mentions their ownership when they report on the company. Is it sometimes hilarious how out of left field it is in their reporting? Yes. But it's better to be safe than sorry and appearances matter. Obviously games journalism is a steaming pile of dreck compared to the wider sphere, but I don't think this is too high a hurdle when evaluating a new publication.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 100% agree. I think people here are focusing a little too much on the fact that the writers once worked for a source we considered reliable, when the site is still extremely new and there are thus some fairly obvious deficiencies (specifically, not publishing their editorial policy for us to vet, just saying "oh we have one don't worry" because someone emailed them, and failing to disclose a COI). It's definitely a "sit back and see how it plays out" situation for me. JOE BRO 64  19:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think a broader point is that while good journalists are a tremendous assets, the role of editorial is hugely important in making a publication. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 12:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable. The reputation of the founders and owners does matter; beyond that, coverage of them and WP:USEBYOTHERS generally points to reliability, eg. --Aquillion (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Articles about the dissolution of Kotaku and the founding of another publication cannot be used as an example of USEBYOTHERS. That's just covering news. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 12:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd think some of those linked articles would be a weak example of WP:USEBYOTHERS since some are reporting news about Kotaku / the establishment of Aftermath, not citing it for facts / establishing that it believes it's reliable.
 * The others are citing the article about the Editor in Chief leaving which is better, but it'd be nice to see a more varied case of WP:USEBYOTHERS as that's one article which Aftermath is in rather a unique position to report upon, as detectors from Kotaku and former coworkers (and presumably in a friendly relationship) with the person being reported upon.
 * As mentioned above as well, the initial lack of noting any conflict of interest or bias as compared to articles like slates on the source article isn't great either. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't the recognition that they missed a COI disclosure and made an update an indication of trustworthiness, rather than a knock against it? An unreliable news org would simply ignore it or try to sweep it under the rug. Nobody's perfect and a humility about and recognition of honest mistakes is better than arrogance. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked at those articles and they're just news about staff leaving Kotaku and starting another website. Those don't fall under WP:USEBYOTHERS. They're not citing the source for their reporting, they're just reporting that a new website's been started. JOE BRO 64  10:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The GI.biz, VGC, and Daily Beast articles are based on Aftermath's reporting (i.e. "according to Aftermath"), which qualifies as USEBYOTHERS. The other two sources (Verge and Game Developer) are about Aftermath's founding itself, which appears to be mistake to include them. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Was this decided to be a reliable source?
 * I already see pages on wikipedia using them.
 * Due to the reason why they left kotaku and writing articles heavily leaning that way (political reasons) i dont see them as reliable if wikipedia wants to be unbiased. 2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:98B2:47E1:1A1E:E432 (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't decide reliability because we agree or disagree with perceived "political reasons" (especially if it's a video game website.)
 * I can't officially close the discussion and deride a consensus here because I'm a participant in the discussion, but if you ask me, it looks like we're kinda stuck between "reliable" and "inconclusive". Sergecross73   msg me  14:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It does seem there's no clear consensus here. While it's not always about not merely about counting heads, I count 8 reliable, 1 situational, 3 unreliable, and 2 wait and see. Some of these don't have arguments for their opinions at all though.
 * If it's not resolved this time (as the third discussion on a relatively new site), perhaps one down the line will after those wait and sees have had more time. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Wealth of Geeks
Find video game sources: "...site name..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk LinkSearch[https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A...site URL... LinkTo]

I found this "best games" list by Wealth of Geeks https://wealthofgeeks.com/essential-video-games-everyone-needs-to-play/ I would like the source evaluated for future discussion. Alena 33 (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I can't find any reliable WP:USEBYOTHERS. If anything, I wonder if they're buying links from some of the stuff I did find where high authority sites are linking to them by just their categories and not referring to them for information. Like this Fortune.com page where it just links the word 'cruise ships' when talking about tax on them to Wealth of Geeks article on highly-rated cruise ships. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

GameMeca - a Korean gaming source?
Find video game sources: "GameMeca" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk LinkSearchLinkTo

I've been having a debate on the Ragnarok Online talk page. And without spewing too much, as I'm exhausted; I'd like if enough people (credible, mods & admins preferred ofc) can verify the validity of this as a source as it doesn't appear in the source list whatsoever, reliable nor unreliable. However, based off what this site has to offer, they have information on things dating back as far as the early 2000's. 90's even it seems. Articles written in 2002 and stuff. To me, clearly this has been an organization operating for a long time and has plentiful of credible news and sources-to that has been under our radar that can provide info on much more things other than just the game I'm attempting to add additions to the article too. Especially under the "Net Power" game magazine section. It's so much history & coverage on gaming and old school MMOs on that site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4ReeZy (talk • contribs)
 * GameMeca was established in 2000 by Jeumedia, a publisher that had a hand in creating video game focused Korean magazines including Game Power (1992), PC Power Zine (1995) and NET Power Zine (1999). So the website's history dates all the way back to the 1990s. I'm yet to check their editorial team to see if they have had notable people, but it is true GameMeca has a longer history and a more plausible claim to fame than a lot of Korean websites out there. --Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Game File
Find video game sources: "Game File" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk LinkSearchLinkTo

Game File is a newsletter written solely by Stephen Totilo, the former editor at Kotaku (at least, during its period where there was no question to its reliability). Some parts of it are for paid subs, but most of the rest, spot checking, are accessible as long as you register your email. — M asem (t) 01:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've been reading it for the last month or two. It's quality writing. No idea how newsletters like this fit into Wikipedia standards for reliability though. Sergecross73   msg me  02:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Gamerant
Is gamerant considered a reliable source that can be used as a reference? Infrabel1 (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It's already on the list with pretty detailed notes... Sergecross73   msg me  15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To make life easier for anyone else checking, Game Rant is listed as a Situational Source with the following note.
 * > Consensus is that it is not a high quality source, to be treated with caution and excluded from BLP pages. Topics of low potential for controversy such as general pop culture topics or game information are allowable areas. Sometimes erroneously spelled "Gamerant".
 * ...Though as an aside, the first line of the note makes it sound like its describing an unreliable source to me with no info on why it's even situational included but I can see there has been plenty of discussion on it DarkeruTomoe (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Two more sources to add among the reliable ones
I ask to add the following sources, https://www.gonintendo.com/, and https://www.spaziogames.it among the lists of reliable sources, thank you. 151.34.66.194 (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've not looked into Spaziogames as it's in Italian, but Go Nintendo doesn't seem like a reliable one unless you've got evidence to the contrary?
 * No editorial policy that I can see.
 * Authors are all pseudonyms like Editor in Chief "rawmeatcowboy" so can't check the staff history
 * No qualifications mentioned giving them expertise that I can see
 * They don't even seem to be on OpenCritic DarkeruTomoe (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe we've discussed GoNintendo in the past and landed on unreliable. Its usually a non-issue - they write very little original content. It's almost entirely "reposting" pre-releases or stories from other websites, in which, you can just use the source they're using if its reliable. I can only think of like one time that they reported on something that no one else had. Sergecross73   msg me  21:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Cultured Vultures
I've seen this being used by multiple articles, so listing here so we can conclude if its reliable or not. 🥒 Greenish Pickle! 🥒 (🔔) 02:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I remember coming across this source. IIRC, they get a bunch of random people with no prior experience to write for them. So, I'd say that they're unreliable. — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 12:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd not disqualify for that alone. Other sites deemed as reliable and situational pick up students and those with no/little experience. They just don't advertise it. With a strong enough editorial staff, it could be acceptable and they seem to be trying to train people in-house.
 * Whether their output and editorial process is strong enough for that might be another question. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards unreliable too, based on the fact that they proclaim the inexperience of their writers as a feature. If I saw stronger evidence of editorial overview, I might reconsider. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

PC Invasion
Another untouched source for WP:VG/S. Is PC Invasion reliable? Supergrey1 (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

CBR
Just out of curiosity, is there any reason why CBR is listed as less reliable than other Valnet sources? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've been wondering the same thing. I think it should be treated like the other Valent sources; reliable pre-buyout and situational post-buyout. You can argue that it should be generally unreliable since 2023, due to the AI content, but otherwise, I would have it marked situational post-buyout. MoonJet (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, though I will mention the claims AI content seems to have been a false flag, as we haven't seen signs of it and Valnet themselves stated it wasn't something they were pursuing (yet). Until we actually see evidence, I don't see a reason to go full unreliable at this time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Quick quote that I posted elsewhere before, but if they're not using AI, then I'd question their editorial standards even more when adding in 'hallucinated' information like this example:
 * > I saw them recently mentioned for an inaccurate article where they've used ANN as a source but seemingly made up some extra details that can't be found on the ANN article or the original Japanese source such as English voice acting. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A few quotes from other times this has been discussed that may add context
 * > CBR was a great source that had many experienced writers and received numerous awards for their journalism throughout the 2000s and early 2010s. In 2016, they were acquired by Valnet and most of their writers left as they shifted to churnalism
 * >This is very much rumor mill right now, but this morning on Twitter, CBR founder Jonah Weiland shared a post, shared by another former CBR editor, of the CBR account, which was apparently removed, claiming that most of the news editors who had not already resigned had been fired as the site moved further into AI-driven content.
 * > I saw them recently mentioned for an inaccurate article where they've used ANN as a source but seemingly made up some extra details that can't be found on the ANN article or the original Japanese source such as English voice acting. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Reassessing Hardcore Gamer post-Valnet acquisition
Hardcore Gamer, a currently reliable source that has been considered such for nearly two decades, was purchased by Valnet around a year ago. Knowing the status on Valnet sources here, a new discussion on the status of Hardcore Gamer is needed. Even if they weren't purchased by Valnet, the source was last assessed in 2006.

From what I see, while they publish a lot of game guide content, they still seem to publish decent reviews and appear to publish higher quality content than sites like CBR on average. Maybe it could still generally be used to demonstrate notability even after being purchased by Valnet? Some opinions here would be appreciated. λ Negative  MP1  20:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * They still seem okay for now. I agree that their content is higher quality than other Valnet sources.  That may change in the future, but if they're still decent today I wouldn't preemptively downgrade them.  As a personal anecdote, I really liked Marcus Estrada who covered a lot of niche Japanese/Visual Novel stuff that otherwise wouldn't get much English RS coverage.  But it seems like he was a casualty of the Valnet acquisition, so RIP using him as a source. CurlyWi (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let's not be too purist about it. Valnet might be a red flag for some people, but it's not an instant disqualification. Organizations don't instantly change the moment they are acquired by new owners, and Hardcore Gaming seems to be holding its level of quality for now. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that would explain a few things. Some of their articles are terrible.  I can't provide links because it's just a passing thought I've had while trying to source articles.  If the ratio of good to terrible becomes worse, I guess we can revisit this.  It'd be a pain in the ass for me, though, because I lean on this source more than I'd like to demonstrate notability for indie games. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't affect previously reliable coverage, but might affect things going forward. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Video Chums
Find video game sources: "Video Chums" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk LinkSearchLinkTo

Is Video Chums a reliable source? The creator of the site, A.J. Maciejewski, is | listed as a source in several articles. The.Kotora (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Nintendo Blast (Brazilian Website)
Find video game sources: "Nintendo Blast" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk LinkSearchLinkTo

Is Nintendo Blast a reliable non-English source? It's currently used as a source | in 10 articles as of this post. The.Kotora (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They have staff. However, they apparently don't have any notable credentials. Some mention having graduated from some universities, but most of them just mention being "big fans of Nintendo" or something. Maybe it could be useful for Brazilian-related topics, but I think there's better options. Skyshifter   talk  19:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * On some spot checks, I see Victor Vitório also writes for PSX Brasil (no reliability discussion that I can see but on MetaCritic) and the other high level staff only seem to work for Nintendo Blast and the presumably related GameBlast.com.br. At least one of their regular writers writes for an unreliable site (Ivanir Ignacchitti at NoisyPixel) but the rest of the 10 or so I checked didn't seem to write elsewhere and some only had a few reviews under their belt.
 * I can't see anything like an Editorial policy which isn't too promising either.
 * More promising is a few mentions of high education or experience with things like having had books published or some game development experience. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Final Weapon
Final Weapon is also not yet mentioned in WP:VG/S. Is it reliable? Supergrey1 (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Quick points to help evaluate:
 * The CEO Noah Roman isn't particularly qualified in terms of journalism/etc instead having qualifications on the ICT side, but the Managing Editor Raul Ochoa has experience as a News Writer at Games Rant (Valnet, Situational) and a degree in journalism which is somewhat promising at least.
 * There's no Editorial policy that I can see. They talk a little bit about their ethos and having standards that writers need to meet but that's it.
 * They note that a large portion of their writers started without any experience.
 * Their content seems good overall from what I've seen. They're on OpenCritic and have quite a bit of industry access which does indicate a certain minimum level of professionalism and notability, though shouldn't be taken as evidence alone. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Unreliable - no editorial policy and largely uncredentialed writers... Sergecross73   msg me  20:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

80 Level
Find video game sources: "80 Level" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk LinkSearchLinkTo There is seemingly no prior discussion on this source. Is it reliable? — 🌙E cl i ps e (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

GameLuster as a source?
Currently working on Draft:Papa Louie (game series) and found a great review by GameLuster, but didn't see this listed under any sources or in this talk archive. They seem to have a dedicated writing/senior staff where they do both reviews and game news: https://gameluster.com/

Would love to get input on this source and how reliable it may be. Squiddyonwiki (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I wondered about that too. It sounds like it really could be a candidate for being a reliable source. However It also does not count towards a Metacritic review as evidenced for Papa's Freezeria Deluxe so it may be considered unreliable. But remember that not all metacritic reviews are considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. JuniperChill (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wasn't necessarily going to include it in 'review/reception', but many reviews have great additional information about gameplay and characters that I feel are relevant.
 * While they do have some listicle/Buzzfeed-ish content, their news section seems like good reporting on a variety of games. Would be great to see if others could review their content -- think it would be a great reliable source . Squiddyonwiki (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Remap Radio has articles now
Find video game sources: "Remap Radio" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk LinkSearchLinkTo

Former Waypoint/Vice Games folks (Patrick Klepek, Rob Zacny, Ricardo Contreras) started up Remap Radio about a year ago and they've started publishing reported work in recent months. Waypoint is already on our RS list. Some of their reported work includes stuff from Duncan Fyfe (known reliable reporter) and freelance work from Reid McCarter (AV Club, Bullet Points Monthly), Austin Walker (Giant Bomb), and Cameron Kunzelman (Paste, Polygon, etc.). I think this one is an easy pass. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I support it, with writers of their credentials. I'm seeing that they write articles, but is the "radio" part suggesting a particular focus on podcasting/sound based content? Sergecross73   msg me  18:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They launched as a podcast only but added articles in the past few months as they found their footing. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Link to site M asem  (t) 18:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Beebom
Find video game sources: "Beebom" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk LinkSearchLinkTo

Is Beebom reliable or not? Supergrey1 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Supergrey1 (I know its been a while since this was posted and to no response until now) Since Beebom also covers things outside the video game sphere, it may be better to ask this at Reliable sources/Noticeboard instead. JuniperChill (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. Still, I'm rather unfamiliar with WP:RS/N on English Wikipedia, so I may just have to trouble others to submit it. Supergrey1 (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Cult of Mac
Find video game sources: "Cult of Mac" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk LinkSearchLinkTo

I'm currently looking for sources to verify statements in the Geometry Dash article and came across this website. One of the editors wrote a book that seems to have been published by a reputable company. The other editor worked at Wired, so I really would not see why this source is unreliable at all. — 🌙E cl i ps e (talk) (contribs) 14:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Leander Kahney is a reputable journalist and The Cult of Mac is a decent source, but I'm not really sure that applies to the web site, which comes off to me as a discount-Apple Insider or Macrumors (sources which I try and avoid where possible on Apple tech articles here.) Couldn't find an editorial policy anywhere, as well. Is there any examples you have of more clearly-reliable sources referencing its coverage? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's mentions of the website on al-Jazzera, Engadget, and Wired. — 🌙E cl i ps e (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (courtesy pinging @David Fuchs) — 🌙E cl i ps e (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the above mostly speak to Kahney's reliability, rather than the Cult of Mac site itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Punished Backlog
Find video game sources: "Punished Backlog" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk LinkSearchLinkTo

This source seems quite reliable to me. Their reviews are proper, and look neat. JuniperChill (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you say a little more? I don't know of these people and it appears to be a very polished college project. That's not an automatic disqualification but I'd need to know more about why they're reliable. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that this website is reliable (since its not anywhere in VG/S). I am saying it looks like one because this review from Octopath Traveler II just yesterday is a long one, and if you look at that website, it goes pretty in depth. I am also asking because I cannot find this anywhere in VG/S or its archive. JuniperChill (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks neat and "reviews are in-depth" are not really hallmarks of WP:RS. Axem, and other participants, are looking for the nominator of a site to present what they believe makes a site reliable or unreliable. We do have a staff page which is in far better shape than many sites posted here, but not a lot of credentials or experience for anyone outside this site. Their "Write for Us" page though is asking for volunteers for "blog contributors". It doesn't seem like they just take open user submissions though. No editorial policy is evident. I'm not seeing any evidence that other reliable sources are quoting them. All in all, feels like a well done but still young group blog. -- ferret (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The site's reviews are used by OpenCritic, if that helps. Not very many previous jobs are listed for the writers, but most of them at least list a college education. I think it is unrealistic to require a source to hire former writers for reliable sources to become one, since not many of those writers are going to want to leave a good job like that. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It does not. OpenCritic and MetaCritic have many sources we consider unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Still, some of their employees, including the founder, do have some experience. I think it seems reliable enough, although I understand that that opinion may not be universal. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, the founder apparently writes for RPGFan, and Alyssa Payne has experience at The Escapist and TheGamer, so that helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it finally time to include the Punished Backlog into the main page? It looks like this has been thru a proper discussion to finally include it. It seems like its possibly a reliable source now. JuniperChill (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This discussion is at best inconclusive. I do not believe a history of reputation and fact checking has been demonstrated, per my comment above. I'm not seeing any evidence that other reliable sources are quoting them. All in all, feels like a well done but still young group blog.. So consider this a clear Unreliable for now. -- ferret (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree that this discussion should be considered inconclusive. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * End of the day, no one countered any of the points I brought up. Low credentials (only a couple with more established presence), no editorial policy, no reputation, references to self as a blog, unpaid volunteers. -- ferret (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Game Donga
Find video game sources: "Game Donga" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk LinkSearchLinkTo

Game Donga is a video game-focused news website based in South Korea and established in 2004. It's a joint venture of Donga Dotcom and "Game Gru", the latter of which I can't find any information of. Donga Dotcom is a digital publication division of The Dong-A Ilbo, a newspaper founded in 1920 and a well known news media. However, its About Us page and nature of being a joint venture suggest The Dong-A Ilbo has little-to-none direct quality control over this website. It has been rebranded to IT Donga since 2018, but the website itself including the URL still goes by Game Donga.

About Us lists the current journalists working for this particular group, but most of their introduction reveal little about their career. The editor-in-chief, Jeong Dongbeom (정동범), has no known record before joining Game Donga. One notable journalist is Jo Hakdong (조학동), who has a LinkedIn page. He appears to be one of general managers, claims to be Virtua Fighter 3 tournament winner, and co-authored a book, Smart Phone Game Global Service Guide, published by Korea Creative Content Agency. I found the digital copy on the agency's homepage, but I can't find his name in this and therefore can't tell if he really wrote this. As far as I know, none of these personnels had any turstworthy journalism experience prior. I could't find editorial policy.

And the articles... I figured any recap would be underselling what's going on in this website, so I'm gonna translate a few:
 * 1) (Review) Diablo 4 beta test... No innovation, more PC (March 29, 2023) - A preview report on the beta version of Diablo IV, the author thinks its character selection screen, most of which were generated as black characters for him, is forcing PC (political correctness; this word generally shows up a lot) on him. The Druid reminded him of Disney's 2023 film The Little Mermaid and made him decide not to look forward to the full release.
 * 2) We hate ugly characters! Gamers changing the characters to enjoy the game (February 29, 2024) - The first paragraph opens with the author's own insight into the current video gaming, in which too much PC caused backlash because the characters in video games suddenly turn gay or lesbian as if there's an LGBT quota to meet. He cites Aloy in Horizon Forbidden West and a female character in the 2025 Fable reboot (he's probably talking about this trailer) as prime examples of intentionally destroying character's attractiveness to appease false political correctness. The article talks about mods for Baldur's Gate 3, Hogwart Legacy, and Cyberpunk 2077 that make the characters attractive, and notes video games should look for gamers who want to meet pretty characters.
 * 3) (Video) No forced political correctness! A Steam curator snipes PC organization (March 6, 2024) - An article about Sweet Baby Inc. It introduces the company as "video game narrative developer who injects political correctness in their works". The author sympathizes with the goal of the Steam curator and says this kind of curator emerged because people were getting fed up with forced PC.
 * 4) Shift Up's Stella Blade rises as an opposition against woke video games (April 5, 2024) - A report on Stella Blade's launch, the article shifts its topic to external controversies in the halfway, highlighting IGN France's reports. It argues its protagonist, Eve, has offended people driven by PC and drew undeserved criticisms, and in response, the gamers tired of PC have now gathered to fight back, all over the world. As an example, the author attached an screenshot of a tweet that photoshops Eve as a fat woman.

I should mention these were written by three different authors, one of which is Jo Hakdong I mentioned earlier, who did Article 1.

My verdict on Game Donga is that it fails WP:RS to be of any use. Despite its connection with reputable Dong-A Ilbo, this was barely translated into creating useful contents and the website is run by people without credentials, a fact clearly shown in its articles, providing on flame baits rather than actual reporting. It has a habit of information laundering, like Article 4, which tries to spin a tweet by insignificant person as a general opinion even though there's no grounded proof to assume so. I suggest this website be marked unreliable. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Going just on what's presented here, I'd have to say unreliable. That said, if you have the expertise to evaluate Korean sources, please continue to do so! We desperately need vetted and reliable non-English sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unreliable per the lack of editorial policy and writers with professional credentials. Sergecross73   msg me  16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Garaph
Find video game sources: "Garaph" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk LinkSearchLinkTo

According to the website, it lists "Japanese video game sales data" and I can't find it on WikiProject Video games/Sources so I believe its reliability is to be discussed especially as it is used in the Mario Party 4 good article. DanganMachin (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I could check the archived page, but it wasn't letting me load the page itself to investigate beyond that. I believe the only reliable sales trackers for Japan are Media Create and Famitsu, so I'm guessing probably not. FYI, the citation in the Mario Party 4 mentions Media Create in some capacity, so maybe the sales figure could be found from them? Media create wasn't mentioned anywhere in the actual archived Garaph link though, so its unclear to me what its referring to. There's a chance that this is some sort of fan's compilation of Media Create's data too, which would not be acceptable for use unless, again, it could be pulled directly from Media Create in some direct, non-WP:OR way. Sergecross73   msg me  17:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Cheat Code Central (redux)
Find video game sources: "Cheat Code Central" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk LinkSearchLinkTo I was cleaning something up and saw this cited and was about to remove the article before I recognized the author's name, Jenni Lada, on the page. She's a longtime Siliconera writer, and currently their Editor in Chief. Looking a bit deeper, I noticed the last time the site was discussed on here was 2015, and checking wayback the site at the time didn't have a staff page. Now it appears to, listing an editor with some credentials, and the website's publisher, which lists it's own staff here. There's a section at the bottom that lists the writers, and going to their individual pages they appear to have some credentials as well.

Is it worth reconsidering after all this time? Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: To clarify, I am suggesting more in the lines of their editorial pieces such as this, not the list barrage.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I know I've been against them in the past, but that was back in the early 2010s, and they seemed to be churning out some really low-quality listicle type stuff for Sonic the Hedgehog related articles. Things do change though, so I'm open to discussing further, to see if there's a way to draw the line differently now... Sergecross73   msg me  16:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

GMR Magazine
Find video game sources: "GMR" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk LinkSearch[https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A...site URL... LinkTo]

GMR is a Ziff Davis US magazine that provided computer and console game reviews from 2003 to 2005. The magazine had an editorial board and the magazines were closely linked to online content on the 1Up Network website, a reliable source under WP:VG/S. Given the publisher, plenty of the contributors turn up in other reliable sources, such as Greg Orlando, Che Chou and Ryan Scott. The only thing that is unusual is that the magazines were sold in Electronics Boutique. But it's a Ziff Davis publication and the review scores suggest this had no more of an impact on editorial independence than compared to other magazine reviews. You can find all the issues on the Internet Archive.
 * Reliable - I can't tell who asked or how long ago it was, but print magazines that were widely published are almost always considered reliable. Sergecross73   msg me  12:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion(ish) also leaned reliable. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 12:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The Game of Nerds
Find video game sources: "The Game of Nerds" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk LinkSearchLinkTo

This is another website used in the Mario Party 4 good article which is absent from WikiProject Video games/Sources. Articles seem to be user-generated but I am not sure. DanganMachin (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Unreliable per their About Us page, which explains that the website was just created by someone who wanted somewhere to discuss nerdy stuff (their words, not mine) and that most of the writers are just random enthusiasts who signed up to write stuff too. Doesn't appear to be a professional publication. Sergecross73   msg me  17:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Considering that the website calls itself a "judgment-free space for you to read or write about the television shows, films, video games, books, and fandoms that you love", and that it is inviting random people to write for the site, I don't see a lot of editorial control (as Sergecross73 notes above). Best to treat it as a user-generated site. Recon  rabbit  15:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

OnlySP/Only Single Player
Find video game sources: "OnlySP" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk LinkSearchLinkTo

Stumbled across this cited on Desmond Miles. The site is defunct, but while the article in question was decently written, looking at the Staff page (which was apparently under construction for awhile) and the About Us page doesn't given the highest confidence as it leaves me to worry it's more just a project between friends. Checking the EiC's background too turned up nothing I could fine other than some mentions of other writing and the usual "professional gamer" stuff.

Hoping I'm missing something here. Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I looked around, and couldn't find anything either. Looks like another one of those websites where its just largely people who's main credential is "liking video games a lot"... Sergecross73   msg me  16:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Deadline
I've seen this source that have been used almost everywhere and it feels like we need a consensus for this if this is reliable or not. 🍕 Boneless Pizza! 🍕 (🔔) 02:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Deadline is a reliable source per WP:RSP, a discussion here isn't necessary in my opinion. λ Negative  MP1  02:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, see WP:RSPDEADLINE. I see no reason why it would be different for video games. Sergecross73   msg me  02:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can we list it in the page here in vg sources that it is reliable. Thanks. 🍕  Boneless Pizza! 🍕 (🔔) 02:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why we would, since it barely covers video games (only 14 articles this year, mostly about strikes, layoffs, and acquisitions). It seems unnecessary to list a non-VG source that's already covered at WP:RSP. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 03:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough 🍕  Boneless Pizza! 🍕 (🔔) 03:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Market Realist
I was editing the Billy Mitchell article when I came across this source. I'm unsure if it's unreliable, so I'm starting a discussion here. — lunaeclipse  (talk)  00:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look like it. It reads like SEO bait for "[person X] net worth" searches, barely researched drivel. It doesn't mention any of his lawsuits or controversies which would affect his net worth. If you look at other net worth articles on the site, they're all in the same boilerplate copy-pasta'd format. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Fanbyte 2
It seems the media apocalypse has claimed another one. :( This was previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_25, which leaned toward maybe reliable since it had some known names on the "About" page (2022 version), and Fanbyte is currently marked "other reliable". Unfortunately, lots (all?) of these names don't appear to work there anymore, including EIC Danielle Riendeau (https://twitter.com/Danielleri says she's at GameDev, https://x.com/imranzomg?lang=en says "formerly" Fanbyte, https://x.com/hunktears says "formerly" Fanbyte).  If we advance to the 2023 version, their about page is merely a redirect to their bare-bones help page about subscriptions to WOWhead and refunds and such.  And after mid-2023, they took down the About page entirely. The current Fanbyte front page is just game-guidey stuff for a handful of popular games designed to match search terms ("Best Build for Lyney Main DPS", "Best Build for Arlecchino Main DPS", etc.). Anna Koselke appears to be a known name at least, but she's also churning out listicles. It unfortunately seems clear that some savage cutbacks happened, and they're just barely keeping the lights on with low-effort, low-paid stuff. I think that Fanbyte post-2023 should probably be downgraded to situational. SnowFire (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I thought we actually already had a conversation that essentially supported this recently. Or maybe it stalled out before a decision was made? Sergecross73   msg me  12:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Checking the archives: Oh, it's at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_30. Yeah this already came up, but it looks like the section was quietly archived - the main WP:VG/RS page does not link to the 2nd discussion and still marks Fanbyte as reliable, which is why I didn't know it'd occurred.  SnowFire (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, I wondered if that's what happened, but didn't have the time to dig it up earlier. Anyways, I agree with what you're saying and what we were saying at that discussion. Unless there's any new opposition, I think we've got enough support for it. Sergecross73   msg me  16:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's good that we could revisit this source. I agree that it's reliable, even if it's defunct now. (To be clear, it would not be reliable after the layoffs and shift to gameguide content.) Shooterwalker (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I brought it up on the main WT:VG here. I think they used to do good work and there are still a few people left there doing actual editorial instead of just guides, but it's not much. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)