Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 4

Strategy Informer
Proposing this be a situational source. Seems to have been around since 2000, and the quality of writing seems up to snuff. Here is the "About Us" page. I'd say given the quality of writing and the years under its belt that I'd at least throw this into a situational, if not reliable status. It's independent of any media network, but I don't think that comes into play. I'm mostly interested in their reviews, as they review the occasional indie game and/or DLC, and frankly sources for these games are hard to come by. I just feel like it's time to apply WP:SOURCES in the best way we can for indie games. We can't always rely on the IGNs and GameSpots of this world. Frankly indie games often receive more coverage at indie sites. Reviews, interviews, and often some previews don't make it to the "big sites". I'm not saying that an article can stay afloat merely by a handful of situational indie sources - it has to have some mainstream coverage. What I am saying is that in order to properly write some of these articles additional sources which cover the subject matter in-depth art needed.

Yeah - long post for a short request. I just want to be sure we don't pull the old "they don't belong to a media company, so they aren't reliable" stand-by we sometimes use. I'll be nominating other indie sites in the future, so I want us to broaden our mindset while still staying in policy. --Teancum (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not part of a major media outlet, so no. Just kidding. I do agree with your sentiment about indie sites. Is there an editorial policy listed anywhere on the site that you know of? I can't seem to find any. Xxpreaditorxx (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't found anything as of yet, so I'm going by years of experience over processes. That means they're probably out of reach as a 100% reliable source, but like Kotaku, Destructoid, and Joystiq can still be a situational source. --Teancum (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian fan/blogsite?
Some editors are wanting to use http://gamehall.uol.com.br/site/a-historia-do-mega-drive/ at Mega Drive, History of video game consoles (fourth generation), Console wars, and List of best-selling game consoles as a source for sales of the Mega Drive by TecToy and Majesco. It seems to me like a fansite or blog site that got together some bloggers/gamers and dubbed them "editors".

Note a discussion of the larger issue of whether what they're doing with that source is or is not WP:SYN has been started at WP:ORN, feel free to comment there too. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 16:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Also got figures from http://www.team-aaa.com/news-15016-0-1-flashback_la_megadrive.html saying the sales were 2.5 million for the Majesco. Is that a reliable site?  Someone who speaks Spanish can perhaps look through it easier than I can with Google translator.   D r e a m Focus  18:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would venture to say it's a reliable source. It's not a Sega fansite first of all, and it doesn't come off as a blog to me (I went to the home page)--Sexy Kick 21:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They've got a list of staff, but they appear to primarily be a gaming team and a news source second, which doesn't speak to their reliability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They may not be a fansite, but unless we can show some Brazilian or Portuesege (as I doubt there are many, if any English RSes) citing them we can't just assume they meet SPS. 陣 内 Jinnai 23:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * this also has the 2.5 million number for Masjesco. Again no mention of TecToy though.--Sexy Kick 02:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Promoting Kotaku
I want to propose that Kotaku be promoted from situational source to reliable source. Its been 3 years since Kotaku, has been added as a situational source and alot has changed. The blog was name by CNET in its top 100 blog as well as top 100 in the Technorati's Top 100. CNET Top 100 The site is still headed by Brian Crecente who has appeared on Fox News as stated on the page. Since then there has been a new Deputy Editor on the site, Stephen Totilo, who has worked with MTV Networks on video games, written articles for IGN, New York Times, Newsweek among others. Brian Ashcraft, senior editor, has written and published a book on video game arcades in Japan in 2008. Michael McWhertor, reviews editor, was asked by SCE to appear on the second season their reality series, The Tester. As well as a guest on Gametrailers TV. Michel Fahey was the head-writer for videogamers.com, a video gaming site in the 1990s and had covered numerous E3 events during his time. videogamers.com also had other notable staff such as James Stevenson who is now a community manager for Insomniac Games. 
 * Strong Support - Agreed on all points. I've actually been thinking the same thing lately, and was going to bring up nearly every point you listed in a similar discussion. --Teancum (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree at this point. Their editorship has gotten stronger, and considering you can defend most of the posts under WP:SPS these days, it shows that their authors are better as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It should still be listed as a situational source for earlier posts before they got theirselves together imo. We shouldn't grandfather everything in. 陣 内 Jinnai 15:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support with some conditions... There are pieces written by the people ID'd above that are unique to Kotaku and thus are basically good expert-written pieces. My only concern is that Kotaku will also still run geek'ed out articles (eg, anything tagged "fanart" for example), maintaining their appearance as a blog, and some novices may consider that usable for notability.  I would like to see Kotaku used for the specifically unique pieces IDs above, but if it can be replaced by other sites like IGN or 1UP, then it should be.  And remember, we're talking the "new" Kotaku, probably from around 2 years ago, so older articles may be more problematic.  But we definitely should be more accommodating of them nowadays. --M ASEM  (t) 15:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What would the bright line be, then? Totilo's arrival (April 2009 and later)? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not immediatly after. Usually cleanup doesn't occur the instant someone is brought on board. 陣 内 Jinnai 18:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If we had to draw a clear line, it would be at least no earlier than 2010. But I guess the simplest way to convey this is to say that Kotaku should be evaluated two ways: pre-2010, only (significant) opinion posts by X, Y, or Z should be included, while post 2010, most of the site can be considered reliable, but editors are cautioned of WP:DUCK for blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance. --M ASEM (t) 14:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, I think for older articles written by the qualified authors as stated above can be referenced without any problem. As for the geek'ed out articles, I think there shouldn't really be a problem as under almost any circumstances there is no reason to use those articles as references. Kiasu Kiasi Man 14:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

PlayStation Blog as a reliable source
The PlayStation Blog is increasingly becoming, a popular source especially for PlayStation-related games or articles. This is due to the increasing number of 3rd-party studio interviews being conducted on the site. The blog is published by Sony Computer Entertainment which makes it reliable, though some may argue that it is not neutral but neutrality is not required under WP:SOURCE. Secondly, articles should be judged from the author of the article rather than the publisher. Since majority of the articles are written by actual staff of third-party studios, they should be considered as qualified authors. E.g. Also the PS Blog is more like a news blog rather than a personal blog, publishing only gaming related articles and no geek stuff etc. So its acceptable under WP:NEWSBLOG. In addition, in recent times there have been alot of interviews or announcements that have been released first on the PS Blog, thus it is starting to become a strong source of information regarding gaming. So I propose that it be shifted from a situational source to a reliable source under platform-specific. Kiasu Kiasi Man 14:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support as conditional source for PS3/PSP-related titles. Has been this way for a time, but more significant in recent years. Like Kotaku, WP:DUCK test for blog-like posts. --M ASEM (t) 14:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - Masem summed it up well here. So long as we watch for anything that quacks we're okay. --Teancum (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Same as what Masem said, i've seen many reliable posts by them but a few blog-like posts. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Coming Soon Magazine
I thought I would ping the project on the suitability of "Coming Soon Magazine" as a reliable source. I was thinking of using one of their reviews in a Wikipedia article but noticed they have not yet been rated.

On the CSM website it says CSM started in 1993-1994 distributing over BBSes and incorporated in Vermont in 1996. Based on the content of the site it looks like they stopped writing reviews sometime in 1997, although there are a few "2000" dates on their site too.

CSM is used as a reference in several Wikipedia articles, including Master_of_Magic, Warcraft:_Orcs_%26_Humans, and Age_of_Empires_(video_game). They have been used as links or references in a few places on the net, such as MobyGames and StarWarsLinks.com, but I'm not sure those are terribly reputable. According to google they have also been used as a reference in a few books (see google books link above) It doesn't look like CSM was ever distributed in print.

The quality of reviews seems to vary with the author - some reviews are concise and well-written; others have poor grammar and drone on without saying much.

Anyway, I am not looking to undermine existing articles, but to see what everyone thinks. Cheers. --Culix (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I couldn't find any editorial info, nor anything on the staff. As you said, reviews are hit and miss as far as quality goes.  --Teancum (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Electric Playground and Reviews on the Run
The Electric Playground and Reviews on the Run are related broadcast television programs airing in Canada, with the former also becoming available in United States and Australia. Aired episodes are accessible on their website. No viewer or reader generated content is apparently available on the web sites. It may be similar to X-Play. A user has suggested that Reviews on the Run is a not a reliable source. Where should these shows go on the list of sources? I can't find many third party references to them. Shawnc (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - especially ElecPlay, as it's been around a looooooong time. --Teancum (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Both sites are run by respected video game journalists that have been around a while. It's basically in the same respect as GameTrailers or X-Play, just not as recognizable. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - Would the fact that clips from the later ,AKA Judgement Day, being featured on the G4 website add to their credibility? Sarujo (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support for Electric Playground. I can't believe it isn't already considered a reliable source—it's been on the air for over a decade. I don't know enough about the other one to give an opinion on it, however. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

ZTGameDomain?
It seems affiliated with N4G, but am not exactly sure how. One feature article I was reading uses a pseudonym for its author. SharkD  Talk  03:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - after reading additional articles and considering the network family this comes from, I'm supporting this. --Teancum (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I can't find out anything about staff, and all their reviews that I randomly sampled have no byline and "Review copy provided by publisher" at the bottom.  If they're just republishing flack copy, that's hardly a reliable source. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We have several reputable sources which don't contain the "Review copy provided by publisher". I don't see how that's relevant. --Teancum (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, staff can be found here. Info on Ken McKnown (editor-in-chief) can be found on LinkedIn. --Teancum (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

XBLAfans
I'm entirely unsure on this one. There's a lot of great nuggets on this site regarding XBLA titles that receive little coverage elsewhere, but I can't find much on the staff (on the right panel of the site). I feel like I've seen the editor-in-chief (John Laster)'s writings published elsewhere, but I haven't been able to come up with much. He seems linked in with the several high-end journalists such as Brian Crecente. Given the rest of the staff this would probably a situational source at best, but I wanted to get someone who's better at hunting down published articles to check the site. Thanks much. --Teancum (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Blake Colello also writes for The Game Reviews but I don't think that counts . Kaitlyn Chantry has a large port folio including articles on Game Postitive which looks okay. Not found anything for the others yet. Marasmusine (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * John Laster's Twitter is followed by the likes of GamersHell, Imagine Publishing, DualShockers, Cathlin Sentz of N4G, TechSpy, and ZTGameDomain, Drew Leachman of ZTGameDomain, Dave Cook of NowGamer, Geoff Hathaway of GamingBits, Rane Pollock of PlatformNation, David Lynch of UK Magazine 360, Chris Pereira of 1UP.com, Andrew Groen, who has contributed to GamesRadar, GamePro, and PlayStation: The Official Magazine, Jennifer Allen of Resolution Magazine, GameCritics, Scott Nichols of GayGamer, as well as other freelance writers - indicating he may be an expert in his field. His Facebook also has the likes of Brian Crecente of Kotaku, Alex Ryan of Destructiod, Chris Paladino, Christa Phillips Charter, John Porcaro, Josh Kerwin, Justin Korthof and Larry Hryb of Microsoft, Dan Amrich of Activision, Dan Ryckert of Game Informer, Dawn Burnell of 2K Games, Erin Losi and Pete Hines of Bethesda Softworks, Gabe Newell of Valve, Heather Rabatich of Bioware, Hilary Goldstein of IGN, Jeff Brown, Jonathan Long and Rob Semsey of Electronic Arts, Larra Paolilli of Blizzard Entertainment, Nick O'Leary of Namco Bandai, Remi Sklar of Warner Bros., and Russ Frushtick of MTV Networks --- this at least indicates that he is well connected in the industry, if nothing more. --Teancum (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the above I'd like to make this a situational source based on the author of the article cited. On a slightly different topic I'm finding more and more that finding specialized coverage for XBLA/PSN/WiiWare games is getting tougher, so we may need to look at sites like these more with the "are they an expert" rather than the "publishing history", as often these kinds of sites are where I find XBLA developer interviews and the like, and that's likely to continue that way. --Teancum (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent towards the weight that contacts on social networking sites might have in determining expertise. Just can't decide :> Although, if we trust Laster as an editor-in-chief (and maybe Chantry as a assc. editor), doesn't that lend reliability to the whole site? What about the strongly related thegamereviews.com? Marasmusine (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this along with the quality of writing can speak for the site. Some articles by contributors aren't all that great, however I promote it as a situational for specific editors such as Laster and Chantry, as sites like XBLAfans and GamerBytes (below) are often one of the few sources to find interviews for indie game authors, DLC reviews for those games, etc.  There just aren't many trusted sites dedicated to digital console content, and I chose this one for review because to the writing and background of Laster - after you found the info on Kaitlyn Chantry I felt like it was enough to push this one over. In regards to thegamereviews.com, again I'd say it's situational based on author.  There isn't even a staff page there. --Teancum (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I contacted John Laster, editor-in-chief to find out about his staff. Here's the relevant part of his response: As for our staff, all three listed editors have a pretty extensive background. I've been doing this for about 3-4 years now for various sites and finally decided to start something up on my own. Tyler Cameron has been writing for about a year and half mostly for www.gamernode.com. Kaitlyn Chantry is a Harvard grad her past work is listed on her personal site. John Carson has worked on and off with me for two years. Primarily with www.thegamereviews.com (which is now dead sadly). Vlad Micu is the head of GameSauce.org and has been in the industry for about 4 years. His list of sites he has written for is a tad too long for me to recap off the top of my head.

Each of the listed editors above is part of a new partnership that will be happening with GameSauce.org within the next month (Industry Magazine that is bigger in Europe than the US). They are bringing me on as an expert on XBLA games to conduct and edit interviews and that will involve each of the rest of my staff to an extent.

Ross Adam has written for Cast Medium and http://www.bitmob.com/

Andrew Crews has been pretty solid for us, but his lineage is a bit more limited. His personal blog: http://www.chainmonster.com/

Blake collello and Rob Owens both did some freelance work for us back when I was the editor of www.thegamereviews.com

Cameron Titus and Xeserox do not have formal experience and may need to be avoided.

Gamesauce is both an online and print-based magazine based in Seattle, WA; it has an industry-based 25,000 circulation, with about 1/3 of that being outside of the US. I feel like lends some weight to each of the editors in his first paragraph. The other four editors in the second paragraph are much less experienced, and I can only see Ross Adam having any sort of ability to be a reliable source. I'd really like more feedback on this. I have a special interest in sites like these since finding great coverage for XBLA/PSN/WiiWare/Indie games in general is getting harder to do. (See my rationale in the section below) --Teancum (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless there is any opposition I would like to go ahead with listing this as a Situational Source based on author. Those editors involved above in a collaboration with Gamesauce (John Laster, Tyler Cameron, Kaitlyn Chantry, John Carson, and Vlad Micu) listed as reliable, all other authors as unreliable.  Any opposition? --Teancum (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

VG247 as a reliable source
I would like to propose the inclusion of VG247 as a general reliable source. The blog was listed as the 3rd best gaming blog by CNET, who praised them saying "the writing is excellent, and it covers all the important news with a twist of humour." The site won the Game Media Awards 2009's Best Blog Award and was nominated once again in the category in 2010. The site was co-founded by Patrick Garett and Eurogamer (which is a reliable source). Patrick Garett won at the Games Media Awards 2009, Best Specialist Writer, Online and Games Media Legend. In addition he had previously worked with Eurogamer, GamesIndustry.biz, CVG, Xbox World and others as a journalist, editor and publisher. Other site staff include Stephany Nunneley who was a former Gaming Today (on FileFront) writer and 1UP.com contributor. As well as Nathan Grayson who has written articles for Maximum PC, The Escapist. 

In addition the site is strictly a newsblog, so there are no blog-like posts. Thus it should be seriously considered for becoming a reliable source. Kiasu Kiasi Man 12:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, sounds good (support!). They seem to have had a few exclusive leaks/rumours in the past few months, which lends weight to their notability. Thanks! Fin©™ 13:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I support it too. The upper staff seem to be strong, and though there seem to be some unknowns, their articles look to be scrutinized by editorial staff - or at least I didn't see any issue with it. Similar to other gaming blogs, it would need to have the  WP:DUCK test for rumors and the like. --Teancum (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weeeeeellllll, they do have *some* blog-like posts. but yea, those are easy to spot. Support easily. --M ASEM  (t) 14:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because they are easy for you to spot, doesn't mean they are easy for everyone. I'd say be cautious and have it as a situational source. 陣 内 Jinnai 17:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Still, the fact is that every site posts rumors. Though sites like IGN don't do it as often, it still happens.  --Teancum (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily that they are posting rumors. It is the style of that post that I wouldn't use as support a fact. --M ASEM (t) 19:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example? I'm having a hard time following what you mean. 陣 内 Jinnai 23:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he means infrequent rumor posts such as this Where they used a dialogue to report the story, the real content is in the last few paragraphs. Though these posts are seldom and infrequent as I said before and they're written by Patrick Garett. Kiasu Kiasi Man  05:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, we should mention specifically those are not reliable because if we don't people will take them as being just as reliable on the assumption that news articles from RS are reliable until they are proven otherwise. 陣 内 Jinnai 15:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd propose similar wording to how we treat Kotaku as a reliable source "most of the site can be considered reliable, but editors are cautioned of WP:DUCK for blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance." --Teancum (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree as above. The article isn't unreliable it just isn't written in a normal style of a article like what Masem said. Kiasu Kiasi Man 15:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As a comment, I think all of our major sources, except for print mags, Gamasutra, Develop/Edge, and a few others, all should have DUCK prefacing. They are geeks and nerds running these, and for fun they'll slip into something less formal. Such posts are usually easy to detect or obvious, so it's a general warning applies to all, more so on situational sources. --M ASEM (t) 15:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would be a good idea. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Reliable and non-sensationalist + Garett is well respected journalist in his field. - X201 (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, CNET mention is pretty significant and editors seem to be pretty reliable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

RunDLC
A site focusing on XBLA/PSN/WiiWare/iOS games primarily. Run by Chris Buffa and Robert Workman of GameDaily (a reliable source). Buffa also writes for Joystiq and has an education in corporate communication, which helps his journalistic background. Workman's LinkedIn profile notes he went to college for journalism and writes for multiple sites. A third writer, John Artest, also contributes to the site. I couldn't find any information on him, but given the other two's background and the fact that they write for reliable sources I'm willing to weight in his favor. Although it's simply a blog they do get some exclusive interviews with indie developers, which helps immensely when doing articles for XBLA/PSN/WiiWare/iOS games. Requesting this be a reliable source; if not that then a situational one. The same ruleset would apply to any other reliable/situational blog in that it needs to pass WP:DUCK. --Teancum (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can give a pass on John Artest except perhaps if he's doing an interview. If its a blog, then there is no editorial oversight and if we're seen as being too lax on what we allow as RS, people will begin to heavily scrutinize all of our GA/FA/FLC articles. 陣 内 Jinnai 19:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So what is your opinion? Are you supporting it as a situational source based on author? --Teancum (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much that 陣 内 Jinnai 23:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with situational. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

unlinking unreliable sources
Since the search engine uses this page in addition, I am wondering if we should do so here. 陣 内 Jinnai 23:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand from your link what this does. It automatically breaks links in Wikipedia to unreliable sources? --Teancum (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * instead of Wikipedia it is "Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org)" 陣 内 Jinnai 04:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Approval of the Hungarian 576 Konzol magazine
Established as a magazine in 1997, is was the largest magazine of its kind in the country and a few surrounding ones, and the byword for video game magazines in the country, and it is the first console only magazine in Hungary. It was published by 576 "Comgame" Kft which previously publish 576 KByte from 1990 to 2003. This corporation runs the 576 KByte shops too. It's defunct after the October 2008 issue, and transform into 576 KByte, which last only 20 issue and then it's became an online magazine. It has some interviews (with Bungie, SCEE, FASA Interactive, Epic Games, Mithis Entertainment, and so on), but some of them are translated from unreliable (?) sites (from Mayhem UK C64 fansite). They not only cover videogames (from SNES to the PS3/X360/Wii era) and hardwares (videogame consoloes and accesories), but animes, mangas, retro games, films, books, music, webpages, and even videogame magazines. After it's defunct some of it's editors are (Martin the editor-in-chief, Dzson, Miklós Veres, antaru, Petúnia) are estabilish the PlayStation.Community - The Hungarian PlayStation Insiders webpage. Some of it's editors are (Grath and Sasa) from PC Guru and one of them (Oldern) write for Mondo magazine too. The magazine was the partner of Mangafan, a manga publisher, and Mondo magazine. Martin the editor-in-chief for 576 Konzol, and for the PSC is currently writes in Konzol magazine too. So what do I need to do to get it formally approved? Sillent DX (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If 576 "Comgame" Kft was an actual publishing company with the expected editors, lawyers, etc on staff, then we can presume reliability. Do you have access to actual copies? That would be preferable to fansite translations. Marasmusine (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comgame only published these two magazines (as far as I know), and currently running 576 KByte shops. I have 576 Konzol from February 2000 (#25) to July-August 2008 (#118). "Fansite translations" [...] then I have to find someone who actually know English or someone who can translate "my English" to proper English. PS: Forgot to mention that Martin ran a program (Szegasztok) on m1 sometimes in 1993. Sillent DX (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC) edit: Comgame also distribute games under the Ezt vedd meg! (EVM) label. Sillent DX (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to help if you can provide a rough english translation. As long as it's selected sections, and not whole magazines! I recently helped with a German magazine translation for Space Tanks... Yahoo! Babel Fish is a useful tool for this. The fansite may facilitate if you can vouch for it. Marasmusine (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a rough translation of an interview with the now closed Mithis Interactive's (thanks Squenix) creative director (Zsolt Nyulászi) about Battlestation: Midway (just to learn that are you guys can understand my english). And back to the first question, are they reliable? Sillent DX (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's really the top Hungarian gaming site then I'd say it's OK. SharkD   Talk  02:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They were the top of the top offline console gaming magazine in Hungary, altough they does not really have any rivals as they defunct, thanks to the 576 Kozol's success ("PS Guru" is defunct arund in 2005, "Play Zone" is lived from 2004 to 2005, "Game Masters" from 2007 to 2010 and "Play!" stands less than a year, so 576 Konzol is Hungary's longest ran console only gaming magazine) Sillent DX (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this, but is it a problem if Comgame publishes the magazine and is also a video game distributor? SharkD   Talk  10:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why would it be a problem. They only release budget price PC games (and rerelease full priced games in budget price) so they not reviewed them in the magazine. Just noticed this, but two of it's contributors are work in Digital Reality, one of them (Theodore Reiker) will be the designer of Sine Mora (the game with Suda51 and Akira Yamaoka) and the other one (Ferenc Nagy-Szakáll aka Vega) will be the level designer of the same game. Sillent DX (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My reason being that maybe they give their own products preferential treatment? SharkD   Talk  10:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To summarize all: 576 Konzol was Hungary's first and longest ran console only magazine. It's published by Comgame "576" Kft, which published Hungary's "most prestigious gaming magazine" (according to one of Hungary's largest IT website, HWSW) the 576 KByte, which ran from 1990 to 2002. Most of 576 Konzol's editor had written in another gaming or non-gaming magazine (576 KByte: Martin, Dae, Reiker, hzx, liquid, Stilleto, Grath, wilson; PC Guru: Grath; PS Guru: Vega, Dzson; Play Zone: Vega; Konzol: Martin, Krisz, krugman, Petúnia; Mondo: Oldern). Martin Vajdics the magazine's editor-in-chief start his journal carrer in the first issue of 576 KByte as a regular editor and later became the deputy editor. He host a TV show (SzEGAsztok) in 1993 at m1. He start Hungary's first anime/manga column (in 576 KByte). He's currently the editor-in-chief of PlayStation.Community (previously PlayStation.LIVE) which is Hungary's "biggest PlayStation webpage" (according to GameStar), and writes articles in Konzol magazine. The magazine had some interviews, but some of them are translated. They went to the E3, TGS, AOU, Games Convention, PlayStation Experience and ECTS (and some others). Where they articles usable? Like Japanese games' articles have Famitsu score Hungarian games' (Battlestation series, Ecco the Dolphin series...) articles should have Hungarian review(s). Sillent DX (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Bitmob
www.bitmob.com - As situational, due to community writers posting in the same spot as staff writers. The staff writers seem pretty reliable - Dan Hsu, Greg Ford, and Demian Linn all contributed to EGM, Jason Wilson was a sportswriter for nearly 10 years and a former copy chief for Ziff Davis Media Game Group, Aaron Thomas has contributed to IGN, GamePro, GameSpot, and GamesRadar, etc. There's a pretty vast collection of reliable people in the site, but like I said, the community submits articles to bitmob, which are posted in the same style and format as the staff articles. Perhaps if there was a note to not use anything written by a "Community Writer"? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * According to this news post, the founder Dan Hsu was "editorial director for the 1UP Network and editor-in-chief of Electronic Gaming Monthly", so that looks as good as it gets. As you said, a situational source notice should be put up to check if something was written by the site's staff. Otherwise, it looks fine. Prime Blue (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Situational - on the condition that it must be "BITMOB STAFF" and not "COMMUNITY WRITER" in the referenced article. --Teancum (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even after eight days this hasn't been promoted, all of what NARH, Prime Blue and Teancum have said definitely support its situational status. I support it as well, on the same condition as Teancum. Support. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Square Enix Music Online as situational source
I think Square Enix Music Online has reached the point where it can be accepted as a situational source, as it has become a really good resource for game music-related topics. It provides interviews with game composers and is one of the few sites to offer periodical album reviews. Their news reports have been picked up by various reliable sources (Kotaku 1, Kotaku 2, Joystiq, Edge). Since the great Music4Games has closed down, this site has been a good substitute with its exclusive content. The only thing I noticed is that some of the biographies on game composers seem to contain some slight mistakes (years mixed up etc.), which is why I propose only their non-biography content to be used as a source. Prime Blue (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Situational source - note that their bigoraphies should not be used without checking elsewhere. 陣 内 Jinnai 16:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Situational source - per comments by Jinnai and Prime Blue. Don't have any commentary to add, just support per above. --Teancum (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Situational source - I use them all the time in VG music articles; I'd agree that their bios aren't reliable though- that said, they get all of that information from other interviews on the net (it's like an uncited WP article) so not being able to use the bios shouldn't stop an enterprising editor. -- Pres N  02:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion has lasted for some time and the opinions were unanimous, so I promoted it to situational source. Prime Blue (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wired
I believe that in spite of them not being about video games, they cover it to a significant enough of a degree that it would be very useful to list them as a usable source. I don't right now have the credentials for them, but I'm fairly certain that they are considered reliable sources. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't already consider them reliable? Support explicit addition for sure. --M ASEM (t) 21:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Without doing the legwork, I endorse them as reliable and I'm also surprised that they're not currently listed. —Ost (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I too thought we already considered it reliable. Support addition. Reach Out to the Truth 21:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the same as NYT - they should be considered reliable de facto even if not listed here. We don't list every possible RS here, just those that pertain to VGs. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of having to search for Wired-related content separate from the custom search. However, I don't think Wired simply falls under "every possible RS" - it deals pretty heavily in games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Wayback Machine
New beta is up for those interested, http://waybackmachine.org/ « ₣M₣ »  22:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just curious - has anyone noticed whether the new beta does any better which archiving sites with dynamic queries? What I mean by that is that things like drop-down lists and such are sometimes dynamically generated, and archive.org sometimes had problems with it. --Teancum (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Game Chronicles
Game Chronicles - Previously the site was deemed unreliable, however since then improvements have been made, including publishing of their review process. The staff page is here. No bias one way or another, just pinging the community one this. --Teancum (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagreement about reliability of Eurogamer articles for OnLive article
Factual Background:

There is a disagreement on the OnLive Discussion page about whether 2 related articles from Eurogamer's Digital Foundry by the same author are acceptable or preferable as sources for the OnLive article. Currently, they dominate the OnLive article as a source, providing the support for over 500 words out of about 2,500 words in the body of the article. In earlier revisions, they have represented an even larger proportion.

The first article was published shortly after OnLive was announced in March of 2009:

"GDC: Why OnLive Can't Possibly Work" The second article was published shortly after OnLive was released to the public in July of 2010:

“OnLive Latency: The Reckoning”

Since the first article was cited in the OnLive article, several editors have strongly objected to use of the first, and later, the second, article, as sources, while other editors have just as strongly supported using the articles as sources, resulting in many deletions and restorations of content sourced from the articles. Currently, Eurogamer is listed as a reliable source in the Videogames Wikiproject, and in the most recent discussion, one of the editors has stated that as the reason why the articles are appropriate sources for the OnLive article.

My view of why these articles are not appropriate sources:

While Eurogamer may be a reliable source generally, these particular two articles are in violation of several Wikipedia source guidelines, including WP:SOURCES, WP:PRIMARY, WP:REDFLAG, WP:NPOV, WP:IRS.

The articles are WP:PRIMARY articles based on original “research”. The articles cite no identifiable sources to back up their claims. To the extent the first article cites an “expert” source, it identifies an anonymous foul-mouthed video compression expert who supposedly developed YouTube’s HD video technology. The supposed expert’s information is not only acknowledged as false by the second article, but, as referenced in the Wikipedia article on YouTube (with reliable sources), YouTube’s HD video technology is based on Adobe Flash (which in turn, was based on H.264 compression), and was not developed by YouTube. Thus, not only were the statements by the “expert” highly defamatory to OnLive, were laced with foul language, and were acknowledged in the second article to be false, but no such “YouTube HD video” expert exists and was clearly fabricated to create the appearance of a famous expert to back up the article’s exceptional claims.

The WP:REDFLAG “exceptional claims” made by the articles start with the title of the first article “Why OnLive Can’t Possibly Work”, using pseudo-scientific arguments backed by supposed experts (at least one who was fabricated), which were debunked by the fact that OnLive does, in fact, work. The second article grudgingly acknowledges that the first article’s assertions were false, or at best grossly exaggerated. Nonetheless, it continues to make further “exceptional claims”, again citing anonymous supposed experts who supposedly conducted more pseudo-scientific testing, which of course, conclude that despite the fact OnLive does work, it does not work well. Since the second article was published, no other source has reproduced the pseudo-scientific tests, and further, credible mass-market sources have endorsed OnLive, as major game publishers have released games on OnLive and the largest North American TV manufacture, Vizio, announced it would build OnLive into TVs, blu-ray players and Android devices. With so many of the “exceptional claims” not only contradicted by the prevailing view, but grudgingly by one of the articles itself, these are articles violate WP:REDFLAG policy.

The articles take a strongly negative view in violation of WP:NPOV, they are extremely critical and at best damn with faint praise, they make personal attacks on OnLive principals, stating their claims are false, even after the second article admitted the first article’s personal attacks were unfounded, by characterizing OnLive as a hoax and its principals as making false claims, they seek to undermine the reputation of individuals and the organization.

Because these articles attack living persons, and are self-admittedly false, they violate WP:IRS and should be taken down. “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” Further, the articles clearly are in violation of many of the WP:IRS scholarship guidelines: “Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research” (these “studies” are not only isolated, but self-contradictory). These articles cite pseudo-science research as if it is real academic research, but there is no reputable peer review, no identifiable sources, and have not been accepted by the academic community. Further, these articles qualify as “Questionable sources” under WP:IRS: these articles did not check facts, lack editorial oversight and express views that are extremist in nature, making them particularly unsuitable for citing contentious claims against institutions or living persons.

Lastly, setting aside all of the deficiencies of these articles, there is no justification for having content sourced from these articles dominate the OnLive article. A Google search of “onlive” produces over 2 million web results, 193,000 blog results, and 285 News results for 2011, 2,200 News results for 2010, and 1,220 News results for 2009. Amongst all of these articles, surely we can find reliable sources that are balanced and do not resort to foul language and personal attacks.

So, even if Eurogamer is to be deemed a reliable source in general by this Wikiproject, Eurogamer’s articles about OnLive should not be deemed either reliable or appropriate sources for Wikipedia.

Createk (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the place for this discussion - I'd say bring it up at WT:VG. I myself think Digital Foundry is reliable, regardless of individual articles. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally as with all reliable sources some things are editorials by the authors. Such sources should be taken in context, and if such sources are used, it's generally a good idea to see if counterpoint sources can be provided as well.  As far as Eurogamer's opinion other sites have been equally as critical as this is new technology  so having sources that question it is perfectly viable.  If it's a neutrality issue re-balance it with positive sources. --Teancum (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Simple answer: Eurogamer is reliable, the person sourced is an expert giving their opinion, and thus as it is not fact, has to be in balance per Undue weight. It is fair to note the author's concerns, but dedicating 20% of the article to his comments is not appropriate. --M ASEM  (t) 16:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Co-Optimus
Propose Co-Optimus as reliable source. Editorial staff overview displayed at, articles have bylines, article quality looks pretty decent and I see no evidence of copypasta reposting of flack materials. Looks adequate to me. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - been meaning to propose this for a while, but never got around to it. --Teancum (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything that makes them reliable... they have a staff, but none of those people are notable, the editor is also the owner (SPS...), and no one else seems to value their opinions much (I saw a Lifehacker blog post on the site and that's about it.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * True - I see a couple of hits at Kotaku and a six at Joystiq, haven't checked other sites, but I'll have to take a deeper look. --Teancum (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, a heavily filtered reliable sources search (removed all forums/comments) yields quite a few decent results. This may be worth looking deeper into.  I followed a handful of links and saw some decent coverage.  Doesn't help the SPS issue per say, but there seems to be plenty of mention. --Teancum (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just dropping a bunch of links in succession that would be of interest as far as other sites valuing their opinion: IGN, Joystiq (direct coverage of the site itself), 1UP (covers actions by Co-Optumus), Joystiq (cites Co-Optimus), ARS Technica (more coverage of the site in a Co-op article), GameDaily (cites Co-Optimus as a source), Game, Set, Watch (in an article about useful gaming links), Game Informer (cites it as a source), Gamasutra (mentioned in an interview), Game, Set, Watch (another mention) -- there's more, but those prove the point,


 * While I can't speak for the SPS issue, several sites have given mention, cited, or covered Co-Optimus directly. I don't think it's a matter of enough folks valuing their opinion. --Teancum (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But whether or not they are worth salt in the related field is not the question; it's whether they meet RS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see some reasons why this wouldn't work, but if you could lay out the specifics of where this fails that could help with the site itself. I often pass on information to these sorts of sites as they'd like to pass WP:RS and so are willing to make changes accordingly.  The only thing I see are the lack of experienced staff.  I just want to see if there are other specific things that cause this to fail.  --Teancum (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Gamesauce

 * Proposed Reliable Source

Gamesauce (website) is both an online and print-based magazine based in Seattle, WA; it has an industry-based 25,000 circulation, with about 1/3 of that being outside of the US. See their about us page for more information. Some of the staff have backgrounds as game developers, others are more journalism-based. The magazine typically has interviews with indie studios and contributors from those studios who write articles on game design, as well as other content. I'm looking mostly to approve this on the basis of the interviews/highlights of game studios such as their article on RedLynx, which would be a huge asset to the RedLynx article. I'd say articles by contributors should generally be avoided but can be considered on a case-by-case basis - such a case could be the possibility of a major video game designer such as Ron Gilbert or Tim Schafer contributing a retrospective article on their past games. Some realistic examples would be their interviews with Thatgamecompany's Kellee Santiago and Robin Hunicke along with bigger companies such as Gearbox Software's Steve Gibson and Bethesda Softworks's Pete Hines. --Teancum (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The contributions are published under a unified "Contributions" author account - perhaps I'm wrong here but to me that suggests a stronger editorial oversight, comparatively. These are also all industry insiders. I'd actually be happy calling this a reliable source. Marasmusine (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Didn't they have a TV show on GSN a few years ago? Sarujo (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're thinking of Game Sauce, which is a different entity. I had to look it up to be sure. --Teancum (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd actually say a website that doesn't disclose the main contributors to a story looks less reliable, actually. Also interviews aren't really a good example of suggesting reliability; at FAC there have been plenty of decent interviews that have been removed as the site itself doesn't meet RS criteria, and interviews don't grant exceptions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Contributions are disclosed in the article itself (I.E. this contributor article indicates Noah Falstein wrote the article). Contributions are merely separated as they are not written by staff, but by industry experts in their respective fields, or developers who do reflections on specific topics.  I see no reason why this is any different than Gamasutra's take on things.  Some articles are written by staff, others by contributors.  The only difference is that the contributor's name is listed in a blockquote in the article.  I just don't see how looking into the source itself doesn't verify it's reliability.  The staff is made up of journalists and developers with experience, clearly in looking at the writing style there's an strong editorial process.  The contributors are listed in the prose of the article, but in a clear manner, and are experts in their fields.  Unless there's a specific other qualm about the site I really don't see a reason not to make this a reliable source. --Teancum (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

ElectronicTheatere
I just found this, I thinking it might no be reliable but I'm not sure. What do you think? Sarujo (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the about page. The site is self-published and the staff seem to want to be anonymous, so, well, meh. Marasmusine (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Big news sites
I've always wondered: shouldn't we include web sites that don't deal with video games? IE CNN, Fox News, Yahoo!, etc.? Like with Wired, while they don't focus on video games, they clearly are verifiable, and with them added, the Google search for video game sources would be a lot more varied. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They should definitely be included in the custom search; I don't think we should place them in the list however. Maybe just include a note that in general publications considered reliable for general topics, such as newspapers, et al, are also perfectly fine. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dave. Simply stating that any source considered generally reliable would also be considered reliable within our scope. The only minor rejection I might see to that is that Fox News on occasion might leave that realm, as they have been accused several times for being biased against video games, or getting facts completely wrong (and those are only two sources).  Still in that case a little common sense would do us good.  In those situations WP:NPOV comes into play, so while we would cite Fox, we'd also cite a reliable source which has a rebuttal. --Teancum (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Gamer
Yeah so I just got a new magazine called Gamer in the mail. And I mean new as in its the 6th issue. Its called the offical magazine of Best Buy and I wanna know how reliable it is. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the press release, the editorial team is strong and ostensiably acting independently of Best Buy. On the other hand, it is designed to provide store offers - and I bet all the reviews will be exceptionally light on criticism. Since you have the magazine there, perhaps you can describe the content for us? Marasmusine (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Siliconera
Can we use this site? It appears they do a lot of interviews with the industry and have contacts. Google news uses them (which, while I know isn't a guarantor of reliability, does tend to lend some credit). There was only one breif discussion about it User:Jappalang was against it because he didn't think RPGamer was a RS. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The about us page doesn't lend much to reliability. It says nothing of what the site actually is. Couldn't find any information on the staff at their site either. I'd call it unreliable situational for Japan-based games only. --Teancum (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Really really careful on that. They specialize in Japanese games, a niche market if you're not talking your Final Fantasys or the like.  But as Teancum said, they don't showcase the usual factors for editorial control.  Doesn't mean they don't have it, but I would leave this as highly situational. I wouldn't put on "can't use" list, however. --M ASEM  (t) 23:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be hard pressed to see them as unreliable, discrepancies haven't been common with this site for the information I look for on their site, but in the same instance I don't see any proof of its reliability. I would go with Situational, as it was said it appears on Google News which lends to some credit and its existant (if minimal) editorial control. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Anime News Network uses them twice, however it does look like their a blog site. On the other hand, for a blog site, they seem to have a lot more capability to get exclusive interviews than most. 陣 内 Jinnai 15:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. It's at least good for their interviews, I would argue. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Usage examples:
 * 1UP.com:
 * Kotaku:
 * Game Set Watch:
 * Shack News:
 * Eurogamer:
 * Arstechnica: - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So a blanket reliable source or situational? 陣 内 Jinnai 04:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say that, considering their specialty in import games, we could list them as situational for use in Japan-only games and general interviews. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Search engine kinda broken
I've noticed that when searching, the search engine will never go past more than 10 pages. Is there any way to fix this? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Report it to the creator. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The magicbox
the magicbox - the site seems to be a news aggregator & translation + sales chartz. There is no about page, just contact. They do say where their sales chartz come from and do seem to have ongoing sales charts from Media Create and several charts from famitsu. I'm wanting to know if they'd be viable as a good site per WP:ENGLISH. Note, while they do seem to regularly get data from media create, famitsu and others, its not clear on their yearly charts that the data is (likely) complied. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If they are just reiterating press releases and charts, can't we just cite the original source? Marasmusine (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not for media create. They clear their charts every week and to get them all in print or ebook version is several thousand hundred dollars and I think you have to have to be a business licenses and maybe show you're connection to the video game industry. Archive.org only has a few select ones listed and we've only webcited a few more; that's why I asked a while ago if we could setup a bot to archive those lists every week and people didn't seem interested. 陣 内 Jinnai 19:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion at WP:RS/N 陣 内 Jinnai 17:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hardcore Gaming 101
hardcoregaming101 I'm not sure if this should be listed as totally or situational, but Kurt Kalata who is a writer for Gamasutra appears to have done work on this site. I'm not sure if anyone else notable is there. 陣 内 Jinnai 04:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That was the unanimous outcome of the original discussion, so I added it as a situational source for that one editor. Prime Blue (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

N-Sider as situational source
I have come across N-Sider as a source for many Nintendo-related details on Wikipedia, but despite their former partnership with IGN (resulting in these texts:, , , , ), I think their articles and features are to be considered unreliable as they are littered with severe mistakes, flat-out speculation and intentionally falsified information to make aforementioned speculation seem legit. N-Sider staff writer Anthony JC seems to be the worst offender, having created the most speculative articles that pass themselves off as fact. But as the information in features is shared between items in N-Sider's database, I think it is hard to take anything from them for granted. Same goes for the articles they provided to IGN, which contain some of the mistakes and speculation shown above. Therefore, I'd limit N-Sider's reliable content to developer interviews they actually conducted themselves (in which I could not find any factual errors). I am not sure on allowing the site's game reviews since most of N-Sider's staff seems to be composed of volunteers rather than journalists (Jeffrey Van Camp is one, though I don't know if he wrote for any video game sites in a reviewing capacity). Prime Blue (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Games are misattributed to specific development studios by means of guesses on the people involved, the information of which has since been contradicted by primary sources (for example Super Mario Advance, attributed to R&D2 by N-Sider –, ) – but confirmed by Nintendo to be the work of EAD).
 * Credit lists for old games spell out acronyms in full, based on guesses without any hard evidence on the respective developers' involvement with the game (N-Sider lists credits and claims specific names to be "identified" where acronyms fit full names "well enough", they leave acronyms for the rest).
 * Developer profiles are based on some of this speculation, and frequently use decorative details never mentioned in other sources, which N-Sider just couldn't know unless they had direct contacts to the Japanese Nintendo employees.
 * "transcribed" N-Sider version of this Japanese interview: the most blatant example of forgery on N-Sider's part. N-Sider heavily modified the original text to include quotes that were never part of the interview. For example, they claim the interviewees to be part of Research & Development 2/R&D2 and frequently refer to the studio by this name throughout their text, though the original Japanese text never actually mentions it once. Same goes with "Super Mario Bros. DX", mentioned several times in N-Sider's version to prove their speculation on the studio, yet only mentioned once in the Japanese interview. There are many such paragraphs with false information.
 * Developer profiles use names never confirmed by official sources (all primary sources use "Isshin Shimizu", "Kazunobu Shimizu" was never used by that particular person).
 * Erroneous studio information: R&D2 claimed to be merged into EAD, but confirmed by Nintendo to be merged into SPD. N-Sider articles and features also claim R&D4 to be the former name of EAD, but this name or its Japanese counterpart (開発四部) is never mentioned in any interviews, and the preceding department was confirmed by Nintendo to be the Creative Department.
 * Erroneous studio information: R&D2 claimed to be merged into EAD, but confirmed by Nintendo to be merged into SPD. N-Sider articles and features also claim R&D4 to be the former name of EAD, but this name or its Japanese counterpart (開発四部) is never mentioned in any interviews, and the preceding department was confirmed by Nintendo to be the Creative Department.

Kotaku reliability question
As I understand it from WP:VG/RS, Kotaku "News posts after 2010 are considered reliable. For posts before 2010, only those (significant) opinion posts that are written by established writers are allowed." What about posts during 2010? There's a lot of pieces I'd like to add to articles, but I want to clarify this before I start adding them. The wording seems a bit ambiguous in this regard. Nomader ( Talk ) 10:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though I don't agree with the "prior to 2010" rule, there are a few editors which would pass as reliable regardless of date. Brian Crecente, Stephen Tolito, Michael McWhertor and Brian Ashcraft all have extensive professional backgrounds, and the first three have been referenced by USA newscasts and newspapers. That being said Kotaku has had a strong editorial process all along, I'm not sure what the reasoning is (though I've read the archived discussion) for putting some sort of date modifier. --Teancum (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think for this site, it might be best to list all the experts considering its unusual ruling. Another would be AJ Glasser whose written for PCWorld and a few reviews for other names. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Promoting Joystiq
Personally I think it's time we revisit the rationale: "A blog network; use of this site and its affiliates should be carefully considered. Often, it is best to demonstrate the reliability of the individual authors sourced." While I understand the WP:RS rational behind blogs, in the case of sites such as Joystiq (as well as Kotaku, Destructiod, etc) a blog is merely the vehicle of delivery. The editorial process is independent of the method of delivery. While not every blog falls under this umbrella, Joystiq certainly does, having a strong team and clear editorial process. The first seven members of the team listed are industry veterans, and given their collective experience and state of the site it's clear that their editorial process is strong. Press releases, rumors, news, etc are all very clearly marked. Articles are well written and historically factual. Like any site, regardless of being a blog or not, non-newsworthy posts are occasionally made, however that's a simple WP:DUCK test. --Teancum (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is very useful at times for sourcing things. I thought it was already a RS, and have been using it like one. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely convinced. Joystiq has less "big names" involved in editorship and writing positions, and I've noticed that they are much more likely to report rumor as fact (a problem with many blogs, but of particular concern here.) Just because content is demarcated and even well-written does not necessarily prove a strong editorial process. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Dave but once again I don't see what you're talking about at all with the rumors. Where exactly are you seeing rumors reported as facts?  I just went through six pages and didn't see one instance that's evidence of that fact.  In regards to staff Editor-in-chief Christopher Grant has been appeared on and been cited by BBC, CNN and The New York Times as a reliable source.  James Ransom-Wiley has done the same on CNN and G4TV. Randy Nelson was previously senior editor at PlayStation Magazine.  Justin McElroy has been featured in Computer Games Magazine, GamePro, Official Xbox Magazine, PlayStation: The Official Magazine, PC Gamer, The Escapist, Gamezebo and Gamers With Jobs.  Chris Buffa was the former Editor-In-Chief at GameDaily.  Five of the seven senior editors have strong backgrounds.  Unless you can point out something much more specific I don't see your rationale. --Teancum (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Joystiq is fast to report things - but something that means they get things wrong on first pass - that's a sign they don't exhibit good "editorial control". But at the same time, when a story sticks around at Joystiq, I've seen several other sources (reliable) pick it up and go with it. If the Joystiq story is at the end of such chains, then it's likely reliable but otherwise regular posts may or may not be, and the duck test isn't always as easy to apply here. --M ASEM  (t) 18:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Teancum I'm looking at the sources from the perspective of someone at FAC, where they've got to be high-quality. I just can't see justifying Joystiq on a blanket basis in that context. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Jay Is Games
Not sure at all of its notability; merely wondering if it can be used in any way for indie articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

gamrReview and gamrFeed as Sources
It's been several months now when I was on arguing for a discussion of the reliability of gamrFeed and gamrReview as reliable sources. They are both part of the VGChartz Network and VGChartz has been dismissed an unreliable. I'm not asking for a re-evaluation of that. I am the editor-in-chief of the editorial sites (not the sales analysis side) and we have successfully taken the sales articles off the gamrfeed.vgchartz.com URL. They still appear on gamrFeed, but clicking them will redirect to the sales site, vgchartz.com. gamrFeed is a blog-style site with a mix of experienced and inexperienced writers, so I'm hoping for some conditional approval there. gamrReview is used on GameRankings.com and is sourced by EEDAR as well. I can also tell you the staff behind the numbers do not write any editorial content for gamrFeed or gamrReview. Thank your for your fair-minded discussion and consideration. --Havokclix (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Game Rankings' criteria for inclusion is weaker than Wikipedia's. The staff still suffers from being comprised of almost entirely inexperienced editors, with only one single exception. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

MobyGames
I'd like to demote this to unreliable; the current wording is unclear why it may be suitable for older games and I doubt it would hold up in a serious FAC since the content is user generated. 陣 内 Jinnai 18:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any situation in which it would be appropriate to cite Mobygames as a secondary source. Marasmusine (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As it stands, the MobyRanks are the only thing at all that could be qualified as a reliable source, but I still hold the same opinion: MobyGames seems to be very unreliable and I don't trust the ranks to be free of errors either. We already have two other aggregate sites with an established track record, so I'd just stick to them and say: MobyGames unreliable. Prime Blue (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, looks like no ones disagreed so if no one else chimes in I'll demote it this weekend. 陣 内 Jinnai 17:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Atari Age
I would like to get some further discussion of AtariAge's usability as a situational source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Gamasutra link's use disputed
This link is being disputed by editor Ryulong in this article to verify the number of Pokémon in the games; Ryulong argues that it is a bad source because the source comes from either Japanese hackers (assumed) or Serebii (assumed). However, neither assertion can be shown by the user, so I am attempting to argue that it is in violation of WP:V's rule of focusing on verifiability rather than the truth of the statement to assume that an otherwise reliable source is not reliable without evidence of this. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is indisputably true (that is, if the number is indeed right) and it is also backed up by reliable sources, then I see no problem whatsoever with adding the information. If it is just speculation that made its way into reliable sources, I would not add it. I usually think of reliable sources as a means of backing up facts, not as an instrument to show what information is fact. That said, it looks like this matter will be resolved anyway some time down the road if it is true. Prime Blue (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But the thing is, it won’t be truly solved until the events happen, which could be another two years. A large part of this discussion took place here, to decide whether or not to list the 3 event Pokemon in the list. IGN has now listed them in their Pokedex here, here, and here. Ryulong still questions whether or not to list them. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the number, but this seems to be about the actual data (names etc.). Again, if it's not just a hoax but genuine data that is also reported by reliable sources, there are no grounds to object it. Ideally, though, it should be mentioned that they have not been officially revealed/introduced/whatever yet, of course citing a reliable source. Prime Blue (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you were talking about the number. I was just letting you know that there was a second side to the discussion. We won't be able to say much about them, but they should be listed nonetheless since they do exist, and the IGN sources I gave confirm that. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nintendo Life
I would like to get some further discussion of Nintendo Life's usability as a situational source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen them cited by any reliable sources and they appear to be a blog site. I would say no unless you can find which ones work in the industry and then situational for them. 陣 内 Jinnai 02:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's an earlier discussion wherein Guyinblack25 felt that it was borderline acceptable due to some mention in some reliable sources such as IGN, as well as its owner being reliable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Being mentioned ins't enough. They'd have to do more than just be mentioned. 陣 内 Jinnai 14:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Tiny Cartridge
- Eric Caoili is a regular contributor to both Gamasutra and Game Set Watch. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it his own blog? Unless the individual is particularly well known I don't think SPS covers this aspect. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so; JC Fletcher from Joystiq does some work on here. Perhaps situational for more obscure games? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really think we can use it as situational for an obscure game; it's either acceptable or not. As it is it's self described as "random guys on a video game blog". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If it covers the same material he posts on gamasutra then it should be fine. It only would be an issue if he posted mostly about rpgs at gamasutra and fps at tiny cartridge (ie someone could claim he's not an expert in fps games, just rpgs). 陣 内 Jinnai 00:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's contributed by more than just Eric, with JC Fletcher, who also contributes to GameSpot from time to time that I've seen. It is also cited at 1UP.com, Kotaku several times, Game Set Watch (not by Caoili of course), and GameDaily (the latter which actually references an interview conducted by Caoili). Tiny Cartridge features content by fairly reliable individuals that is typically not available on the sites that they also work on; its work is also focused on Japanese subjects and more obscure games like downloadable titles or indie games, making them useful for games that aren't covered as often in the more mainstream sources. Additionally, the description of "random guys on a video game blog" sounds to me like self-deprecating humour - they're obviously not random people, and not all of their news stories are random. Kotaku, for instance, may do some random blogs that really shouldn't be covered here, but we do cover what they do that's reasonable. To cite a similar source, Andriasang, has fairly similar purposes - to give coverage to the Japanese industry, which is not the focus of more mainstream web sites - it's a blog-type web site - and it's effectively a person web site for Anoop Gantayat's coverage of video games, yet is considered one of the fully reliable sources. As such, since it provides coverage that most reliable sources overlook, is written by reliable individuals, and is cited in several reliable sources, I think it qualifies as a reliable source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, " since it provides coverage that most reliable sources overlook" is not a valid reasoning. We don't try and find sources to fill gaps in coverage and make due with what's there. Reliability is not bounded or shaped by how much coverage or lack thereof a subject receives. I think you may be trying to pound a round source into a square hole here. I'm not convinced that we can extrapolate that just because someone works for another site, personal projects or blogs should be a-ok, considering our main metric is editorial oversight (in other words, it's not the writer so much as the support to them.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, we already feature a reliable source that is basically the same thing in the form of Andriasang, which passed on the grounds of being cited in numerous reliable sources, and was effectively decided to be used as a "self-published source" due to Anoop's expertise in the field. I am not asking for it to be used solely because of the limited coverage of specific subjects that it provides, I am suggesting it because Eric is a regular author of articles on more obscure subjects such as indie and retro-style games, which I think constitutes a self-published source that we can use due to being a primary contributor to Game Set Watch. He also has some experience outside of video games, including as a press release writer and album reviewer for AOL. I think that his experience is sufficient enough to match Anoop. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The pedigree sounds pretty good, even if the professionalism isn't apparent. An about page or list of editors would be good though. Do we know all the contributors to the site? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC))
 * From what I can surmise, it seems to be only JC Fletcher and Eric Caoili. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's just those two, I don't see a problem with listing it in "Platform-specific" table. They're established editors from sources we already consider reliable.
 * However, I think David brings up a valid concern. We might have been applying WP:SPS too loosely. This might require broader evaluation of all of our reliable sources. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC))
 * That's been an underlying concern of mine here, especially for the ones that give more general approval. 陣 内 Jinnai 00:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

iFixit
Can iFixit be used as a source? What about if they're citing a reference like Chipworks? Example. « ₣M₣ »  21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, they're a blog arm of a repair/tech source. But considering that it appears part of it works as a wiki, I'd say no. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Gamer Limit (and its affiliates)
about page. I'm wondering if they would be acceptable as a WP:NEWSORG (as opposed to general SPS). They definatly seem to have some editorial oversight and are not just a "typical blog".

I ask specifically because I'd like to use this article on destructoid by one of their editors. 陣 内 Jinnai 02:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Being an incorporated organization with headquarters and regional offices is usually a good sign - assuming the locations given are actual offices and not just the domestic addresses of the volunteer staff. I've had a real quick look through the editorials and their work seems accurate and articulate enough. Marasmusine (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

RS discussion
I've just started a discussion here regarding the usability of Atari HQ as a reliable source. As this is a video game related topic, a member of WPVG has asked me to post a note here as well. If you are interesting in participating, please post at the above-linked subsection rather than here so that we can keep the discussion centralized. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

mmorpg.com
Is this site considered unreliable? From what I've read, it produces signed, fairly objective reviews, and it's about the only secondary source about Ryzom, so I'd like to use it. Ketil (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider the site subpar at best. The editorial staff is listed but it's unclear how many articles they actually write since their reviews are by freelance authors. They also engage in affiliate marketing which makes them less than independent. As for their articles, I find them fairly amateurish and lacking polish (like blatantly marked "edit" reviews with dull writing and poor grammar). Though the authors are credited—at the bottom of each article, by the way—they're (again) freelancers paid per article, not professional game journalists who are part of the staff. The site also tends inflate their article count with press releases  and "Reader's Choice" awards, fluff pieces that, as far as I'm concerned, only serve to reduce its reliability as a source. Plus, holy hell is that site spammy. Advertisements everywhere. The specific articles above could just be those about Ryzom, but from what I've seen of them elsewhere on Wikipedia, I wouldn't consider the site reliable at all. Maybe something written by an actual staff member, but I haven't seen such an article yet. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (Oh, hi, Wyatt!) OK, MMORPG is out, and I need to find sites with reviews written by staff. Sorry about the ads, I block them so I didn't know.  For press releases it's a bit of a catch-22, I can't cite them directly since that would be primary sources, and republishing press releases makes a site unreliable... Ketil (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The site is self-published, so use WP:SPS: Check the publishing history for Adam Tingle, Donna Desborough or Reed Hubbard. Marasmusine (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at e.g http://claimid.com/kostika, but I guess I don't quite understand. So she's written a handful of game reviews. Is that supposed to disqualify or qualify her? Ketil (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is, anyone (you, me, anybody) can write articles and submit them to these sites. That's why we don't accept self-published sources. What we're looking for are articles written by (for example) journalists on the staff of game publications, or authors of books published by reputable publishing houses. Wyatt Riot (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's actually not quite correct, we do accept self published sources just not by anybody. A self published source by a notable expert is often acceptable. Also it is not really helpful to focus on staff journalists, snce more and more professional journalists work part time and as freelancers and there are "reputable" publications (journals & magazines) working with freelancers. So what you have to look for here, is reputation of an author and where he has published in general, but not so much where his particular piece being used as a source was published.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Having spent a bit of time going over the various WP: policy pages, I have a feeling this project is having a much stricter and more pedantic standard for citation. For instance, When_to_cite only insists on high-quality reliable sources for exceptional claims, and stuff like plot of the subject of e.g. a book may be unreferenced.  Stuff like game world and skill system should be fairly non-contentious, and is easy to check for anybody who can spend ten minutes to install the game - it falls not only under the plot clause, but also under common knowledge, IMO.  Yet I have to cite everything, and reviewers who work free lance are considered on par with anonymous tweets.
 * Okay, for whatever reason, perhaps a more rigid approach is warranted for video games than for other topics. But do we agree that the standards are more rigid here?  And what is the reason for it?  Aren't we in danger of Citation overkill?  Ketil (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No we don't. The application of those various guidelines & policies is contextual and they are written for a goal not their own sake. If anything various standards need to somewhat be less rigid with regard to games, as obviously it doesn't really make much sense to require academic peer reviewed publication and textbooks as sources for much of the game related content. However this refers to nature of the sources used rather than what content needs to be sourced.
 * Now regarding what actually needs to be sourced, there it is important to distinguish between 2 different kinds of sourcing.
 * a) Content which mandatory to be sourced by the general policies & guidelines
 * b) Content which people generally source anyhow (for completeness' sake and to avoid potential discussions about a))
 * imho b) is usually not a bad thing, because then readers see where any information comes from (might it be likely to be challegend or a extraordinary claim or not). In short more citations or citations for everything may not be required but usually don't harm. However b) has also lead indeed to a Citation overkill in some cases moreover some editors (imho unfortunately) have developed a tendency to expect inline citations for everything even if it is obviously true and non-contentious. In addition many of them just formally check for the existence of inline citations and whether they're formally reliable rather than actually reading the content and the sources themselves to form a sound judgement on a particular case (moreover to really check/validate the content that way). A particularly bad example of this unfortunate development are editors, who are performing FARs on some subject they are mostly clueless about and then base their judgement on purely formal arguments (i.e. checking whether an article has "enough" inline citations, rather than actually reading the sources and proof reading the article's content).--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nintendo World Report
Seen lots of useful content from them and think they are reliable (they were previously known as Planet GameCube): And so on. Prime Blue (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Doesn't seem like there are any objections, so I'll add it in a few days. Prime Blue (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * site was founded by Billy Berghammer (managing editor of Game Informer Online, director of gaming editorial at G4TV.com, editor-in-chief of EGMi)
 * picked up by IGN.com, Nintendo World Report collaborated with them on an interview
 * picked up by GameSpot
 * picked up by 1UP.com, Nintendo World Report staff writer Neal Ronaghan also writes for them
 * picked up by Edge Magazine
 * picked up by Eurogamer
 * picked up by Game Informer
 * Support. I've always figured NWR to be reliable to an extent. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also has a policy on content and quality. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support generally for all things Nintendo. As with all online sources, they'll often publish rumors so some care must be used but they seem to redact when a rumor is patently false. --M ASEM (t) 00:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems OK to me. SharkD   Talk  20:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

GameRankings/Metacritic appropriate in genre articles?
See this edit. I don't think the inclusion of GameRankings/Metacritic stats are inappropriate but user:Indrian does. Ideas? SharkD  Talk  20:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see that either at first glance, the comment in the version history could be added in a footnote, but i see no reason to suppress the information.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Inside Network
During an AfD I tried to evaluate this review at Inside Social Games, and wondered if the site could be considered reliable. About page: The founder is Justin Smith and the editor Eric Eldon. The site is part of Smith's Inside Network. Seems to have more of an industry background than the usual self-published games site. Marasmusine (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems to have a strong editorial process in place. The writing is strong and devoid of so many issues a typical WordPress blog has. From that standpoint I'll give it thumbs up. --Teancum (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – Staff looks good, but is there more evidence that the site can be considered reliable? For example, has their content been picked up by our general reliable sources? Prime Blue (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The writing might be stronger than average, but I'm not seeing them meeting criteria. I see they were recently purchased but the same article also points out their actual staff is tiny. There are mentions--aside from the purchase news--by a few publications (, but none of these is the equivalent of an IGN or GameSpot approval or something similar.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That Guy with the Glasses
So I saw this source being used in Elaine Marley, and I was wondering exactly how reliable it was. If it is reliable, which parts (e.g. are the articles notable? If so, what about the blogs?) If at least some of it is reliable, then great, as we can add it to a bunch of other articles for reception and help booster notability. Harry Blue5 (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the site have a "reputation for accuracy and fact checking"? As a self-published source, are the authors "established experts in the field."? Here is some more information on the author, Dr. Gonzo. Marasmusine (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. TGWTG's network spans a lot of internet reviewers and while a few like NC, Linkara, and Spoony have gotten some reputation, the rest are mostly equivalent to average players. --M ASEM (t) 00:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose – To expand on that Masem said, TGWTG and others specialize more in entertainment than in actual video game journalism. While there may be reason to occasionally include them for some objective claims (which is still far in between), I certainly would not use them to verify any subjective claims. –MuZemike 07:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Defunct Games
- I'm reviewing Neutopia for GA, and that source is currently the only issue. It has some editorial oversight - listing expectations of quality from their contributors - but none of the contributors seems especially reliable. And it's a damn shame to lose the source, since it seems like a good one for obscure consoles like the TurboGrafx. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Making sure that this doesn't drop off; very important that I get some other comments on this. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: As with Inside Network above, is there something that would help identify the site as reliable? Notable staff members, content picked up by other reliable sources, etc. Prime Blue (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

NowGamer
Example links. NowGamer is a site that does reviews, previews, news, features and other stuff. According to their review section "All the reviews on NowGamer.com are written by experienced professional games experts who live, sleep and breathe games for every format and for the last 25 years". Examples of some writers include Adam Barnes and Dave Cook, just in case those names mean anything to anybody. Is this site reliable? Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as much as they call themselves professionals... that's not really confidence-inspiring. Their parent company is Imagine Publishing, and we do count some of their print refs as reliable, but I can't find much that references them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

JayIsGames
Just revitalizing discussion on whether jayisgames.com can be used as a reliable source. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For references, here are the previous discussions:


 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_1
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_2
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_4
 * I can't find an "about" summary at the website. One thing to check is the professional history of Jay and JohnB as editors, and find out a bit more about the writers. There are two hits on Google Books: "The Video Game Explosion" describes it as a "prominent" independent gaming site; "The New Digital Storytelling" calls it "widely read" - I'm not sure if this helps determine the site's reliability. Marasmusine (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Play This Thing
- Site has several notable gaming industry personalities, as well as an editor-in-chief who has contributed to other notable websites, including The New York Times. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The staff list is pretty strong. I think this came up in an AfD and I agreed that it is a usable site. Marasmusine (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks very strong to me. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Teancum. I hadn't noticed the rampant copyediting failure; missing a bar that low does call the entire editorial process into serious question. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Check for status as non-self-published source – is there something that would help identify the site as reliable? Notable staff members, content picked up by other reliable sources, etc. Prime Blue (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As pointed out in Articles for deletion/Backyard Monsters there are multiple articles with very basic spelling and grammar issues. That suggest an extremely poor editorial oversight. It's one thing if there are errors right after publishing, it's another if they remain more than a day or so. --Teancum (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, yes, in that Backyard Monsters review, the site's managing editor uses the word "explicitedly". Marasmusine (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oddly, that actually argues back in the direction of reliability, since if the managing editor actually just has a somewhat deranged vocabulary and poor spelling, then the presence of these things in articles does not mean that editorial oversight isn't happening, it just means the editor isn't capable of correcting them, and the editorial functions that are actually important for reliability, like fact-checking, may still be in place. (Just because somebody can't spell doesn't mean they aren't conversant with their industry or that they can't ensure accuracy.) —chaos5023 (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, appearances do matter. If they can't take care of even simple errors quickly, are they really likely to check their facts after publication? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I'm not saying that appearances don't matter, just that if the editor can't spell, then spelling errors aren't evidence against editorial oversight being in place.  This contradicts our prejudices as educated English speakers, but an editor incapable of copyediting for spelling and grammar may be capable of correcting errors of fact. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, if the "managing editor" both can't spell and has no editorial staff under him who can compensate for this deficiency, then this argues against the robustness of the overall editorial process. Which would be a reason I haven't re-switched my opinion on this one. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I highlighted one typo. Everyone makes mistakes. Are there any further examples? I'm trying to determine the regularity of editorial failure. (You should've seen the "reliable publication" Sinclair User back in the day - typos and formatting errors on every page.) Marasmusine (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cunard identified a lot of other errors in the Backyard Monsters article; see Articles for deletion/Backyard Monsters. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

MetaCritic process
Just posting this link. Good to see that they constantly review their sources, and are on the look out for anything dodgy. Link - X201 (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources for system requirements
For PC games, what sources are favored in citing those games' system requirements? This information is typically included on the packaging of games sold at retail, and for those types of games, this is one situation where I believe the game itself could serve as a reliable source. For games that are distributed digitally, the requirements are usually listed on the distributor's site. However, many online games receive ongoing updates that change the system requirements over time. Would the developer's web site, even though it is self published, be the most reliable source in these cases? --Jt12852 07:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jt12852 (talk • contribs)
 * The system requirements specified by the developer (either on their website or on the game's packaging) qualify as a primary source, so you can use these. Prime Blue (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Developers and publishers are usually the only reliable sources on the subject. There are other sources, but they hold about as much weight as blogs. A lot of editors use game-debate.com and I'm of the opinion that such references should be removed wholesale. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Original Sound Version
Bringing up Original Sound Version as reliable, because it is a very useful source for video game music-related topics. They provide interviews, news reports and reviews. Don't let the blog-like format scare you off – founder Jayson Napolitano was a staff writer for the reliable Music4Games, and conducted interviews for the site.

Content from Original Sound Version has been cited by:
 * GameSpot:
 * 1UP.com:, ,
 * ComputerAndVideoGames.com:
 * GamePro:
 * Kotaku:, , , ,
 * Nintendo World Report:
 * Wired GameLife: ,
 * Our semi-reliable sites, such as RPGFan and Joystiq (just some examples)

Prime Blue (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Given its pedigree I'm okay with calling it reliable. Too bad about music4games, maybe this one will take up the slack? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They seem to be, especially in the last few months. I use their interviews and reviews extensively nowadays. I !vote reliable. -- Pres N  19:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Shogun Gamer
Can this site I just found today be reliable? Sarujo (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The interviews can be used as a WP:PRIMARY source. Otherwise, I can't see any reason to cite this self-published site. Marasmusine (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

TopTenReviews. Again. Again.
I recently used the VG Google Search and it kicked out a TopTenReviews page: - an editorial review. The site is currently listed as "unreliable" with the comment "Site was deemed to be unreliable as only usage of them is from forum posts and the like and there is no clear strong editorial oversight." and prior discussion here only addresses their use as a aggregate site. Since this review is neither a forum post or an aggregate score, and our custom search picked up on it, perhaps we should clarify? Marasmusine (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that they have multiple "Buy Now" links on almost every item they review (and referral links on products they don't sell) unnerves me. - X201 (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too. These aren't independent banner ads. This is "You've read our review, now BUY IT." I find this questionable. Marasmusine (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, the site selling the software in the example is owned by TTR's parent company, something you wouldn't know just by looking at it. But the business model looks even dodgier than the marriage of reviews and sales. Techmedianetwork, the parent company, advertises a service of "Custom Editorial and Video creation". They don't go into detail, but I've looked around and "custom editorial" is exactly what it sounds like: you pay them money, they put out an article. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

IGXpro
Upon doing research for an article, I happened upon this site. I not familiar with staff, so what's the verdict? Sarujo (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you look on the staff page, every single person is listed as an editor. I take it that by editor they mean anyone with publishing privileges on their WordPress set up. The articles themselves are bloggy (sometimes very bloggy) and sources are almost never cited. The advertising is shady as well. I wouldn't bring it up except that their advertising partner prompted me to download a file on one page. This was almost surely malware. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is upsetting, as I need something to verify the news of character creator and customizer mode in the upcoming Dragon Ball game, and in depth coverage on this has only extended to the fansites and forums. Sarujo (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Gamefaqs
I'd like to propose moving Gamefaqs from the "situational sources" section to the "unreliable sources" section per this discussion on WT:VG a while ago. In summary Gamefaqs is currently allowed to be cited only for release info, but there is little evidence that their user-submitted info is checked for accuracy as they claim, and I think there is enough evidence that this fact-checking is simply not happening. There were suggestions in that discussion that the level of inaccuracy was due to the age of the games in question, and that the supposed higher accuracy of more recent games makes up for it. If it's true that newer games' (surely more likely to have non-Gamefaqs sources available anyway?) info is more accurate, then Gamefaqs is picking and choosing which games are worthy of fact-checking with criteria that are not known to us, so we have no way of knowing where their "accuracy line" is drawn, if anywhere. At the least I think a cut-off point should be made where Gamefaqs is not considered reliable for games over a certain age. However, I'd prefer that it be deemed unreliable altogether, as I think for a site that is already considered unreliable for everything else, it should really pull out the stops to justify its exceptional status for dates, but it doesn't. I would hope that an "unreliable" status for Gamefaqs would improve sourcing by encouraging editors to find better sources for these dates. Thanks,  Mi re  ma  re  20:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think GameFAQs is only used if no other source exists. Like you stated, there have been many tests, and GameSpot has similar mistakes. Yet both are used as references for Featured Lists like List of Donkey Kong video games, List of Kingdom Hearts media, and List of Kirby media. If you want to find better sources to use for your articles, then nobody is stopping you, but most people find these to be good enough. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm amazed any editor would cite GameFAQs for anything. I say take it of the RS list, per the previous discussion. Marasmusine (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The less we support or rely on GameFaqs, the better, I think. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I've always avoided GameFAQs as a source, whenever possible, which is always. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If we make Gamefaqs be unreliable, would that mean we would remove them from article's "External Links" section? GamerPro64  22:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a completely different thing. Plenty of sources are not reliable, but are good for EL, and vise-verse. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support – but kind of raises the question if we have to reconsider GameSpot release dates as well. Prime Blue (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it the situation that stuff gets chucked straight onto GameFAQs without checking for accuracy but wont get moved onto GameSpot until it is proved to be correct? I ask that because there are some games listed on GameFAQs that arent listed on GameSpot. Salavat (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how the transition to Gamespot works, but this (one of the original selection of erroneous dates I noticed) carries the same incorrect 1985 date at Gamespot as Gamefaqs.  Mi re  ma  re  21:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Demoted. Prime Blue (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

N-Sider as situational source (2nd)
Previous discussion did not get any replies, so I'm bringing it up again. I still think it is a big problem that the site causes misinformation to be included in so many video game articles.

I have come across N-Sider as a source for many Nintendo-related details on Wikipedia, but despite their former partnership with IGN (resulting in these features:, , , , ), I think their articles and features are to be considered unreliable as they are littered with severe mistakes, flat-out speculation and intentionally falsified information to make aforementioned speculation seem legit. N-Sider staff writer Anthony JC seems to be the worst offender, having created the most speculative articles that pass themselves off as fact. But as the information in features is shared between items in N-Sider's database, I think it is hard to take anything from them for granted. Same goes for the articles they provided to IGN, which contain some of the mistakes and speculation shown above. Therefore, I'd limit N-Sider's reliable content to developer interviews they actually conducted themselves (in which I could not find any factual errors). I am not sure on allowing the site's game reviews since most of N-Sider's staff seems to be composed of volunteers rather than journalists (Jeffrey Van Camp is one, though I don't know if he wrote for any video game sites in a reviewing capacity). Prime Blue (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Demoted. Prime Blue (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Staff members use online translators as a basis for their articles.
 * "transcribed" N-Sider version of this Japanese interview: one of the more blatant examples of forgery on N-Sider's part. N-Sider heavily modified the original text to include quotes that were never part of the interview. For example, they claim the interviewees to be part of Nintendo Research & Development 2 (R&D2), and frequently refer to the studio by this name throughout their text, although the original Japanese text never actually mentions it once. Same goes with "Super Mario Bros. DX", mentioned several times in N-Sider's version to prove their speculation on the studio, yet only mentioned once in the Japanese interview. There are many such paragraphs with false information.
 * Games are misattributed to specific development studios: N-Sider guesses the studio names based on the people credited in the staff rolls at the end of games. The information on these have been contradicted by primary sources on various occasions (for example Super Mario Advance, attributed to R&D2 by N-Sider –, ) – but confirmed by Nintendo to be the work of EAD).
 * Credit lists for old games spell out acronyms in full, based on guesses without any hard evidence on the involvement of the respective developers (N-Sider lists credits and claims specific names to be "identified", where acronyms fit full names "well enough" – they leave the acronyms for the rest).
 * Developer profiles are based on some of this speculation, and frequently use decorative details never mentioned in other sources, which N-Sider just couldn't know unless they had direct contacts to the Japanese Nintendo employees.
 * Developer profiles use names never confirmed by official sources (all primary sources use "Isshin Shimizu", "Kazunobu Shimizu" was never used by that particular person, and is likely derived from an anime director of the same name).
 * Erroneous studio information: R&D2 claimed to be merged into EAD, but confirmed by Nintendo to be merged into SPD. N-Sider articles and features also claim R&D4 to be the former name of EAD, but this name or its Japanese counterpart (開発四部) is never mentioned in any interviews, and the preceding department was confirmed by Nintendo to be the Creative Department.
 * I'm fine with scrapping them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist - per the strong rationale above. --Teancum (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)