Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5

Possible sources for consideration
I would normally request comment at Talk:Maniac Mansion, which is the main purpose of my inquiry of the following sites, but for other articles, I want to see if the following are reliable enough to use here:


 * nexgam.de → A German video gaming site, their editorial board is located here.
 * Adventure Gamers → Website devoted to adventure games. According to their editorial policy, several of their contributors hold positions in the video gaming industry.
 * Aventura y CIA → A Spanish adventure gaming website. Things look pretty good from looking at their editorial policy page here.

–MuZemike 03:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm iffy on the German and Spanish sites, because it's harder to tell how their concept of editorial oversight jives with our (admittedly strongly US) concept. Adventure Gamers I've gotten through several Myst FACs, so it should be fine. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

MLGPro as situational
Also known as majorleaguegaming.com. Think of this one less as a promotion and more of a line in the sand. Several Major League Gaming team and player articles rely solely on it to establish notability. (See Carbon (electronic sports team), Dave Walsh (electronic sports player), Instinct (electronic sports team), Team Triggers Down) Now I'm not wholly opposed to MLG teams having an article, but they need to pass notability standards. MLGPro/Majorleaguegaming.com is a primary source as it hosts the competitions these teams and individuals play in. That being said I submit this as a situational, primary source that can only confirm contest results, scores, payouts, etc &mdash; but can not establish notability per WP:N. Thoughts? --Teancum (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It can certainly confirm the existence of events, etc., but without secondary sourcing it'd be hard to see how they demonstrate relevance and notability. It definitely can't establish notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Forecasting and Analysing Digital Entertainment (FADE)
Is this outfit a reliable source? It's come up over at Portal 2. Their About Us page suggests it's just a couple guys. The infrequency of their press releases and the links to their LinkedIn profiles suggest they're not terribly invested in the enterprise. I can't find anything about their methodology. Lagrange613 (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason to treat it differently than VGChartz. That is, it does not strike me as reliable. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Plastic Axe
Can Plastic Axe be considered a reliable source for pages such as this? My initial feeling was that it isn't, since it is a blog, but I did a little digging and now I think it may be usable. The site's "About/FAQ" page states that the author is Joe Rybicki, and according to his website, he was an editor for The Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine for nine years, including several years as the senior editor. The page of Plastic Axe which I specifically linked to is also referenced by reliable sources such as (and that page has been referenced by, , and ). Thoughts? I'd really like to use the interview for a few articles (other pages on that site would also be great references for Rock Band-related articles, but I'd especially like to use the interview). Thanks! –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly biased (towards music game articles) but I would argue that yes, because of it being Joe's blog, with past reliability, the blog is too. --M ASEM (t) 15:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say yes for interviews (state in the article it was said in an interview), and no for factual information or opinions. If he doesn't have a Wikipedia article, then he is probably not notable enough to list his opinion on Wikipedia articles. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Square Enix Music Online
Seems they constantly update their staff list. This has caused some issues with Dragon Warrior. I managed to find one on an old page through internet archive, but I'm certain the other was there also.

However, the larger issue is that they seem to update their staff list regularly and internet archive does not backup their staff list page as regularly so there needs to be some other way to check this. I'm going to try emailing them about Georg Vallant, but that shouldn't be what we do every time. 陣  内 Jinnai 19:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It was successfully defended at a recent FAC. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but there wasn't much discussion or apparent scrutiny. Also, the topic here is the SEMO staff list which isn't sufficiently documented. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Their email page doesn't seem to be working so I haven't been able to ask. :( 陣  内 Jinnai 03:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Retronauts comic
Copied from Talk:Dragon Warrior: "Retronauts comic I'm not sure if we can use this, but there is one key concept they touch upon specifically that others kind of ignore; the Dragon Lord's castle placement changed the purpose of video game RPGs from figuring out what the goal was to figuring out how to achieve the goal."

Bringing this here to see if the comic strip is considered a RS.

陣 内 Jinnai 22:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A comic strip can be an RS, but there are two things that you need to figure out: whether or not the author is considered an authority on the subject and whether or not the comic strip is subject to the same editorial oversight that makes 1up staff articles reliable. The fact that it's featured on 1up and 1up articles are considered RSes isn't necessarily sufficient. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize that. Finding out who writes is not going to help as 1up has a policy of not listing their authors (at least on features ), so it would be a matter of whether the strip has editorial oversight.
 * This gives a perspective of what Retronauts is suppose to be.
 * Phillip Armstrong appears to be the comic's creator. Whether he did that specific one or not cannot be verified, but one can reasonably assume he did it considering he's done all the others.
 * Retronauts (the blog which the comic, as well as podcasts and other material is posted) has been cited by Wired, but I'm not sure whether that should apply as a SPS criteria to the podcast, if the whole blog or whether its even enough for anything. 陣 内 Jinnai 00:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's all there is then it doesn't sound like the case can be made for inclusion. For what it's worth, if the information is more than the musings of a comic author then there should be other sources. Books, interviews, something. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, it doesn't look like it. Unfortunatly, I don't think it really exists in a way that can be so easily attributable. Yes, some others make that point, but not in the same manner that it changed the dynamics from figuring out what was going on to how to accomplish it. Horii notes that he made it apparant from the start, but it would be OR to say that other RPGs before then did not since it was often about figuring out what you had to accomplish. Sadly, you're right that this source doesn't look reliable. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Pelit
What would it take to list the Finnish Pelit magazine as a reliable source? It's well-established, having been published continuously since 1992. It's the sole major gaming magazine in its country, and (if I recall correctly) the biggest one in Northern Europe. I'd estimate that it's at least as reliable as many of the sites we accept as reliable sources. --Kiz o r  12:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't already? It looks like there's a check mark by its name in the master list but there's no discussion linked. Regardless, I've always thought of Pelit as a well-respected European VG mag. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pelit is pretty important. They sometimes catch indy games that otherwise go unnoticed. Certainly reliable. Marasmusine (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good timing with that comment. The latest issue dedicates nineteen pages to indie games, most of it reviews, some of it a more general overview. So that's it, then: we just nod and add the magazine? --Kiz o r  20:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Gamespot
Move to situational. If we are moving GameFAQs to unreliable, then we must move them to situational because they share databases. We cannot pick and choose here because one is generally more reliable; they share information and use the same info.

The other alternative is to move GameFAQs back to situational and note to not use dates that are user submitted (marked as such) and try to find more reliable sources (excluding Gamestop) when applicable. If its about dates, ie older games, we can specify a cutoff date. We have done that for sites like Kotaku so it is possible, however, the same should be done for Gamespot who shares those dates.

Considering the number of articles this would affect, I believe the nom was shoved through for GameFAQs rather quickly (8 days of discussion compared to other ones that too quite a bit longer with more support). If it is truely unreliable that its that easy to detect, then by association, so are Gamespot dates and likely a host of others. Rather than try and set a cutoff date, it was just scrapped and while Gamespot dates were left.

My point here is that at least for dates, we cannot treat them differely. We have to treat GameFAQs and Gamespot as one-in-the-same because they rely on the same source for their dates. If one is unreliable, so to is the other. If one is reliable, so to is the other. 陣 内 Jinnai 16:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * info from the horse's mouth that they share databases. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue was brought up in the GameFAQs discussion but it didn't go anywhere. If they share release dates and the release dates are user submitted with little or no editorial oversight then they should be considered unreliable on both sites. It's very straight forward. The question we should be asking at this point is where else do these dates crop up? ButOnMethItIs (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned many times previous, user data are always noted in the release data pages when they are used kind of like a badge of honor or something. If there is no one's name next to a date, it isn't a user submitted date. That is the case for GameFAQs. I don't think Gamespot allows user submitted dates so arguably GameFAQs imo is better because its always clear what dates are user submitted and which aren't. 陣 内 Jinnai 13:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also this. Reach Out to the Truth 22:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ??? That appears to be a dead link to a deleted forum topic. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All reference sources are situational. I can't really say for sure that the GameSpot/GameFAQ release database is reliable. In fact, I'd lean towards saying that it is unreliable. They accept user contributions (even with notice), they don't say where they got the information, and I don't recall ever seeing another publication cite GameSpot/GameFAQ's release database for release dates. I'd trust GamePress's database over the GameSpot/GameFAQ one; they at least publish the press release along with the database. I don't think we should move any source anywhere on the listing. Many online portal sites have blog sections, or user forums, or comment sections that can not be cited or can only be cited under special circumstances. This is true of all reference sources. When I see the listing on this article, I know that it refers to news, editorials, reviews, and previews, and that no other content is covered although the site itself is listed as Reliable. The list states, "None of the below is applicable to every single instance of it—use reason and common sense." I think perhaps we could also add in the notes section of GameSpot/GameFAQ "Do not use the release date database", but to do that I'd like more users' consensus on whether or not the release database is reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There appears to already be consensus that the Gamespot release date database is reliable. I am not sure such consensus exists for GameFAQs. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have made a typo in the URL. I couldn't test it and now I can't edit it, due to the limitations of the browser I'm currently using. Go the Technical Support forum on GameSpot and look for the thread by Dracula68. Then copy the URL here properly for us to look at.


 * This thread? If so, then I believe that is the same way its done at GameFAQs, ie verifying it immediatly through a primary source. GameFAQs and Gamespot share databases. I'm sure if I brought that face up at RS/N and people thought GameFAQs was unreliable because of user submitted data they'd say Gamespot is too for the exact same reason - shared databases means they can have user input info from GameFAQs listed and vice versa. The bottom line is, if one is reliable, so to is the other. They use the same source info. You can't pick and choose favorites. 陣 内 Jinnai 01:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To go about it in GameFAQs you need to have an account. I can't give you a link because of that, but I can tell you the process and you can check it out.


 * Go to any game's release data page.


 * Click "Data Submission Form" at the bottom


 * Click any link.


 * It'll bring up a page near the top that says something like "Unless you are correcting an obvious mistake, you should always include a source link for your information. The "bigger" or more popular a game, the more official and recent the link should be."


 * Therefore, while the method is different, they both have the same level of checks. 陣 内 Jinnai 01:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm divided on whether or not I believe the database is reliable. There appears to be consensus (somewhere?) that Gamespot's is reliable since it is used on many featured articles. I would be against using either database unless no other source was available. I realize you are saying the sites use the same database, and they may very well, but I can't confirm that they use the same database in all cases. So assuming they do use the same database, just use Gamespot's publishing of the information since there is already consensus for it. But as I said, I would not personally use the database unless no other source existed. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say that's requiring a double-standard be set. Someone uses a game database from one site that is shared (as far as can be seen completely with the other entity, barring maybe some time lag for updates) and that they both allow user submissions (with evidence to back them up). One is considered reliable and the other isn't. WTF? I am really considering bringing this up to RS/N because apply a doublse-standard like that is not the way we should be handling things here and will just undermine the overall credibility in the long run for our sources. 陣 内 Jinnai 16:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Posted WP:RS/N. 陣 内 Jinnai 14:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Screwattack again
Screwattack.com just revamped its website and has started adding scores to their reviews. Can the reviews be considered reliable and the scores be part of the Template:Video game reviews code? GamerPro64 22:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * SA cover only the big games anyways, and I think going to more trusted sources for reviews would be a better plan – especially for posting scores. I would say use them for interviews only. Is there a particular review you had in mind? --Odie5533 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One of their first reviews with a 1-10 rating is Star Fox 64 3D. link GamerPro64  04:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, I feel like there are enough legit, reliable, well-respected sites featured in the VG reviews box already that we don't need to add another one. If there's a line or tidbit you like in a ScrewAttack review, feel free to include it in prose (and maybe put it in one of the custom slots of the VG reviews box), but it's certainly not necessary to feature in the reviews box code. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Axem Titanium on this. Use SA in prose if you want, but leave more respectable sites to VG reviews box when possible. If you come across an obscure game where there aren't enough reviews then I could see using SA as a reference. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me split this into two points: 1) Are SA reviews usable in the reception section? and 2) Is SA a reliable source for factual information? For 1, I would say yes, they can be used in the reception as the opinion of a critic or as the opinion of specifically ScrewAttack, but whenever possible, the VG reviews box should include more established sources (IGN, PC Gamer, EGM, Game Informer, GameSpot, etc). I am basing this on the notability of ScrewAttack. Their Armory videos were syndicated through IGN and some of their reviews/shows are syndicated through GameTrailers, so it appears others in the industry respect their opinions. For 2) I don't consider them a reliable source for factual information. This would exclude them from the gameplay, plot, release, and development sections. I don't see anyone in the industry citing ScrewAttack for factual information and so I do not believe we should either. See WP:RSOPINION. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This discussion was had recently at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard with four people participating. Its currently not considered a reliable source, since they claim anyone can make a blog and post a review of something. Do they have any editorial oversight, or is anything goes?   D r e a m Focus  10:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lots of portal accept user created content. I'd divide a regular news portal into 3 streams of content: 1) Edited content. This is the stuff that goes in the News, Previews, and Reviews section of the a portal. It is written by a staff member and edited by other staff before being published. It often appears on the main page of the site. This content can be reliable. 2) Staff blogs. Many portals let their staff members have blogs that are published through the site. These can sometimes be reliable, but often are not because they might not go through any editing process and are thus self-published. These can, however, be used for the opinions of the author provided the author is notable or at least somewhat notable. 3) User submitted content. Many sites let any user sign up and make a blog, post videos, post comments to news stories and otherwise interact with the website. In only extremely rare cases would this information ever be reliable, and in very few (but somewhat more often) cases can the information be used for opinion. It can only be used for opinion if the author of the content is notable. An example would be if a notable author publishes a news story, then a user makes a comment, and the author of the news story replies to the comment. The author's content is still self-published, but it's at least worth a glance. This is somewhat more common on web forums. So, here's examples for IGN of 1) edited content, 2) staff blog, from the same staff writer as 1, and 3) a comment to a news story by user asspickle. Similarly, for ScrewAttack: 1) new article, 2) Scroll down in 1 and you will see a comment made by the author of the news article 3) user comments, made by the ever insightful Hollowtiger21. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly has been agreed upon? Is Screwattack considered a reliable source or more on the lines of situational? GamerPro64  00:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anything has been agreed upon. I think that SA should used for opinion only and used in the VG reviews box only if other reviews can not be found. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

JayIsGames
The website JayIsGames was recently used at AfD to save an article. I believe the site is unreliable and possibly biased. Here are my reasons: Based on this, I do not believe the site is at all reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Authors do not give their names. Here is a review on their main page posted by user "grinnyp".
 * No editorial policy.
 * No list of editors (do they even edit their articles?)
 * No list of staff or writers
 * Site appears to be run by a person known only as "Jay" and by another person known by the site as only "JohnB"
 * JayIsGames appears to be very close to some of the games they review. They host many flash games, which they subsequently review.
 * And one of the worst parts I found, they often link directly to a place to buy the game with a referral link. Example. If you buy the game after reading their review, they will make money. All the screenshots here link directly to pages to buy the game. Their review states, "Remember that Big Fish Game Club Members pay only $13.99 for Collector's Editions, and collector's editions count 3 card punches of 6 total needed for a free game."
 * I'd say that under Wikipedia's current standards it would be considered unreliable. Except for the COI and buy links, I'd be fine with using it, but my view on what makes a review reliable is different from the consensus view. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, the last part wouldn't make them unreliable if that was the only issue. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So is the opinion here that the site is not reliable? --Odie5533 (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's certainly my assessment. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

NintendoLife for release dates
Can it be used as a ref for release dates? I find that it is being used more and more to cite release dates, especially VC/3DSVC ones, but other platforms also. I would be wary of using it for actual content, however, but that is a very different debate -- I am merely interested in the seemingly (so far) accurate release dates it offers. Salvidrim (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you asked. I did some research on the site myself which you can find at User:Odie5533/VG Source Reliability (look for NintendoLife.com). Combined with the past discussion, I definitely think they are reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I must embarassedly admit I did not do anywhere near your amount of research, but asked in the hopes someone had and would be able to provide a grounded opinion, which seems to be the case. I must say I've certainly used it as a ref for release dates and never had any opposition, but I am seeking others' input on it's reliability before I start making more consistent usage of it.  Salvidrim (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Source questions
I have an article up for FAC and I was asked if these sources are considered reliable. Can someone look to see if they are? this, this, this, and this. GamerPro64 22:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a Japanese article on inside-games.jp . All I know about Gamer.nl is that EuroGamer once referenced them. Both appear reliable, but I am not sure. Gossipgamers does not appear at all reliable, and I do not know about generation-nt.com at all. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of sources
Are these sources reliable: Console Obsession, AllRPG, Netjak, and Gamervision-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No to all. AllRPG is self-published by a person known only as "Ges". Console Obsession is written by two brothers and I see no evidence of reliability. Netjak appears to all be self-published. I found reviews on the site my a man known as "Mr. Strange". Gamervision is the only borderline case, but since their primary function is sales they likely don't fact-check and verify their content as a regular news organization would. I would avoid all these sites. --Odie5533 20:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I also need to know if Softpedia, Games We Like, Cubed3, Capcom-Unity, Hi Corp, Touch Arcade, PR-Inside, LevelSelect, and KingZombie are reliable because I nominated Resident Evil 4 for GA and is currently on hold mostly because of sources that question reliablity-SCB &#39;92 (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just on a polite note, links to each of these sites would make it alot easier for the people who are helping you. Salavat (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Capcom-Unity would be reliable as a primary source since it's a Capcom owned site. It couldn't establish notability, but it could provide otherwise unavailable info. --Teancum (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * PR-Inside is primary so reliable as a primary source. The rest I have never heard of. Unless someone can make a strong case for their reliability, then they should not be used in GA or FA articles. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

3DJuegos
3DJuegos is a Spanish video game site established in 2005. It was briefly brought up and shot down a few years ago, but it seems as though in that time the site is now a more established presence. A few things in its favor: What do you guys think? --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 21:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Their Alexa ranking in Spain is #197, and they rank higher in a few other countries like Paraguay, Uruguay, and Portugal.
 * A press release put out by the site's advertising partner, Hi-media, refers to the site as "Spain's leading online review specializing in video games."
 * A reference by Kotaku, which was in turn referenced by TechCrunch.
 * A mention by the Spanish Official PlayStation Blog (the line is, roughly Google translated, "You have no doubt read reviews in trade publications such as Vandal, Meristation, or 3DJuegos").
 * As far as editorial policies, that's been a little tricky to find. That press release I reference a few points up states that 3DJuegos was "launched by a group of journalists and professionals specializing in the sector", but I haven't been able to find a list of editors or an editor-in-chief. They do offer an email address through which you can contact the editors, however.
 * Also, I don't know if this counts in their favor or not, but they are on Metacritic, which is how I found them.
 * We had a discussion at WP:Anime about Animetric which had equivalent credientials (ie, was referenced by official media, seemed to be high on the rankings, had some editorial policies and even a review cited by a unverisity. In the end, only that university review was given any weight at WP:RS/N because the rest were all considered too close to the source to be indpendant and thus wanting to promote stuff (such as the Offical PS2 blog), no clearly defined editorial structure and history to back it up and internet ratings are pointless for reliability.
 * When you add that up, you have a reference from Kotaku which would not stand up at RS/N. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  00:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes sense. Reading the Animetric discussion, I see why links don't count for much if they're being used for promotion. I had always had it in my head that if, say, a developer linked to an interview or review, surely that specific article is reliable, because why would they link to something factually inaccurate?
 * It also doesn't help that I was mostly fishing for links from English-language sources I recognize. WP:VG/S doesn't seem to list any Spanish-language sites already deemed reliable, so there's not much of an anchor there. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 00:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Dragon's Den
Put up a request at WP:RS/N as I realize it would be a marginal reliable source at best. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  02:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Bright Hub
Hey everyone, is Brighthub.com a reliable source? We have an article on them: Bright Hub. I am specifically looking to use this and this. Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've found Bright Hub to be rather terrible source. The writing is often amateurish and the authors "freelance" with no publishing history in reliable sources. (The articles linked above are examples of this.) While Bright Hub claims to offer a "traditional publisher structure" with editors, the results are less than stellar. Like most of these pay-per-article sites, articles by legitimate game journalists are generally okay (per WP:SPS) but I think you'll find that most game journalists avoid publishing on sites like Bright Hub. Just my $0.02. Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

IGN editorials
Currently, IGN is listed as a reliable source. We have at least one user who maintains that because it's listed as reliable, we have no basis to ever exclude any content from that site. However, a current edit dispute at Atari 5200 has brought to light that there are situations in which IGN's articles might not be reliable. For example, this article is part of IGN's series on the "Top 25 Consoles", and it makes a claim that the Atari 5200 was "crushed" under the "technological weight" of its main competitor, the ColecoVision. This statement is only backed up by a cursory glance at the CPU clock speeds of each console, but otherwise makes no attempt to compare the consoles as a whole. Further, the statement is at odds with other sources, such as "Ultimate History of Video Games" (Steven Kent), which state that the Atari 5200's lack of market success had mostly to do with Atari's general lack of interest and funding in the console.

We have several editors, myself included, who believe that the referenced article demonstrates the following:
 * The article is an editorial and should be treated as such;
 * The ranking of this console is based on the opinions of the editors and not necessarily on hard facts;
 * The statement about the competitor's technological superiority are uncorroborated and detract from the source's overall reliability; and
 * The statement appears to have been made without any real research or technical familiarity with either console, but rather as a result of subjective observation (the ColecoVision by and large had much better-looking games that were more culturally relevant than those from Atari at the time, but this was more due to good programming and good licensing deals on Coleco's part than on technological horsepower).

Basically, what it boils down to is that I think there are cases in which articles like this one cannot and should not be considered reliable when dealing with statements of fact. To be clear, I think IGN is absolutely a reliable source for things like game release dates, review score aggregations, written game reviews, and other cases in which it's clear that we're quoting someone's opinion (for example, someone in the Top 25 said he actually liked the Atari 5200 - no problem with quoting that person if the quote is appropriate in context). But this is not the first time I've seen IGN post an opinion piece in which they made some factual claim that conflicted with other published sources on the subject. It shows that, despite their editorial oversight, people at IGN do tend to get things wrong at times.

In my opinion, we should treat statistics from IGN (release dates, publishers, credits, review scores and aggregates) as reliable, we should treat their written "hands-on" reviews of games and systems as reliable in appropriate sections, and we should treat more general editorial articles such as "Our Top 25 Something" with a grain of salt - if we are going to cite them, we SHOULD question whether the information presented is accurate and note any discrepancies. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the author of the IGN editorial a staff member? If so (and thus likely meaning that it was editorially reviewed) we do have to beg the question that it is his opinion on the matter if not a technically accurate state.  But in that specific case, that is where UNDUE comes into play. If you have several other sources listing the 5200 as the technically superior console, and only this one source claiming otherwise, it's clearly a fringe viewpoint and we shouldn't give it much weight, particularly if you are talking about the technical capabilities, and not so much the opinion of the console itself. --M ASEM  (t) 21:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, in the case of this debate, the article was being read to say "The ColecoVision was more powerful and THAT was the SOLE reason the Atari 5200 didn't do well in the market." That point was argued vociferously and at one point to the exclusion of the possibility of other factors contributing to its demise.  The point in the WP article where the IGN source was cited deals with the 5200's lack of success in the marketplace, so comparison with other consoles CAN be relevant and even important.  But IGN is the only source I'm aware of that tries to make a statement either way on one console being superior to the other - the other sources I've seen on the subject really don't say anything on this, but rather attribute the 5200's demise to numerous other factors not related to tech power.  So frankly, I'd question the relevance of this article for the section where it was being used.


 * For what it's worth, the editorial WAS written by IGN's editorial staff: "While it may seem like a simple task on paper, sifting through 37+ years of console history for the best and brightest, while getting IGN's editorial staff to agree on one comprehensive list was an undertaking for the ages." So we can assume that, yes, it had editorial oversight.  But I question whether that means we should automatically accept everything they say there - I certainly dispute the claim that the ColecoVision was technologically superior in fact, though I will happily agree that it SEEMED to be simply because its games looked and played better than those on the 5200, especially where there were ports of the same game on both consoles. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In my experience even reliable sources guilty of a little WP:SYNTH now and then, simply because of opinion. In this case he's taking the quote out of context, as it's clearly meant to be the author's opinion. If that's how it's written in the article that's permissible, but to present it as cold, hard fact isn't. --Teancum (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have sources that state other reasons (fact or reliable-source opinion) of why the 5200 failed in the market, then the IGN source stating the "only" reason is wrong. Include the other reliable sources, and you can still add that IGN piece, but attribute it as a opinion statement than fact. --M ASEM  (t) 22:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @Masem: That's basically what I've spent most of my energy in the edit dispute trying to accomplish. To be fair, the IGN piece merely implies that tech power was the only factor, but doesn't actually say that.  It implies this mainly by omitting the other factors, which basically make it look poorly-researched more than anything else.  I agree that it may be indicative of wider perception about the ColecoVision's "superiority", but as I said I haven't seen another source that shares that opinion, at least expressed in that way.  The current version of the WP article does include citations from UHVG as well as the IGN article and attempts to make explicit the editorial nature of IGN's citation, but I'm not completely satisfied with the way it's worded at the moment.


 * Back to my original point, though: User:ButOnMethItIs has been arguing, in effect, that because IGN is marked as "reliable", we should trust everything they say and we are not in a position to ever question it as Wikipedia editors. If we do want to question IGN's reliability, this would be the place to do it, which is why I brought it up here.  Personally, I think he's misinterpreting the "rules" around dealing with content from sources, and that it's just common sense to not just blindly translate an editorial statement in a source to a statement of fact in a WP article.  But for whatever reason, I have had a VERY difficult time getting other editors to understand what I'm trying to say. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, that's now probably part of the crux of the current WT:V massive RFC on the "verifyability, not truth" aspect. We need to be aware just because a source, known to be an RS, printed something, does not make it a true fact (the only fact is, the RS printed that statement).  Common sense, other sources, consensus, and the like can all say when a published statement is wrong, inappropriate, or misrepresents the non-opinion-based truth, and ergo this is a case where we would simply ignore one possibly-mistaken statement from a normally reliable source in favor of consistency with all other sources out there. --M ASEM  (t) 22:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily inconsistent with the other sources. Not only that, there's not much in the way of other sources. That's why I think this matter hinges on the reliability of IGN. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To Meth's point, the main problem with this is that, as he pointed out, there aren't any sources (that I'm aware of) that directly contradict what IGN is saying. Since we have a lack of sources, our only way to disprove something IGN says is to, essentially, do original research and synthesis by comparing the published capabilities of each console ourselves.  Our policies pretty much restrict us from doing that, so we have to either make a decision to distrust the singular source, or we have to figure out how to include its possibly-incorrect information in a way that doesn't cause bias or factual inconsistency in our article. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You keep using the word fact, but all that needs to be said is "X has been attributed to Y by IGN". ButOnMethItIs (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In general, I personally dislike WP article statements in the form "(A person at) [site] said X" (eg. "IGN states that the 5200 was 'crushed'..."), at least when not dealing with direct reviews (like quoting Roger Ebert for a movie). That's why I tried to be a bit more general with "market analysts", since it is true that the editorial staff at IGN consists of multiple people whose jobs are to analyze the market.  But I suppose if IGN really IS the only place that says this, we have two options: Discount it as a fringe opinion, or include it as specifically "IGN said...", which I would then question the relevance of for that section.
 * For what it's worth, I actually emailed the editorial staff about that article and asked them to look over it again, pointing them to the sections of UHVG and the technical analysis of both consoles as reasons why their statements may be wrong and misleading. Ultimately it'll be up to them to decide whether to change anything, and I don't expect them to change their overall ranking of the 5200 in their list (don't think they should, personally).  But perhaps they might take a closer look and realize they made an oops. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with providing direct attribution in the text, whether it's for subjective opinion or for a "fact" which is not widely published/common knowledge. You might "personally dislike" it, but it's commonly done in any kind of non-fiction, scholarly book. I agree with OnMethItIs that this should be pretty simple. If it's reasonably questionable, providing direct attribution is common sense enough. If it is a fringe opinion, provide all the countervailing sources which prove it is so? bridies (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the issue raised is it may be so FRINGE there may not be any counter arguments out there, ie everyone lets the stats speak for themselves rather than justifying the opinion/theory with any commentary. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  06:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds a little bit like KieferSkunk's the-sky-is-blue analogy (see the relevant talk page)... I don't think any comparison between old console specs could be considered "obvious" and that the lack of research mainly reflects the obscurity of the topic, in which case we go with what's available. As an aside, Masem brought up the not-truth RfC, and I think KieferSkunk, Indrian et al could have a stronger position depending on the eventual outcome of that RfC, but it's still pending. bridies (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking back on it, I think we might be beating a dead horse at this point. The original dispute was whether we should regard IGN as a reliable source for a factual statement when the citation is from an editorial. However, I think we're getting traction on a reword of the statement that makes it clear this is an editorial statement, and then there is absolutely no question that the prose reflects what IGN said, regardless of whether they're right or not. I still have my reservations about "IGN said" as part of the section, since the actual cause of a system's demise should be a matter of historical fact and not something that has to be debated. But nonetheless it is a debate, so including IGN's opinion is probably appropriate when stated as such. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

TheMushroomKingdom.net
How reliable would you guys consider this site? Of course, being a fan site (thus not neutral nor disinterested), they are worth nothing in trying to establish notability, but for referencing facts in an otherwise notable article, would it pass inspection? It seems very extensive (and I mean VERY, covering nearly every single aspect of the franchise), and I don't see a way to submit data at first glance, so I am unsure how much of the content is "public-submitted". They house a wealth of information that is nearly staggering, but as I've said... I'd like an second opinion. --Salvidrim! T·C 15:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They've been mentioned or their content used by: 1UP.com, CNET, the Official Nintendo Magazine, Game Informer, N-Sider.com and in a handful of books (as seen here)... seems to indicate some reliability, at least. --Salvidrim!  T·C 15:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The last page doesn't seem to support the link (from what I saw), but it seems they could be reliable for their non-opinion info as that seems to be what's cited. They should be used with caution though just like ChronoCompedium. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  00:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking it was very akin to the FF Compendium, as a factual source about the games they cover. I would like to see it added to the situational sources, if at all possible.  --Salvidrim!  T·C 00:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Though I've not used it as a source here, I occasionally use it for information when I'm playing the games themselves; I can attest to the fact that the site is generally quite accurate. Emmy   Altava  23:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is no other objections, I'll add it as a situational factual source about Mario games.  Salvidrim!   00:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Nintendojo for Reviews
Is there any reason that would make it non-RS? Salvidrim!  00:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A bit more background (from ):

If no objections are raised I'll add it to situational for reviews  Salvidrim!   00:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Founded by Peer Schneider, now high-ranking exec of IGN
 * No user-generated content, all reviews are written by professional in-house staff
 * There appears to be clear editorial oversight, see the staff list

Defunct Games as a situational source?
http://www.defunctgames.com/whatisdgc.php

I feel like it could be a good situational source, to be used kind of like Siliconera, in a, "use it if the info can't be found elsewhere" type way. Been around for over 10 years, has a staff of writers, and seems to be a good source of information for articles from games from the 90's, which don't always have a ton of information available on the internet.

Thoughts? Sergecross73  msg me   04:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Found and Editor in Chief Cyril Lachel is also Senior Staff Writer at Gaming Nexus (discussed here previously).  Salvidrim!   04:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Massively.com - Joystiq
(Excerpt from: Archive 2) There are a handful of MMO sites I'd like to discuss: ...
 * http://www.massively.com/ - quite extensive, with some good writeups and interviews. Appears to be part of the GameDaily/AOL family, which has a tick on our list, but can't see any "about" or "staff list" page to check their editorial process.

Thoughts appreciated. Marasmusine (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch Mmohut/hub articles, I don't see any way they can fly. Massively is apparently a sister site of Joystiq, etc, and appears to be a blog, which means it probably falls under the "don't use it unless the author meets WP:SPS" grey area along with Kotaku. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * About page and staff list for Massively are here, with editorial process Rescendent (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Joystiq is listed as situational at WP:VG/S, 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.  Salvidrim!   10:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I tire of the "it's a blog, so it's automatically situational". The blog is simply the publishing medium. Besides, the Joystiq/AOL network is leaps and bounds more reliable than Kotaku, which often has factual and grammatical errors they don't fix until a post gets flooded with comments indicating what's wrong. Yet here we are a again calling this a WP:SPS when it should be treated as a WP:NEWSBLOG. --Teancum (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games with reference to Articles for deletion/Illyriad
 * Teancum: Take that up at WT:RS then, not here. We cannot trump that guideline. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  17:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the policy, I'm saying it's a newsblog, not a self published source. --Teancum (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If by that you mean its just spouting out press release info, that's fine to cite. If by that you mean something more, then you either need to show a commitment to strong editorial oversight and fact-checking by the parent company  or try to change policy. News blogs existing as themselves wholely independent of an established news organization being RSes would require a change in policy. As Joystiq isn't considered to be such a company. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  18:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking deeper while Massively is a subdomain and affiliated with Joystiq, its parent company would be Weblogs, Inc. not Joystiq. Also on their info pages: "We pride ourselves on upholding a strict set of journalistic values. We don't accept stipends or travel expenses, and we don't do score-based reviews." and "Massively contributors are divided into three groups: Lead Editors, who coordinate the writers; Contributing Editors, who submit news posts on a daily basis; and Columnists, who post on their specific areas of expertise on a weekly basis. We're all under contract through Weblogs, Inc., which is part of AOL. All of our writers are paid for their work. We cannot and do not accept unpaid or volunteer work." Joystiq itself does not provide similar info and has a different staff - should they be considered under the same banner? Rescendent (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for Massively, given their editorial process and the network it lies in. The fact that it's a blog is simply the method they use to distribute their media. --Teancum (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for Massively as WP:RS for reason stated above e.g. like Joystiq and Kotaku, however with stronger stated Journalistic process. (Disclosure: I am creator of article Articles_for_deletion/Illyriad where this question of WP:RS has arisen), however as a Genre-specific source for MMOs not as a General source. Rescendent (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Massively, Oppose Joystiq. The editorial standards do not nessasarily transfer to daughter/sister sites/companies. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  20:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Also see WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Rescendent (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

NinDB
I see no existing discussion, so I thought I'd start one for the sake of consensus.

The site: www.nindb.net

Created 10+ years ago (June 28, 2001) by Mark Kelly (who was/is a correspondent for NintendoWorldReport, which is a RS), self-described as "an ever-growing archive of information on every game developed and published by Nintendo, from their classic arcade games up to the Nintendo DS and Wii."

Useful because it has information about old obscure/Japan-only games, such as those on the Famicom Disk System, Satellaview & Nintendo Power (cartridge), information which may be hard or impossible to cite from elsewhere.

What are your thoughts? Salvidrim!  20:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comprehensive, seems up to date, active and active forum. I don't really have any experience of Nintendo reportage to give a RS opinion on it though. Rescendent (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Demoting Kotaku
Lately they've been doing really terrible in their copy editing, and even worse have to go back and make corrections, but not until after several comments from their readers. It's usually several hours before they make fixes, whereas other sites are quite quick about fixing. It's errors like this that have become extremely common in the last 3-4 months. It's literally seven or eight minor to major errors each week that happen. Despite the big names they clearly aren't practicing editorial oversight. --Teancum (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Individual authors could still be reliable (as opinion pieces).  Salvidrim!   22:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll go with that, so long as that author isn't one of those who falls into this trap. Stephen Tolito, who used to be great about being reliable, has recently had problems along with their influx of new writers. --Teancum (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, given that a lot of editors still question them at FAC, this will become increasingly difficult to defend as a blanket RS if that level of prose continues. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  20:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This may or may not be relevant - "Popular gaming news blog Kotaku is parting ways with two of its top men, editorial director Joel Johnson and editor-in-chief Brian Crecente, leaving Stephen Totilo to take over the Gawker Media network site." Gamasutra:Consumer gaming blog Kotaku loses key staff Rescendent (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and those two were two of the strongest. Tolito is now in charge and he's got a bad habit of incorrect facts or terrible copy editing himself. --Teancum (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Giant Bomb for Reviews Template?
I'd like to reopen discussion about adding Giant Bomb as a default reviewer on the reviews template. I know it's been shot down before, but the site has definitely evolved and grown since it has been discussed previously, and while there is a significant amount of user content on the site (a concern that has been raised previously), the staff reviews are clearly split out from the user reviews. There are plenty of other sites that feature user reviews just as prominently that are already included. --fuzzy510 (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:VG/S says "Reliable for reviews and news content submitted in the site's blog by the site's own editorial staff." Some of the default reviews are of an even less-defined reliability, I support the addition of GiantBomb to the {VG Reviews} template.   Salvidrim!   06:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the number of past journalistic talent now at GB, it makes sense to include them as a reliable review. It should be noted that because the site hosts both the editorial staff review and user reviews, editors need to make sure only the editorial ones are included here. --M ASEM  (t) 20:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I could say everything other said, but honestly they've covered thins sufficiently. --Teancum (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - as long as there is an easy way for someone to tell staff reviews from user reviews. Unlike SEMO, this is a huge site that might not list all staff members at a given time. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  20:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Any staff review is under a tab labeled "Giant Bomb Review" on the game's reviews page. Any user review is under a tab labeled "User Reviews" on that page.  There's no confusion whatsoever. --fuzzy510 (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We know there's a difference. What I suspect may happen is that a novice editor, seeing that we have a "Giant Bomb" field, will mistakenly use any URL with a "giantbomb.com" address for a review, but the URL alone (I believe) doesn't distinguish between a staff and user review. This is just a caution to be made for the template instructions. --M ASEM (t) 23:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Vox Games
If you've been watching the news, you know that Joystiq and Kotaku have had significant shifts in staff over the last few weeks. This morning they just announced that nearly all these people (Chris Grant, both McElroys, Brian Crerente, a handful of others) are going to start a new gaming site for Vox Media, tentatively titled "Vox Games" (that could change). 

It is not 100% active yet, but I'm going to argue that based on the caliber of the staff for it, this should likely be considered a reliable source once they are up and running. We certainly can take a wait-and-see approach, but I don't think this will be much of an issue here. --M ASEM (t) 14:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

PALGN
Same as the post above. It looks like the whole PALGN editorial team have left/are set to leave, following a dispute with the owners over the future direction of the site. . Seeing as how its an OK source,and more importantly, a source with an Australian/New Zealand angle, it may be worthwhile keeping an eye on it for developments and to check if they keep the standards high enough. - X201 (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

RS Opinion sought
Repost from WP:VG talk :)

Saw a site I didn't recognize used as a source today on the World of Warcraft article, geek.pikimal.com. Anyone have thoughts on whether this is a reliable source? I only see it used in about 5-6 other articles. -- ferret (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In light of the About and Staff pages, I would recommend going with WP:SPS, which is to say, establish the individual writer's reliability, rather than a site-wide judgement.  Salvidrim!   05:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Arcade History
The site Arcade History, or arcade-history.com, contains a large database of information on arcade games, comparable to the Killer List of Videogames site. I was wondering if anyone here can check if it's a reliable source to use on Wikipedia? Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The only available info says it is maintained by "Alexis Bousiges", some guy who lives in France -- a quick search reveals no particular expertise or reliability can be established...  Salvidrim!   09:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hookshot Inc.
Hookshot Inc - site dedicated to covering downloadable games under $15. The four primary contributors are established names in game journalism. I would argue from their caliber that this can be presumed to be an RS (particularly as they tend towards more opinion pieces than factual ones). --M ASEM (t) 14:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If the entire staff individually qualify for reliability, obviously that would imply what they write should be considered as such too.  Salvidrim!   14:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This one is an open and shut case. All are industry stalwarts who have been around for years at reliable publications, and are individually reliable as well. - X201 (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅  Salvidrim!   16:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Kotaku East
Just got announced. Coverage of VGs from Japan, etc. I have a feeling a lot of editors will be appreciative of this. Probably should see how it works out to determine if it is RS, but if we are taking Kotaku in general as such... --M ASEM (t) 15:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There was actually talk about demoting Kotaku in the previous archive so I am not sure how useful that would be.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support - this team/spinoff ended up being rolled into the standard Kotaku staff and site. --Teancum (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Penny Arcade Report
A new venture started by the PA team about 2 weeks ago. Senior editor is Ben Kuchera, who left Ars Technica to help with this. Right now they are mostly editorial pieces by Kuchera with highlighted news from offsite. Given Kuchera's background, I would say this should be taken as a reliable source. --M ASEM (t) 13:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, based on Kuchera as senior editor. -- ferret (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong, Strong Support. The Internet doesn't get more reliable than Ars Technica and their writers.   Salvidrim!   17:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as well. No need to restate the already stated reasons. --Teancum (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Tales of the Rampant Coyote
This site is used in a couple of artcles, but I wanted to check here first before using it myself. SharkD  Talk  01:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is described as the blog of a single person with editorial oversight, Jay Barnson. He seems to be somewhat established in the indie game community, and has worked for a few major studios. However... I'd like a few more opinions.   Salvidrim!   19:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see the same as Salvidrim. Rampant Coyote is Jay Barnson. Barnson's been involved with numerous games (over 10 games including big-name series like the Jet Moto games) primarily as a software programmer. He seems to have participated in the 1996 Computer Game Developers Conference and is a member of the GarageGames Community. He's been cited in the RS sphere in places like PC Gamer (Volume 14), in books like this, and academic papers like this (PDF format) from Pennsylvania State University. He's also been mentioned by Gamasutra and Rockpapershotgun - both of which go more to WP:N than WP:RS though... I think that if not an outright RS the site is at least of situational reliability for indie game topics. -Thibbs (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Seconding Thibbs. If not Reliable then at least Situational. This is an established industry vet that has been cited often by publications. Usable especially as a primary source if nothing else. (If I remember right I used his work on the Jet Moto articles). --Teancum (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Situational or Reliable?
I've recently been trying to go through the Checklist here at WP:VG/RS to concretely nail down WP:VG's stance on the usability of the listed sources in order to enhance clarity. In my experience, one of the aspects that newcomers find particularly irritating is when they are trying to find sources to support a challenged article and they are met with either no guidance at VG/RS or with conflicting guidance. With this in mind I'd like to start a series of threads concerning areas of particular concern.

First of all, there are a number of sources listed as "Situational Sources" in one part of VG/RS and as "Reliable Sources" in another. I'd like to get some clarity from editors here as to what the fact of the matter is. In particular, the following sources need to be addressed My personal view is that in the absence of a solid opinion on the matter, we should err on the side of caution and use the lesser determination (i.e. situational) without prejudice to later upgrading the source. Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nintendo Life - listed as Reliable for Platform-Specific topics but listed as Situational in the Checklist
 * Gamespot - listed as Situational in the table, but listed as Reliable in the Checklist
 * Game Ranking - listed as Situational in the table, but listed as Reliable in the Checklist
 * Adrenaline Vault - listed as Situational in the table, but listed as Reliable in the Checklist
 * Set them to situational. We had previously had discussions on these but apparently they were only changed in one spot. I don't agree with the demotion of GameSpot and GameRankings, but majority ruled. --Teancum (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll also add this to the discussion: Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * DieHard GameFan - listed as Reliable in the table under Defunct, but listed as Unreliable in the Checklist.
 * NintendoLife has lengthy discussions and an agreement was reached that is was reliable, but only for Nintendo topics, hence the lack of an all-encompassing "green checkmark". Platform- and genre-specific have the yellow mark in the checklist and are in the reliable tables.
 * Gamespot is tagged with a yellow checkmark in the checklist because only opinion pieces are reliable; however, the reliability of those is well-established by consensus, which is explained in the table. Thus, yellow mark in the list; reliable in the tables.
 * GameRankings same rationales as above; unreliable for factual info about the games, reliable for aggregated reviews; yellow mark in the checklist and reliable (with note) in the table.
 * Please make sure that whatever changes you've made reflect these :)  Salvidrim!   00:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm.. OK I think I understand better now regarding NintendoLife. I guess this makes me question the whole layout though. What's the difference between a General RS with associated limitations under the "notes and limitations" column and a Situational Source? Is it basically just a matter of degree - i.e. the General RSes tend to have few and minor limitations whereas the Situational Sources tend to have many and/or major limitations? I'd be more in favor of a scheme that didn't require so much systemic subjectivity.

The Gamespot and GameRankings categorization seems to have been screwed up prior to my involvement, though. See before (Gamespot and GameRankings listed in table as situational, but in checklist as reliable) and after (Gamespot and Gamerankings listed in table as situational, and in checklist as situational) -Thibbs (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Gotcha on these two; please just make sure NintendoLife is also brought back to its correct table.  Salvidrim!   02:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OK well I've restored NintendoLife to the RS tables for "Platform-specific" for now, but can you link the discussions that originally led to its placement there? The three discussions that are currently listed next to its entry in the checklist are quite brief and in my view the consensus that emerges in those is really more supportive of its use as a situational source for dates only. It seems wrong to put the "situational source" icon next to its name in the checklist and yet list it among the RSes up top in the table. If the only actual limitation on its use is one that is self-imposed because it is a platform specific source then I say we should give it the green checkmark in the checklist. If some parts of the site cannot be used because it is unreliable, however, then I say we shift it back to the "Situational Sources" table. Does that make sense? -Thibbs (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering it is reliable for Nintendo-topics and only covers Nintendo, that's indicate the site's reliable period. Go for platform-specific reliability & green checkmark. :)  Salvidrim!   12:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I've made the change. -Thibbs (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Gameological Society
A.V. Club has spun off a video games-related part of their site, called The Gameological Society. John Teti (who previously was with Eurogamer) is the editor of the site, so he has experience there. As many TV, movie, and music works use AV Club as reliable sourcing, I would argue that also extends to this new site too. --M ASEM (t) 15:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, and there hasn't been any opposition to the AV Club as listed above, so I would think this would be okay as well. Sergecross73   msg me   16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll echo Sergecross73 here. A.V. Club seems to be reliable, and Teti seems to have the credentials so Gameological looks good to me too. For reference, on their "about page" (here), they self-describe as a partner site to the Onion A.V. Club and a "member of the Onion family" with "similar editorial direction and tone" and sharing "a bunch of support staff." They are editorially independent and do not accept outside reviews. So yeah, sounds good. -Thibbs (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable Concur with the statements above. Someoneanother 20:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Custom Google Search Engine for RSes
The frontpage of WP:VG/RS recently stated: This language was inserted by Jinnai in this edit and subsequently modified by recently inactive User:207.67.51.182 in this edit. A number of people have been contacting User:Gwern to ask for clarification on and help with the CSE, but here we see that Gwern disclaims ownership of the CSE. For this reason I've removed Gwern's name from the page.
 * "You can also use Gwern's Google RS, a custom Google search engine focusing on the..."

Unfortunately that leaves nowhere to go for requests that the CSE be updated with recently accepted or upgraded/promoted RSes. So what's the best next step? It's quite possible that 207.67.51.182 is really a Wikipedia regular that just forgot to sign in so one option is that someone acknowledges ownership of the CSE in order to serve as the go-to person for help updating the CSE. Another option is for a regular to create another largely identical CSE. I have actually already done that for my own purposes and if nobody claims ownership of the current CSE then I could link that here instead and take responsibility for running it. Does anyone have any opinions? -Thibbs (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we make a new one?  Salvidrim!   00:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd made some for my own purposes that we could use.
 * http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=003516479746865699832:leawcwkqifq - CSE for General RSes
 * http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=003516479746865699832:qdq1uk9p1ua - CSE for Situational Sources
 * These are up to date with the current tables and the checklist. -Thibbs (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've lodged a Whitelist request.  Salvidrim!   12:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers. And I'll swap NintendoLife into the CSE per the above then. -Thibbs (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Was there ever a conclusion on this? Are those links de-blacklisted now? I ask because I've actually managed to track down the owner of the original CSE based on a second link lower in the page. It turns out that the current CSE that is listed is maintained by User:Odie5533 (see this edit for proof), and he is still semi-regularly editing. The current RS CSE searches the following websites: Clearly this needs to be updated so that we cut out the non-reliable sources and add the many additional reliable sources. But there's little point if the CSEs listed above are de-blacklisted now. So before I write to Odie5533 asking him to update the CSE, does anyone know the status of the links I posted above? -Thibbs (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * n4g.com - currently listed as NOT RELIABLE at WP:VG/S
 * atarimagazines.com - currently not listed at WP:VG/S
 * kotaku.com - currently listed as RELIABLE at WP:VG/S
 * joystiq.com - currently listed as SITUATIONAL at WP:VG/S
 * toptenreviews.com - currently listed as NOT RELIABLE at WP:VG/S


 * Ah OK. I tracked it down on the whitelist page (never knew such a thing existed frankly). I've added them now. -Thibbs (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually didn't know anything about a blacklist until I was prevented from posting the links! :)  Salvidrim!   20:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Several matured discussions needing closure
I've gone through roughly a third of the sources on the Checklist and tried to link as many relevant discussions as possible to help resolve whether or not any consensus can be determined from them and/or whether we can now make a final determination as to their reliability. I'll limit myself to presenting only those sources that have provoked the greatest amount of discussion without reaching a conclusion. If you have any opinions on these sources, please weigh in at the appropriate subsection(s) below. -Thibbs (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I've finished linking the second third of the list as well now and once again there are a number of repeatedly discussed topics that have not yet been resolved so I'm presenting those below as well. So far three people have weighted in on one or more of the 10 sources and I commend them for this. Proper (reliable) sourcing is the bedrock foundation of Wikipedia and without it neither inclusion (proved via WP:N) nor retention (proved via WP:V) are justifiable according to Wikipedia's policies. Given the relative youth of the field of video game criticism and journalism, sourcing for video games according to traditional yardsticks of reliability may be difficult to uncover without jeopardizing the in-depth coverage of the the medium that WP:VG has espoused as one of its four "purposes and goals". For this reason WP:VG has taken upon itself the task of determining reliable sourcing as a matter of project-wide consensus in order to produce an adequate number of sources. Without discussion, of course, consensus is impossible... So again, a big thanks to those of you who are participating. -Thibbs (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC) To slightly clarify what I wrote above, the encyclopedia-wide rules regarding reliable sourcing (WP:RS) are certainly in full effect here too, but in determining VG-specific RSes, factors such as participation in notable events and conventions, work within the industry, and publication age relative to comparable industry ages, etc. all present additional considerations that the WP:VG community would be best at estimating. The blog of a notable programmer who has attended E3 for the last 16 years may be of considerably more reliability on the topic of video games than the blog of a novelist who has attended the most recent 16 Iowa Writers' Workshops would be on the topic of literature. This specialized RS determination is best accomplished by WP:VG members and is indeed essential to the project's stated Purposes and Goals. -Thibbs (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Finished. I've now gone through and linked up all 1107 of the sources listed in the checklist and I'm now presenting the final cluster of 11 commonly-discussed sources. I'm hoping that this will provide a solid basis for us to move forward with finally determining the reliability of the 28 sources (just over 3% of the total non-consensus sources) that have been the most commonly discussed. Thanks to all 6 editors that have now given some input on these reviews of the prior consensus. It seems that for the most part I've been able to properly identify the consensus and there seems to be no change in most cases. So this makes me confident enough to suggest that when time comes to close these discussions, most of them will be non-controversial promotions/demotions. There are still a few determinations of consensus that have not been reviewed, though. So even if someone has no opinions to share regarding the reliability based on the evidence, please at least review my conclusion regarding prior or emergent consensus. I'm hoping that with a final push we'll be able to get them all covered. Thanks again for bearing with me as we go through this unexciting but important process. -Thibbs (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

About.com
About.com is owned by the New York Times Company and basically seems to be a more exclusive version of Wikipedia. Writership is limited and to create an article you have to submit a writing sample that must be reviewed by other editors. Higher level editors are expected to be published writers. Contributors to about.com seem to all have bios which are viewable from the about.com article and the contributors seem to range between hardcore fans of the topic to respected experts in their field. The site's "about page" is located here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In 2007 Blueboar argued that it was NOT RELIABLE because it failed to explain the "standard of accuracy or verifiability imposed on the individual writers"
 * 2 - The June 2008 Wikipedia Signpost dispatch warned editors to question citations to About.com "unless the author is an established expert independently published in the field".
 * 3 - In July 2008, 8 editors discussed the site in depth eventually reaching the conclusion that the expertise of the individual author of the particular article was the most important factor in determining whether the author could be considered an SPS. It was also generally agreed that in most cases better sourcing could be located for sources than About.com.
 * 4 - In October 2008, SandyGeorgia argued that the reliability of the site's articles rested on the reliability of the individual authors with reliable authors meeting WP:SPS and unreliable authors producing unreliable material.
 * 5 - In December 2008, Squidfryerchef argued that about.com authors were RELIABLE regarding opinions.
 * 6 - In January 2009, 7 editors generally agreed that About.com was UNRELIABLE for contentious points related to a BLP.
 * 7 - In August 2009, Blueboar argued that the site was generally RELIABLE unless the material mirrored Wikipedia, but Dlabtot expressed concern that the site didn't "seem to have a consistent editorial standard".
 * 8 - In March 2010, 5 editors reached the conclusion that the site was RELIABLE for articles created subsequent to 2005 (which is when NYT took ownership). Jinnai indicated that WP:ANIME considers articles authored by the lead writers to be reliable.
 * 9 - In October 2010, 4 editors discussed whether About.com could ever meet FA standards. The conclusion was that About.com was a weak source but it could possibly be used in a FA if the author was reliable and if no better source could be located.
 * 10 - In September 2011, 5 editors generally agreed that the reliability of About.com as a whole was hit-or-miss but that depending on the writer and the sources any individual article could be reliable.
 * 11 - In September 2011, 5 editors generally agreed that About.com was not usable to demonstrate Notability and that it was UNRELIABLE for topics meeting WP:FRINGE.
 * 12 - In December 2011, Crisco 1492 expressed concern regarding the use of the text of an About.com language lesson to bolster claims based on the informational content of the text.

All in all I'd say this looks like a good example of a situational source for post-2005 content depending on the reliability of the individual author, and specifically barring its use for fringe theories and BLPs. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Situational Check the author, basically. I used this source quite happily because of the writer's bio. Someoneanother 11:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not reliable Anyone can become an About.com editor, there's little upstream checking. I think the site's generally cautioned across the board for WP. --M ASEM  (t) 12:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What about D.S. Cohen (linked above)? I've just found another of his articles which I'd like to use as a cite and you've got me worried. Someoneanother 11:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Digital Spy
Digital Spy is owned by the Hearst Corporation UK. They claim to be the UK's largest entertainment news website and the site has won a WebUser gold award for its coverage of the Big Brother TV show. Some of the staff such as David Moynihan appear to be established, but otherwise the site basically seems to be a gossip-oriented eZine. The site's "about page" is located here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In May 2009, R2 argued that Digital Spy is NOT RELIABLE for music reviews.
 * 2 - DJ expresses concern with the balance of sources at WP:BIGBRO where >50% of the sourcing comes from Digital Spy. Squidfryerchef suggests that the site is SEMI-RELIABLE and acceptable to source noncontroversial facts in GA-class articles.
 * 3 - In October 2009, Leaky Caldron argued that Digital Spy was RELIABLE but only for reality TV topics.
 * 4 - In February 2010, 3 editors discussed the site variously concluding that the source was an RS, that it was unreliable for facts and thus only usable for opinion, and that it was unreliable for music topics.
 * 5 - In April 2010, A Quest For Knowledge argued that it was RELIABLE except for BLP matters.
 * 6 - In a March 2011 discussion, Drmargi suggested that Digital Spy is "widely accepted as reliable".
 * 7 - In April 2011, 8 editors discussed Digital Spy eventually concluding that like several other tabloids it was RELIABLE. The context of the discussion was to provide sources for the Dr Who TV show.
 * 8 - In an associated Dr Who AfD, 88.104.40.103 expressed doubts about the source and SilverserenC argued that the source was reliable.

For WP:VG's purposes I'd say that this source looks unreliable or situational at best. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reliable based on other entertainment forms use it as well. But with the understanding that DS rarely covers video games, and often are on the leading edge of rumors (though to be fair, they almost always back up their claims with some idea of a source, even if unnamed). --M ASEM (t) 12:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable based on Masem's rationale --Teancum (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The A.V. Club
The A.V. Club is owned by the humor newspaper, The Onion. Unlike the paper's humorous "fake news" portions, however, the A.V. Club claims to produce legitimate and serious material including "interviews... reviews of the latest films, music, books, DVDs, and videogames ... and probing investigations into aspects of pop culture" The website features broad coverage of these topics and local papers cover local topics. The A.V. Club staff have produced a number of serious books on pop culture topics, and their interviews tend to cover important pop culture personalities. The site's "about page" is located here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In March 2008, Metropolitan90 argued that the site was RELIABLE for pop culture subjects.
 * 2 - In November 2010, 4 editors discussed sex writer, Dan Savage (whose column, "Savage Love") is published by the A.V. Club. Regarding the A.V. Club in particular, Herostratus expressed concern that the website was not a scholarly or serious journalistic undertaking and was therefore NOT RELIABLE.
 * 3 - In January 2011, Jonathanwallace argued that the site was RELIABLE as a "traditional, edited entertainment weekly with reviews and news reports".
 * 4 - In November 2011, 3 editors discussing a few sources agreed that because the A.V. Club had passed muster for The Simpsons' promotion to FA class, it was RELIABLE.

It looks to me like this source is generally reliable for WP:VG's purposes. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reliable Source - Pretty well established source, used a lot within music/TV articles. The fact it was used in an FA helps too. I support it. Sergecross73   msg me   13:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable - AV Club has editorial staff, but their focus is more on reviews than news. Since they'r respected in their opinion for other entertainment forms, no need to say their VG coverage is inappropriate. --M ASEM  (t) 12:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Cubed3
Cubed3 is an independent Nintendo-focussed review website. They have a small staff (12 people) that seem to be active in the general community and who have been published by different RSes. The site's "about page" is located here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In May 2008, in an unrelated discussion, Wikipedian06 brought up an alleged controversy regarding the fact that Cubed3's staff had previously included a 15-year-old child.
 * 2 - In February 2009, Salavat and じんない agreed that the site was RELIABLE for Nintendo-related coverage, with Salavat uncovering evidence of writer James Temperton's work for IGN and writer Adam Riley's work for GameSpot and quotations in Gamasutra.
 * 3 - In an associated request, Salavat asked for a second opinion on the site's reliability but got no response.
 * 4 - In October 2011, in a discussion of several sources including Cubed3, Odie5533 argued that unless a strong case for its reliability could be made, Cubed3 should not be used for GA or FA articles, however he also admitted to never having heard of the source.

This appears to me to be a situational source for Nintendo topics and possibly also situational depending on the author. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Situational - For Nintendo-related stuff, and depending on author. Mostly per point #2, and the fact that the cases against it are mostly heresay or opinions by people who weren't overly familiar with the website. Sergecross73   msg me   13:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Engadget
Engadget is owned by AOL. It is a technology blog written by a relatively large staff (45 people) some of who are industry insiders and some who have written for publications like Globe & Mail. The site has been noted by Time Magazine as one of the best blogs of 2010, and has won a People's Voice Webby Award for their video show. The site's "about page" is located here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In September 2007, Peregrine Fisher argued that the site was RELIABLE, specifically citing a National Business Review article that gave Engadget high praise for professionalism, quality of content, and reliability.
 * 2 - In January 2009, Jappalang argued that Engadget was notable but NOT RELIABLE, pointing specifically to a source that warned against relying on it.
 * 3 - In an unrelated August 2011 RfC, Arkhandar argued that Engadget is a generally accepted RELIABLE news site.
 * 4 - In December 2011, 4 editors discussed the site and agreed that it is RELIABLE for reviews despite being a blog, but that attribution should be used inline.

To me it seems like for WP:VG's purposes this is a reliable source. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reliable for most purposes.  Salvidrim!   12:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable - I've used it in the past for source hunting at AFD, to editor's approval. I actually already thought it was on the RS list. Definitely reliable/respected/has editorial oversight. Sergecross73   msg me   13:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable - Falls alongside Kotaku in however we treat that. Since Kotaku is now considered reliable, no reason Engadget shouldn't be either. --M ASEM  (t) 12:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly
Entertainment Weekly is published by Time and operates in association with CNN. It purports to cover Hollywood without the emphasis on celebrities that other magazines have. It has a print magazine that ranks among the top 50 US magazines by distribution. The writing staff include some that have had works published in notable audio/video sources like MTV, NPR, and CNN, etc. The site's "about page" is located here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In September 2009, Squidfryerchef argued that Entertainment Weekly is clearly RELIABLE. This was in the context of a discussion regarding the Big Brother reality TV show.
 * 2 - In November 2009, Rocksey argued that Entertainment Weekly is RELIABLE. This was in the context of a discussion regarding the The Vampire Diaries TV show.
 * 3 - In November 2009, 74.12.221.125 argued that Entertainment Weekly provides authoritative film reviews.
 * 4 - In February 2011, as part of a very long and complex discussion regarding the propriety of assuming inherent reliability for print sources, MASEM argued that Entertainment Weekly is a non-academic journal and that its reliability depends on its "editorial oversight and history of fact checking".

I'm not sure what to make of this one. The staff and reputation seems to be reliable, but I'm not sure how much it really has to do with video games so I can see it being listed as situational or even possibly unreliable for WP:VG's purposes. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, you took my statement from that convo way out of context. Needless to say, a long-established entertainment print journal with editorial policy is of course a reliable source.  It doesn't matter if the work itself does not normally cover video games; as long as their stories still go through their normal editorial processes, that's fine.  That's why we encourage any type of mainstream, non-gaming publication among sources. --M ASEM  (t) 12:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I hope I haven't misled anyone as to your stance on the issue, Masem. I did try in good faith to provide a summary of the context above (i.e. "a very long and complex discussion regarding the propriety of assuming inherent reliability for print sources"). Please feel free to modify what I wrote above to more accurately reflect the context. And thanks for bringing it up. -Thibbs (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaygamer.net
Gaygamer.net is owned by FAD Media. The site is an 11-person video game news site. Little information is readily available since the site has no "about page" and the staff all use pseudonyms. The website has conducted interviews with notable people in the industry and at least one of these has been reprinted in part by NintendoWorldReport. VG247 has credited GayGamer and Kotaku has described Gaygamer.net as "the only news gathering gay-gaming site".

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In November 2007, TTN seemed to express some concern that the site did not represent critical reviews.
 * 2 - In June 2008, SharkD asked for input n the site but got no response on that point.
 * 3 - In March 2009, Levi van Tine presented evidence that Gay Gamer writers had been invited to game industry events, however じんない called this claim into question since it originated from GayGamer.
 * 4 - In June 2009, Megata Sanshiro argued that Gay Gamer is an opinion blog and thus is NOT RELIABLE.

Based on the industry reception of this source listed above, I'm inclined to say that this is a situational source limited to homosexual gaming topics. On the other hand whatever consensus there has been on the issue so far seems to weigh more toward a non-reliable determination. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't even know if I'd go that far for it's reliability. Even as a gay Wikipedian, I don't see much of value in this source that couldn't be provided by more reliable gaming sites, especially when the site's main draw seems to be its list of the "Top 20 gayest video game characters", which is half opinion pieces that have truly made me rethink what they mean by 'gay' (as liking the same gender was evidently not a requirement). Aside from that, the first piece of news that actually related to homosexuality was, at time of writing, five pages in. Which is an opinion piece of Mass Effect 3, which hardly had its same-sex relationships unmentioned by other websites. This was the only one I could find in the non-archived pages, going back about a month. If it's not especially useful for gay gaming topics, and has predominately completely topics covered by other websites in general, one wonders why it need be listed at all. For what it's worth, they also ask you to buy stuff from their store (which is an Amazon reflink) and I'm having a hard time finding information on the editors (although it's in part because I can't bring myself to look at this site any longer.) Emmy   Altava  04:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not Reliable - based on past precedent an that it's unlikely that a homosexual-related article of any merit not be covered from other outlets. --Teancum (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

FileFactory Games / Gameworld Network
The FileFactory aspect of this source seems to be a file-sharing service with no journalistic staff. The Gameworld Newtwork, however has a staff of 30 writers who produce reviews, previews, and special event coverage. Some of the writers' work has appeared in such publications as Atari Explorer and The Phoenix Gazette, and some of them apparently have worked in the industry on indie games. The site's "about page" is located here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In January 2008, ReyBrujo indirectly brought up Gameworld Network as an example of a RELIABLE source in a discussion of whether an unrealiable source could be used if quoted by a reliable one.
 * 2 - In March 2009, Levi van Tine emailed the site to ask for information relating to their reliability as a source, but there was no follow-up at Wikipedia whether the site wrote back and what they said if they did write.
 * 3 - In May 2009, Kung Fu Man argued that Gameworld Network was RELIABLE because it is under the ownership of UGO.com which also owns 1UP.com.

Not sure what to make of this one. Despite the claims, I couldn't find any quick evidence that the site is controlled by UGO.com. At best I think this site is situational based on the credentials of the individual writer. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Save it for the next round The site is offline for a few weeks - maintainence. Would it be acceptable to just put it aside? Someoneanother 11:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Gamer.nl
Gamer.nl is a Dutch gaming news website owned by Sanoma Media - a leading publishing group in Northern Europe. According to the website, it is one of the Netherlands' oldest and largest gaming website. The site's "about page" is located here and seems to express the site's extensive commitment to quality and sound journalism.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In May 2009, Kung Fu Man argued that the site appeared RELIABLE based on its RS ownership as well as a book citation that he uncovered.
 * 2 - In October 2011, Odie5533 argued that the site appeared RELIABLE, noting that EuroGamer had referenced them.
 * 3 - In October 2011, SilverserenC argued that the site is RELIABLE.

The consensus seems clear for this one and I agree. This source seems to be reliable. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable From the 'about' page (machine translated): "Gamer.nl is led by the editor. He has total control over what appears on the website. He will, where necessary in consultation with the editors and editorial board, every article and every article on assessing independence and importance before it appears online or not. The editor and all editorial editors act from a motive and are not influenced by commercial motives. The sales manager maintains itself only with the commercial aspect of the website." Not only that, Sanoma is the publisher of Pelit, a noted games magazine. Presumably this is Sanoma's online video game portal; in the same vein as Future Publishing's GamesRadar and Imagine Publishing's Now Gamer. Someoneanother 19:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

AceGamez
Seemingly a high-quality online gaming magazine with a clear "about" page that describes the site's mission and its staff. Some of its writers have been published elsewhere. Liam Pritchard writes for brash games; Harry Slater writes for bit-gamer (e.g. article); Dave Cook won a Games Media Award; Tony Capri writes for Gamezebo; etc. For more info see: An in-depth Wikipedia article in userspace

Unfortunately the e-zine seems to have folded early in 2011 and is now a redirect to pornhub. If citations to the site are deemed acceptable then perhaps some warning should be put up that all links must pass through archive.org.

For reference:
 * 2009-era acegamez.com
 * 2009-era "about" page
 * 2011-era acegamez.com
 * Feb 2011 "about" page
 * Current acegamez.com (WARNING - NOT SAFE FOR WORK)

It seems that the UK version of the site is not a pornographic redirect, but it's just a dead link. The archived material there can be seen here

As far as I know this source hasn't been discussed at Wikipedia at all. I'd say it's situational at best depending on the reliability of the author. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not Reliable - I feel like this one just has too many opportunities to go wrong, with the redirect/deadlinks depending on region. They're background isn't really that impressive either. Sergecross73   msg me   13:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove from the list It's dead, it's used a paltry 42 times in WP articles (according to a search of WP). It's OK if not an ideal source, since it's now buried in naked flesh there seems little point in having it on the list at all. Someoneanother 11:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times
The New York Times is a very large-scale self-owned news website. It is affiliated with the Boston Globe and About.com (see above). According to the website, it has a global presence and as of 2011 it enjoyed revenues exceeding $2 billion. The site's "about page" is located here, and the "policy page" is located here and seems to express the site's extensive commitment to quality and sound journalism. The site has also won a number of awards that they display on their "awards page" here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In October 2007, 5 editors agreed that the New York Times is RELIABLE but that third party sources claiming to quote the New York Times should be avoided, and also if The New York Times conflicts with an academic source, then the academic source is generally more reliable.
 * 2 - In December 2007, ReyBrujo listed New York Times as an example of a RELIABLE mass market newspaper.
 * 3 - In February 2008, 7 editors reached a consensus that the New York Times was generally RELIABLE for secondary analysis but not for specific academic topics such as legal opinions. Bless sins specifically argued that the source was reliable for strict factual reporting and for opinion pieces when authored by a reliable source.
 * 4 - In a lengthy May 2008 discussion concerning the reliability of various aggregator sites, MASEM commented on the New York Times, stating that "the newspaper as a whole is as RELIABLE as [several video game aggregators] if not more, but it just isn't the best comprehensive coverage of video games."
 * 5 - In October 2008, 5 editors generally agreed that the New York Times was RELIABLE, although Moni3 argued that it would not be the best source if the information came from the editorial section.
 * 6 - In November 2008, 6 editors came to the consensus that the New York Times was a RELIABLE source but that if it promulgated a minority position then it could be rejected an replaced with the mainstream position as an editorial decision.
 * 7 - In May 2009, 4 editors agreed that the New York Times was RELIABLE, and Jc3s5h argued that material cited by but not originating from the New York Times was also reliable, although Protonk disagreed. All editors agreed that if possible, the original source should be cited directly.
 * 8 - In July 2009, 6 editors generally agreed that the New York Times was a RELIABLE third-party source, but FOo argued that it was reliable for the facts of an event, but not for the interpretation of those facts.
 * 9 - In September 2009, 11 editors came to the consensus that in general the New York Times is RELIABLE, but that in cases where it conflicts with other reliable sources, either both views must be represented or else it must be demonstrated to be in error. L0b0t brought up the fact that the New York Times shouldn't be relied on over more expert sources regarding specific academic topics like complex tax calculations. GRBerry specifically raised the issue of the reliability of the New York Times' author-less "Topic Page" compared to its normal attributed articles and argued that citing the "Topic Page" should be avoided if possible.
 * 10 - In November 2009, 6 editors generally agreed that the New York Times is RELIABLE, but that when it cites a scientific study, efforts should be made to cite the original study in addition or possibly instead of the New York Times if there is a conflict between the two sources.
 * 11 - In January 2010, 4 editors agreed that although the source was generally RELIABLE, it could not be used for specific academic topics such as direct history claims.
 * 12 - In July 2010, 6 editors agreed that the New York Times was RELIABLE, with Fladrif and Cirt specifically arguing that all of this source's reviews (including restaurant reviews) are reliable.
 * 13 - In August 2010, 9 editors generally agreed that The New York Times' opinion pieces were NOT RELIABLE for contentious BLP issues unless a great deal of "care and circumspection" were used.
 * 14 - In a largely unrelated December 2010 discussion, Jimmy Blackwing noted that "the NYT is a well-known and RELIABLE source."
 * 15 - In January 2011, Miremare argued that "The NY TImes is a RELIABLE source, but not everything is says is necessarily true, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources." SexyKick then argued that the source was an exceptional source for WP:VG's purposes.
 * 16 - In a largely unrelated February 2011 discussion of whether video game journalism was worth a hill of beans, Therpgfanatic repeatedly used the New York Times as the archetypal example of a RELIABLE source in statements such as "game journalism is not held to the same standards as more respectable news agencies like The New York Times". The source was commented on by both MASEM (who explained that it couldn't be considered a perfectly independent source in the sense that Therpgfanatic described since it used advertising to generate money) and The New Age Retro Hippie (who suggested it was reliable).
 * 17 - In a March 2011, Jinnai argued that "sometimes RSes like the NYT they make mistakes" but that they are still RELIABLE. This was explained by hahnchen as relating to the publication of corrections by The New York Times which he described as "a reliable source that produces its own content and has bylines and is accountable"
 * 18 - In August 2011, 16 editors formed a general consensus that on matters not requiring academic expertise (such as international opinion), The New York Times (and the BBC) were equally as RELIABLE if not more so than academic sources.
 * 19 - In November 2011, 5 editors agreed that The New York Times was RELIABLE because it was at the high-quality end of the op-ed spectrum, but that as with all op-eds, attribution is essential.
 * 20 - In March 2012, First Light argued that published letters to the editor are RELIABLE but only if they are given attribution.

To me it seems that the consensus favors identifying this source as a RS, however there is room to argue that for WP:VG it should be situational insofar as it would be considered an inferior source to an academic piece on video games, and that if it conflicted with a generally acclaimed video-game-centric source then the video-game source would trump the NYT. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say it is reliable and certainly strong for reviews; when it comes to factual information, it should be considered generally reliable, but less so that "expert"" topic sources. When a contradiction happens, the latter ones should be prioritized.   Salvidrim!   12:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable Source - I agree with both Thibb's and Salvidrim's descriptions. Sergecross73   msg me   12:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you took my statement well out of context. There's no question that the NYTimes is reliable. --M ASEM (t) 12:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And again I apologize. I suppose you are referring to my description of the March 2008 discussion. I've adjusted the prior summary (or lack of one) to give the context more fully now. I think I may have misunderstood your comments as they were mixed up in the shuffle of the old and lengthy threads because I didn't really see how context would matter for the kinds of affirmative statements I understood you to be making. I definitely don't want to misrepresent you so if there are still problems then feel free to edit what I wrote above. And again, sorry about that. -Thibbs (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

JayIsGames
JayIsGames is a self-owned casual gaming review website affiliated with CasualGamePlay.com. JayIsGames began life as the personal blog of Jay Bibby however it has since expanded to include John Bibby as staff and to host the reviews of a number of different authors. Jay Bibby seems to be semi-notable in the world of gaming and particularly in the world of casual games, writing for VH1's Game Break blog, being interviewed by Ars Technica, and having served on the steering committee for the 2009 Flash Games Summit among other things. The site seems to lack an "about" page.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In December 2007, Someone another argued that JayIsGames provides actual substantive articles on casual games, that the site holds contests of its own, and that it is generally held in high regard within the culture. He also asked for more opinions so he could add it to the RELIABLE source list, but got no responses on that point.
 * 2 - In February 2009, SharkD asked for opinions on JayIsGames so that it could be determined reliable or not. Receiving no responses he eventually dug up an RfD briefly covering the source with SpikeJones commenting there that JayIsGames is a "major game-related review site" and that it can be used to establish notability.
 * 3 - In March 2009, Someone another mentioned that JayIsGames is a common source of information to establish notability for casual games.
 * 4 - In March 2011, New Age Retro Hippie asked for comment on the source and received no response.
 * 5 - In May 2011, Marasmusine found that the website lacked an "about" page, but noted that two published books both mention the site with The Video Game Explosion describing it as "a prominent independent gaming site" and The New Digital Storytelling describing it as "widely read"
 * 6 - In September 2011, 4 editors came to the consensus that the site was NOT RELIABLE because the authors didn't post their actual names in reviews and because there is no listed editorial policy or list of editors, staff, or writers. Odie5533 also alleged that there was conflict of interest involved with the site only reviewing games it hosts, but this was rejected by other commenters.

To me it seems that the bulk of the posts up through May 2011 favored the site as reliable, however Oddie5533's forceful explanation of why it is not reliable seems to have come the closest to actually creating a consensus. It is also the most recent discussion so perhaps it holds the most weight. I would vote the site as situational for casual games and only if the review is written by Jay Bibby who seems to be a legitimate player in the world of casual games. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Situational - per Thibbs explanation at the bottom. Sergecross73   msg me   13:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To be blunt I'm sick and tired of discussing JiG, whether or not the project endorses it is of little interest to me and will not affect whether I use it or not as a source. Since this has been brought up here: The site has had a review coordinator / editor-in-chief in the shape of John Bardinelli for six years, who was a writer at Joystiq. Bardinelli and Jay himself (Jay Bibby) are quoted in this Edge article, FWIW. The site does not publish an editorial policy or have contributor bios, that I can see. Make of that what you will. Someoneanother 17:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Situational - their reviews of smaller games are good to have, but I'd be very cautious solely relying on the site for concepts like notability, etc. --M ASEM  (t) 12:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Mania (previously AnimeOnDVD.com)
Mania is an independent entertainment news website focusing on Comics, Anime, and Film. They claim to be a "leading" website in the field and they state that their aim is to provide news and to to provoke debate within the community. The main staff seems to consist of 3 head editors with a number of writers. The head editors are Rob Worley, Chris Beveridge, and Richard Kuras, and they have varying levels of expertise. Worley has apparently been cited by CNN, Fox News, USA Today, Entertainment Weekly, and TruTV mostly on his area of expertise (film adaptations of comics). Kuras has Worked for several online gaming sites and has apparently contributed to Reuters, Machinima, The BBQ Report, and Last Call With Carson Daly. Beveridge, on the other hand, appears to have done little but write on the topic of anime exclusively for Mania.com. The site's "about page" is located here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In July 2008, Corn.u.co.pia asked whether Mania was reliable, but got no feedback and closed the thread.
 * 2 - In July 2010, 6 editors discussed a similar website in depth drawing many comparisons to Mania. As part of this, Jinnai described Mania as "one of the premeire review sites on the web which is known for editorial overisight and factchecking," however he noted that this has not yet been proven by independent third party sources. The general conclusion seemed to be that the site is RELIABLE.
 * 3 - In October 2010, Jinnai argued that Mania should be a SITUATIONAL source, explaining a simple rule of thumb for Mania articles: "articles with numbers at the end of the url link are by staff members and those without are user reviews."
 * 4 - In December 2010, in a discussion of anime sources, Farix argued that Mania is RELIABLE describing it as "one of the most widely respected anime news sources out there" and as "the 'goto' website for news about the domestic and Japanese industry as well as reviews."
 * 5 - In January 2011, Mathewignash asked whether Mania was reliable, but got no feedback.
 * 6 - In January 2011, 3 editors generally agreed that Mania was RELIABLE due to its reputation for expertise and editorial oversight/factchecking, although Nuujinn pointed out that this was a claim that the source itself was making so it shouldn't be relied upon.

To me it looks like the basic consensus is that Mania is a reliable source, but I'd be very open to the idea of it as situational depending on the authorship of the article as Jinnai argued in October 2010. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Maxim
Maxim is a popular men's magazine with >2.5 million subscribers. It is owned by Alpha Media Group and it covers a variety of male-oriented topics like tips for picking up girls, keen ways to juice up your automobile, and the ever-popular celebrity photo shoots (all tastefully done, hardly any nudity as the term is currently understood). Apparently the magazine's former manager, Josh Larson, left Maxim to work for GameSpot but despite this Maxim can't be said to have had a video game focus even during Larson's tenure ...although they do cover games from time to time. Currently, for example, they have a casting call out for good-looking girls to be photographed with gaming consoles and peripherals. The website does not seem to have an "about page", but there is an "about" section at the lower right of their front-page.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In December 2007, Jesse Viviano charged that Maxim failed to utilize a Chinese wall to keep its departments separate from its advertisers and that the magazine was not involved in serious journalism.
 * 2 - In December 2008, Squidfryerchef stated that the reliability of Maxim depended on what it was being used to source, and suggested that it would be RELIABLE for fashion, lifestyle, or pop culture topics.
 * 3 - In January 2009, Squidfryerchef said that Maxim was "viable" as it is a published secondary source.
 * 4 - In August 2009, Niteshift36 argued that proper sourcing required to demonstrate notability of adult film stars, models, and the like, should take circulation size of the magazine into account as a central indicator for notability. Thus "if showing up in Penthouse or Hustler in notable, then a guest model in Maxim should be a shoe-in."
 * 5 - In an unrelated January 2010 discussion, R.T.G. described Maxim as an "instantly recognisable popular magazine" that was an "undoubtably notable resource".

It sounds to me like the consensus favors the source as reliable. The caveat that it should only be held reliable for pop culture topics isn't any kind of contraindication for WP:VG since video games are part of pop culture. I suppose that in the case of a conflict, however, Maxim would probably be less reliable than a video-game-centric source. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable Source - I feel like most well-known, mass produced sources like this should be reliable. However, with taking that stance, I'm not sure we need to list every sources like this in that master list, that doesn't especially concentrate on video games. Seems like the list would get too ovewhelming. Just my 2 cents. Sergecross73   msg me   13:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Without having looked at the past discussions, are you convinced that this particular magazine even needs to be on the list Thibbs? I can't imagine it would be too troublesome to use it as a source for interviews for instance, or for reception (IE opinion cited to an author), but how often is this lads' mag actually used as a video game source? Unless they had something truly unique and important then I don't see why it wouldn't be passed-over in favour of video game magazine/website sources. Someoneanother 18:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm trying to neither endorse nor disapprove of the sources listed here. These are just the most commonly discussed sources that appeared on the WP:VG/S checklist. My main goal is to try to present prior consensus on the reliability of the source. I'm not very familiar with the magazine in this case, but from the sound of it I'd doubt it would come up in game-related article very often. Frankly I agree with Salvidrim below. The use of sources like this (Maxim), Entertainment Weekly, about.com, New York Times, and all non-game portions of the Onion AV Club seem like they should be governed by WP:RS but they probably don't really need any special coverage under WP:VG/S. No idea why they were included in the checklist in the first place... -Thibbs (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, I'll try to look at as many of these as possible (for all that's worth <.< ). Someoneanother 16:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to say sources like these (ie: not topic-specific) should have their reliability assessed in a broader sense than just here at WT:VG/S.  Salvidrim!   19:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We're one of the few projects that bothers to identify sources like this. At the global level we have blacklists, but that's pretty much it. --M ASEM (t) 12:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly Reliable. A general rule of thumb should be adapted that if it is the type of source that would normally be reliable for another topic, it is default considered reliable here barring extreme circumstances. --M ASEM  (t) 12:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Multi-Player Online Gaming Directory (MPOGD.com)
MPOGD is an independent directory website focusing on multiplayer games. It provides information and reviews for most of the games it lists and also editorials and news on multiplayer gaming topics. The site's "about page" is located here, and its 2-person staff is listed here (consisting of Doug McIntyre and Jodie McIntyre). It has received a bit of coverage in the greater video gaming world, with Games Press describing it as a "respected editorial website", and its review scores printed by IGN. In addition, Jodie McIntyre seems to have a little coverage as well, although there seems to be very little on Doug.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In May 2007, 5 editors agreed that the source was NOT RELIABLE. McGeddon gave the most direct criticism of the source stating that "WP:WEB clearly rules out Internet directories" and suggesting (in response to DarkSaber2k's argument that "MPOGD would qualify as well-known" and that the site's monthly game award could demonstrate notability) that "mpogd's poll is laughable."
 * 2 - In December 2007, SharkD asked if MPOGD was reliable while expressing doubt that directory-style websites were appropriate for Wikipedia. Someone another suggested that MPOGD wasn't any better than GameOgre (currently unlisted at WP:VG/S).
 * 3 - In January 2010, 3 editors agreed that MPOGD was NOT RELIABLE although Guyinblack25 located a 1UP.com interview with MPOGD and some mentions in published books.
 * 4 - In October 2010, Harry Blue5 asked whether a MPOGD cite was usable and he received no answer although he acknowledged that as far as he knew "the site isn't considered exactly reliable".

I believe that there is clear consensus that this site is not reliable. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh hell no. All the information is user-submitted (or by extension submitted by the games themselves); some reviews are written by the Staff but neither of them has an established expertise.  Salvidrim!   12:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not Reliable - Violates WP:SPS. User submitted info. Etc. Sergecross73   msg me   13:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's here that could actually be used? The 'news' seems to be press releases (just get the info from the publisher itself), the site refers to itself as a database and states that that's what its visitors are interested in. The navigation bar does not include a link to the site's reviews at all and having looked at a handful of entries (including Planetarion and Kingdom of Loathing) I still haven't seen a single review by the site staff. It's just a database, it doesn't seem to want to be anything more. I'd say it's unreliable with the possible exception of interviews and certainly and shouldn't be used to assert notability because the vast majority of it is just parroting the game publishers. Someoneanother 19:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I had a look through the RPG listings, specifically every listing under #s, A, B, and C. That's a total of 222 listings from my count. I found 4 MPOGD reviews - A Tale in the Desert II, Astonia III, Call of Duty - United Offensive expansion and City of Heroes. So, using that population there is one review for every 50+ games. Two of these games, Call of Duty and City of Heroes, are major titles which would not need anything less than a major source. MPOGD's reviews are featured prominently on individual game listings, but when browsing through the lists (by genre, platform, price etc.) only player ratings are listed, not MPOGD's reviews. The quote referring to MPOGD as a "respected editorial website" comes from a PR company issuing a press release, which doesn't help us. Despite this
 * Looking at one of their latest reviews I saw a name which rang a bell, Jason Van Horn. That's put a different spin on it for me. Someoneanother 22:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Situational Where I'm at is this: MPOGD seems to be often cited to demonstrate notability, which as a bare-bones directory it is inherently unsuitable for. The news section is almost exclusively posted PR/publisher updates, which are not independent coverage and could be cited from press releases on more readily accepted sites or from the publisher itself. Van Ord does write some reviews and post interview transcripts, interviews and reviews are also posted by other staff. I would suggest that Van Ord's reviews/previews, as well as interviews posted by any staff members, should be acceptable as reliable though not top-tier sources. That doesn't mean that other staff members shouldn't be looked at in terms of their own reliability. If this is acceptable to others I would strongly suggest emphasizing that these comprise a tiny amount of the site's output. Any thoughts? Someoneanother 15:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Insert Credit
Insert Credit is an independently owned multiuser blog styled as a news site. Blog postings are limited to a select staff ("staff page" available here) of 9 people. Their biographies demonstrate that they have been involved in several high-profile gaming enterprises including staffing duties at Gamasutra (Christian Nutt), independent game design (Brandon Sheffield), and general contributions to a wide range of notable WP:VG RSes including Game Developer magazine, Gamasutra, 1UP, Kotaku, EDGE Magazine, The Escapist, Wired, PC World, Escapist Magazine, and IGN. The site doesn't seem to have any actual "about page".

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In May 2008, Kung Fu Man stated that Insert Credit had interviewed video game company figures and suggested that this was a point counting toward a RELIABLE source determination.
 * 2 - In January 2009, 2 editors agreed that the Insert Credit should be considered SITUATIONAL depending on the author's expertise.
 * 3 - In May 2009, Kung Fu Man argued that a Insert Credit article authored by Brandon Sheffield was a RELIABLE source, and this view seemed to be generally agreed upon.

The discussion is a little bare here, with the only depthy discussion being the January 2009 determination that the site is situational. It appears that the conclusion of this discussion was strongly influenced by the fact that Brandon Sheffield's name didn't appear on the staff roll whereas he is now listed as Insert Credit's editor in chief. From the look of it I'd say the source looks eminently reliable. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Appears to be an RS. Not the normal kind of site we get that is hits hungry, seems to be people posting on subjects that take their interest, which helps its reliability in my books. The staff list still worries me so I'd say list it as a conditional RS. i.e. Instant RS if article by person X who is notable, situational if by person y who we don't really know. - X201 (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Meristation
Meristation, originating from Spain, is one of the largest Spanish-speaking gaming websites. It styles itself as an online magazine and provides news, inside development views, and playguide material like tips, tricks, etc. for current market releases. The site is self-owned but audited by Comscore, and its "about page" can be located midway down the page here. Editorial staff consists of 10 people about whom little information is available. The "staff page" is located here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In May 2008, 10 editors generally agreed that the simple fact of MeriStation's non-english text did not make it unreliable as a source.
 * 1 - In May 2009, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs suggested that Meristation was NOT RELIABLE but Kung Fu Man pointed out that it has been cited by several literary publications.
 * 3 - In November 2011, gakon presented a source from Spanish Official PlayStation that indicated MeriStation to have been one of the top Spanish trade publications.

The discussion is a tad bare for this source. It seems to me that this should be a situational source for Spanish games and Spanish developers, etc. Meristation seems to have a great deal of clout and respect within the Spain-speaking gaming world and that means they would be well positioned to get exclusive coverage (interviews, journalistic scoops, etc) on Spanish-language topics. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on its reliability, but if it's to be considered reliable for Spanish language topics, why not everything else? Coverage on the site includes games from around the world. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I was just thinking that it could help provide reliable sourcing on niche topics that are not covered outside of the Spain-speaking world, but that based on its general level of reliability it should be avoided for all articles except those with topics that it covers more exclusively. Being one of the largest Spanish-speaking gaming sites it might get access to reliable information on notable Spanish gaming topics that would not appear elsewhere. You may be right though. I'll have to think about it a bit more in the next few days -Thibbs (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so thinking about it a bit more I have to say I'm conflicted between the idea that if a topic is notable in Spain it's notable everywhere and the ideas presented at WP:LOCALFAME. I'd be glad to see a global broadening of the RS pool to cover notable non-English topics and to avoid systemic POV created by using only English sources, but I'm also wary of weakening the meaning of "reliable". So given the strength of the source I'm not sure that it should be used if there were more reliable alternatives available, but I can see an argument for using it situationally for areas (such as Spanish-only topics) where more reliable alternatives do not exist. Does that make sense or am I just restating my original comment? -Thibbs (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP policy is that non-English sources are acceptable across the board, even for notability, but that they should not be used where "English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." There may be good reasons for listing it as situationally reliable, but the fact that it's in Spanish isn't one of them. We already segregate foreign-language sources, so it wouldn't be hard to add a note recommending against their use where English alternatives exist. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well of course the fact that it's written in the Spanish language has no bearing on its reliability. I was more interested in giving it the benefit of the doubt for Spanish-only topics because it is one of the largest Spanish-language video game sources and so it might have exclusive access to Spanish-only topics that non-Spanish sources would lack. But I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it a non-situational RS because as I noted above, "editorial staff consists of 10 people about whom little information is available." That would be the main reason to exclude it, not its language. Frankly I'd be glad to have Spanish sources as well as English to neutralize any possible systemic POV. But if it can't be limited to use on Spanish-only topics then I guess I'd say exclude it entirely since it doesn't seem to have the credentials that the rest of our RSes do. If the consensus is that it is as reliable as the other RSes then of course it shouldn't be limited to Spanish-only topics. The only reason to limit it like that is if it's deemed to fall short of the RS mark. -Thibbs (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We're free to endorse whatever sources we want for whatever we want, but I've never supported that kind of situational source. It reminds me of the way that MobyGames used to be listed as reliable for production credits, not because the credits were more reliable than the rest of the site but because there was usually nothing better out there.
 * For what it's worth, Meristation looks reliable to me, but I don't speak Spanish. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah growing the list of "situational sources" is probably not the best thing in the world. Like you, I would probably prefer a straight up or down vote. And really I could go either way since the prior consensus is not quite solid and there have been good arguments for marking it as an RS (e.g. Kung Fu Man's argument of May 2009). I'd prefer to mark it as situational rather than just discarding it considering that it seems to have some clout in the world of Spanish sources, but if it's not RS material then I guess size and clout might not count for all that much. And obviously if it's a normal RS then it should be usable for all matters (not just Spanish topics). -Thibbs (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

NTSC-uk (AKA BordersDown)
NTSC-uk, currently called BordersDown, is an independent and historically import-gaming-oriented website. It hosts game reviews and covers news on hardware and events. I have not located a page about the authors of the articles, but the author's name is listed for each article. A quick google search leads me to believe that at least some of them have been cited by other reliable sites like Game Set Watch and Wired. NTSC-uk also won Website of the Month in Edge Magazine (issue 101), and the main "about page" can be found here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In October 2010, 3 editors generally agreed that the site was NOT RELIABLE except in cases where the author was an established expert.
 * 2 - In October 2010, Teancum asked for help building consensus regarding the reliability of NTSC-uk, but nobody responded.
 * 3 - In October 2011, Sergecross73 suggested that the site is NOT RELIABLE because it is a non-notable blog with possible COI issues.

It looks like the consensus that is emerging suggests that the site is not reliable or that if it is it is only usable as a situational source depending on the credentials of the author. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I really didn't like how it seemed a writer from the blog was writing the article about the blog, and then spamming the websites link everywhere as an external link. Didn't strike me as very professional. I'm not especially familiar with the website's content in general though, other than it being a random blog. Sergecross73   msg me   13:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

TechCrunch
TechCrunch is a blog-style technology news source created by Michael Arrington and owned by AOL. Its staff of 33 includes established journalists and tech writers spanning publications including Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Popular Science, Money, etc. The main "about page" can be found here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In December 2007, 3 editors concluded that although blogs are generally not reliable, if the blog is authored by an acknowledged expert then it can be considered de facto RELIABLE.
 * 2 - In July 2008, 4 editors discussed TechCrunch obliquely with =Species8473= noting that there is no prohibition of blogs as RSes if they are produced by authors who are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative. This was followed by a general consensus that Mashable.com was not reliable.
 * 3 - In January 2009, SharkD brought up the fact that TechCrunch had been accepted as a RELIABLE source in 2 AfDs (one of which contained SpikeJones' description of it as a "major game-related review site"), however じんない noted that 90% of the references to TechCrunch come from non-RS blogs.
 * 4 - In January 2011, 4 editors discussed the source with 173.160.205.2 arguing that it was NOT RELIABLE because it was a blog, but DAWNSEEKER2000 arguing that it was a reliable blog because it was "put together by a professional and authoritative news organization".
 * 5 - In February 2011, 4 editors came to the consensus that TechCrunch is NOT RELIABLE because it is a blog.
 * 6 - In November 2011, in an unrelated discussion, JFHJr described TechCrunch as UNRELIABLE.
 * 7 - In December 2011, 4 editors generally agreed that TechCrunch was a RELIABLE source for reviews, but that attribution should be made within the article's text for opinion content.

It looks like there is a real split of opinion here. Given the credentials of the staff I'd be inclined to consider the site reliable, but there is clearly some serious skepticism regarding the use of any blogs except those that have print counterparts. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

USA Today
USA Today is a one of the widest circulated daily newspapers in the United States. It is owned by Gannett Company. It has a staff of 1425 and appears to follow a detailed list of professional and journalistic best practices. The main "about page" can be found here, the editorial policy can be found here, and an impressive list of award can be found here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In March 2007, in an unrelated discussion, Mitaphane compared USA Today to GamePro in an analogy to emphasize the fact that both sources are "2nd rate".
 * 2 - In March 2008, 2 editors concluded that USA Today was RELIABLE but that for third party opinions merely reported on by the newspaper, attribution was required.
 * 3 - In September 2009, 4 editors rejected the characterization of the newspaper as "a minor tabloid newspaper" and came to the consensus that USA Today is RELIABLE if attribution is provided for third party quotes.
 * 4 - In an unrelated October 2009 discussion, MichaelQSchmidt described USA Today as a RELIABLE source.
 * 5 - In an unrelated February 2010 discussion, Marj described USA Today as an accepted RELIABLE source.
 * 6 - In September 2010, Nick Levinson asked for input on USA Today which had apparently been challenged as not "mainstream accessable". The issue was resolved in favor of using USA Today before any consensus could be reached as to reliability.
 * 7 - In August 2011, 2 (or possibly 3?) editors agreed that USA Today was RELIABLE.

There seems to be broad consensus that USA Today is reliable. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable - Like I've mentioned before, I believe that anything that is so widely circulated and obviously has editorial oversight, should be a RS. Though like the other ones, I'd say it doesn't really need to be on the master list. Sergecross73   msg me   16:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Softpedia
Softpedia is a software indexing and downloading website that also provides reviews for the software indexed. It is owned by the Romanian Softnews Net, but it is written in English and Spanish. The staff of 46 does not seem to have much in the way of credentials outside of Softpedia, but they are educated and the site has been around since 2001 so it is well established. The closest thing they have to an "about page" can be found here. The "staff page" is located here, and their review process policy is outlined here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In May 2009, 3 editors generally agreed that Softpedia is RELIABLE, with Peregrine Fisher suggesting that the reliability of the individual author would be the determining factor and Squidfryerchef expressing his view that it could be considered a "published work" and the individual expertise of the author wouldn't be strictly required.
 * 2 - In an indirectly related July 2009 discussion, Laurent expressed the view that since "anybody can post an app on Softpedia", it cannot be used to demonstrate notability.
 * 3 - In December 2009, Pcap presented an argument for identifying Softpedia as RELIABLE based on the strength of their editorial process.
 * 4 - In January 2010, R.T.G. argued that Softpedia was an "undoubtably notable site".
 * 5 - In April 2010, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs argued that the site was RELIABLE, although he suggested that it would be prudent to make sure that the author met WP:SPS.
 * 6 - In October 2011, SCB '92 asked for input on the reliability of Softpedia but received no answer on that point.

It seems that there has been very little or no discussion on this source since 2010. At that time the general consensus favored the source as reliable. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Situationally reliable - Everything published with editorial oversight (i.e. with a staff name attached) should be treated as reliable, but everything else on the site should be considered self-published. Also, reviews should not be used as a source of notability because some of them are done upon request. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Time Magazine
Time Magazine is a self-owned weekly news magazine that is reportedly enjoys the world's largest circulation of all weekly news magazines. It has a staff of 60+ people that includes many established journalists. There does not appear to be a main "about page", however biographies are available for most of the staff here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In February 2008, as part of a very thorough discussion over whether context mattered in the reliability of Time as a source, a general agreement was achieved that Time Magazine as a source alone was generally RELIABLE, but that depending on the quality of the actual Tiem article and/or the academic credentials of its writers, attribution might be required or academic sources might be required instead of using Time.
 * 2 - In an unrelated discussion in January 2009, Peregrine Fisher noted that "Time magazine is normally a RELIABLE source".
 * 3 - In February 2009, 4 editors agreed that Time Magazine is a RELIABLE source.
 * 4 - In an unrelated February 2011 discussion concerning whether video game journalism as a whole could be considered reliable, Therpgfanatic repeatedly used Time Magazine as an example of a RELIABLE source in comparison to video game magazines. The source was commented on by MASEM (who explained that by Therpgfanatic's barometer, Time couldn't be considered a perfectly independent source since it used advertising to generate money).
 * 5 - In August 2011, 3 editors agreed that Time's specialty blog, Time Techland was RELIABLE except for portions where it quoted WIkipedia.
 * 6 - In November 2011, 9 editors broadly agreed that Time Magzine is RELIABLE.

It looks like there is broad consensus that Time is reliable. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable - Per my comments regarding New York Times. Sergecross73   msg me   16:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

PC Magazine (PCMag.com)
PC Magazine is a PC-oriented webzine owned by Ziff Davis Publishing. It used to be a print magazine but now it is only online. It has a staff of 42 that are listed at the "staff page" here. The main "about page" can be found here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In an August 2007 discussion, UKPhoenix79 described PC Magazine as a "well respected site"
 * 2 - In an August 2008 discussion over the reliability of a PC Magazine article, Blueboar suggested that since it was an op-ed, the article was RELIABLE for statements about the opinions of the author. eleland expanded on this by saying that attribution was required.
 * 3 - In February 2009, Muchness stated that PC Magazine is a RELIABLE source and that it can be used to demonstrate Notability.
 * 4 - In July 2010, Dlabtot stated that PC Magazine was "pretty obviously a RELIABLE source"
 * 5 - In December 2010, A Quest For Knowledge put forward PC Magazine as an example of a third-party source that could be used to establish notability.

There seems to be a basic consensus that PC Magazine is reliable. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable - Widely distributed print magazine, editorial process, etc. Sergecross73   msg me   16:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sega-16.com
Sega-16.com is a Sega-oriented news, reviews, and interviews website founded by Ken Horowitz. It has a small staff of 8 people of which Horowitz seems to be the most accomplished (he's been published in GamesTM and Hardcore Gamer Magazine among others). The site seems to lack a main "about page", however its staff page can be found here, and its review policy is described here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In May 2008, Red Phoenix asked for input concerning the reliability of Sega-16.com but received no response.
 * 1 - In May 2008, 3 editors generally agreed that the site was NOT RELIABLE for user-created content, with KieferSkunk also expressing concern over the staff-generated content.
 * 2 - In October 2008, 4 editors generally agreed that the user-created content on the site is NOT RELIABLE with DCEvoCE arguing that all articles created by Ken Horowitz are reliable but Jappalang countering that no evidence had been produced sufficient to make the website reliable.
 * 3 - In July 2009, 3 editors discussed the October 2008 discussion with Pyrrhus16 finding that Jappalang had shown the site to be NOT RELIABLE, and MuZemike noting that consensus can change and the argument could be revisited.
 * 4 - In an unrelated January 2011 discussion, Miremare described the source as "less reliable".

The consensus seems clear here. It looks like the general view is that Sega-16.com is not reliable. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Personally, I wish this was a reliable source, as they do produce a lot of content that would help for creating/improving articles from the Sega Genesis era of video games, but I've never had a great argument as to why they're actually reliable, except for that I have seen other experienced editors use them as a reference in articles. (Which isn't a real strong case, I know.) Sergecross73   msg me   17:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Screwattack
Screwattack is a video-game-centric blog portal that produces its own content as well as hosting user-generated content. It was founded in 2006 by Craig Skistimas and Thomas Hanley. It has a small staff of 11 people whose biographies can be found at the site's main "about page" here. A little more information about the site can also be found at the FAQ located here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In November 2008, Kung Fu Man described ScrewAttack as "probably a source to avoid".
 * 2 - In August 2009, 3 editors came to the consensus that ScrewAttack material was RELIABLE, but only if published on GameTrailers.com.
 * 3 - In September 2011, 5 editors reached a consensus that ScrewAttack was generally considered NOT RELIABLE except for material published on GameTrailers.com. AerobicFox specifically noted that user-generated content was always unreliable.
 * 4 - In September 2011, 4 editors roughly agreed that only the opinion portions of Screwattack's staff-edited content could be RELIABLE. Odie5533 went into particular detail expressing his view that ScrewAttack was not reliable for factual information and that whereas user-content such as blog replies are not reliable, if the reply came form the author it could be reliable and also that staff blogs were less reliable than the edited content.

There seems to be a lot of suspicion about this source, however there are multiple prior discussions where it sounds like the consensus view is that it can be used for staff-generated material that is posted on GameTrailers. So I guess that would make it a situational source. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Situational - as long is there is a differentiation between user-created and staff content. (Don't know why we have to specify that. Everyone who actually sources well knows cites must be staff related). --Teancum (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

ZTGameDomain
ZTGameDomain is a video-game-centric review, preview, and news website headed up by Ken McKown as editor-in-chief. It has a staff of 12 (including 5 active contributors). Some of them have been cited in other gaming wibsites such as Gamasutra (example here) There doesn't seem to be much in the way of an "about page", but the "staff page" can be found here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In June 2009, 4 editors came to the consensus that ZTGameDomain is generally NOT RELIABLE except perhaps for their own opinion, with Oscarthecat describing it as a "glorified press release repository". The site was linked to N4G and to GamesRadar.
 * 2 - In November 2010, 3 editors discussed ZTGameDomain resulting in no consensus, with Teancum supporting reliability based on McKown's credentials and ZTGameDomain's affiliation with the N4G network, and chaos5023 opposing reliability based on a lack of information about the staff.
 * 3 - In December 2010, Teancum asked for input on ZTGameDomain but received no response.
 * 4 - In January 2011, Teancum asked for input on ZTGameDomain, noting the November 2010 discussion with one vote in support and one in opposition, but again received no response.

From the prior discussions it looks like a most signs point to not reliable, with the major support for the source coming from its affiliation with the N4G network. Since then, N4G has been determined to be not reliable so I guess that would undermine that line of arguments. There could still be room, though, to say that it is situational depending on the credentials of the author. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not reliable - I don't know if Ken McKown should be considered reliable as an individual, but I do know that the site's editorial process is a black hole and I don't see any contributors that are associated with RSes or much in the way of RSes discussing the site. The site was once definitely unreliable, but all of the pre-PS2 articles have been removed. Still, anyone wishing to make the case for reliability should try to address the reliability of the older articles on the site. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

PC World
PC World is a PC-oriented magazine owned by IDG. It is distributed worldwide to 51 countries. The site's "about page" can be found here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In a May 2008 discussion concerning the notability of review sites appearing on the "VG Reviews" template, MASEM used PC World as an example of an "appropriate paper magazine" for the template.
 * 2 - In a January 2009 discussion regarding RSes that cite non-RS material, Pagrashtak used PC World as an example of a RELIABLE source that had cited a non-RS (VGChartz) in one article.
 * 3 - In a January 2010 discussion about electronic information theft, A Quest For Knowledge described PC World as a RELIABLE source.

Not too much to work with here, but it looks pretty clear that the consensus is to treat it as a reliable source. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Playstation Magazine (PSM)
Playstation Magazine is a Playstation-centric print magazine owned by Future Publishing. Staff details do not appear on the website, nor does an "about page", however the parent company's website is located here.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In June 2008, in discussing the idea of a presumption of notability for gaming magazines, TRTX said of PSM that it "is not going to make up information and run with it" and suggested that they use reliable sources for their articles.
 * 2 - In January 2010, R.T.G. described Playstation Magazine as an "instantly recognisable popular magazine" and an "undoubtably notable resource" and Someoneanother suggested that whether or not it was reliable was obvious.
 * 3 - In February 2010, Guyinblack25 listed PSM as a source to be discussed in a thread emphasizing source reliability determinations but nobody responded.

It seems that most prior discussions on this source have characterized it as a reliable source. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable - Seems reliable in the same sense that we consider Nintendo Power reliable. Sergecross73   msg me   17:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Video Game Critic
The Video Game Critic is an established independent video game review website created by David Mrozek in 1999. There is very little information on other staff, and the site seems to lack an "about page". From google I can see some references from the RS world. UGO credits them for a picture here, AtariHQ lists them in an external link page here, and GameTab repeatedly lists their review scores (e.g. here), among others.

So far there have been a number of discussions here at Wikipedia regarding the source. Summarizing these we see:
 * 1 - In November 2010, Marasmusine argued that the site was a SPS and so it was NOT RELIABLE unless Mrozek's credentials as an "exepert in his field" could be demonstrated. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs also argued that this should even extend to pure facts as well.
 * 2 - In December 2010, Teancum asked for input on The Video Game Critic regarding its reliability but got no response.
 * 3 - In January 2011, Teancum asked for input on The Video Game Critic regarding its reliability and noting that although the consensus was leaning toward NOT RELIABLE, there had not yet been any official yea or nay on the matter. Nobody responded.

As Teancum said in January 2011, consensus seems to be saying that this is not reliable. Please share your view. -Thibbs (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not reliable - Mrozek is not a noted expert nor am I impressed by the attention from RSes. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)