Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 8

digthatbox.com
Is this site a reliable source?-- Sexy Kick  05:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Their About Us page doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Woodroar (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I see no trappings of editorial oversight. I'm going with nope. czar  ♔  06:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

http://www.gamingexcellence.com/
Is this a reliable source?-- Sexy Kick  15:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The editors do not appear to come from an editorial background. Every one of the bios has little to do with industry experience or a sense of qualification. This site looks unreliable, overall. If there's a specific article, it maybe okay just once, but overall, I'd say use other sites. czar  ♔  00:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd also add that for a site that's been around since 2001 their Alexa rank is utterly horrid. We can't always use Alexa as a yardstick, but after 12 years you'd think you'd be more mainstream if you were any good. --Teancum (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The New GameSpot
As you probably might know, GameSpot has been re-built from the ground up. Now games can have multiple and/or updated reviews (see this). For example, BioShock Infinite has a new "other take" review with a rating of 4 out of 10. On the other hand, the original review of League of Legends (6.0) has been replaced with a new review of 9 out of 10. My point is, which ones should be included in Wikipedia? Only the so-called "featured" ones? Only the original ones? Both? Should we also include the reviews categorized as "other takes"? Thanks in advance. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, so have they completely overwritten old reviews, or are there just new ones alongside them? The former is very annoying if that's the case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 11:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Unless the review is an "update" of the original, I would treat reviews labeled as "Other takes" as editorials and not as the outlet's primary review. GS chooses one single review to count as their public-facing/Metacritic rating, which we should honor. And as with all editorials, they may be worth adding in prose but not in the template. (e.g., use LoL update as GS's score, use BSI alt review in prose, if anywhere) @David: Looks like both, but usually the latter. The League review was replaced, and the old one became an alt review ("Other take"). Infinite's new alt review isn't their primary. czar  ♔  11:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to know. It's really annoying because you have to constantly check whether an original review has been replaced or not. By the way, it seems that some old reviews were also removed; I can't find the Wrath of the Lich King review. Maybe it's a bug and it will be added later. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's just a matter of needing the text to fill out an article, there are always archived versions of the page you could use. e.g. here. -Thibbs (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. But the thing is: Was it intentionally removed as an "update"? Or it's simply a bug that will be fixed? It's really confusing. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good question. The user score actually appears all alone in the middle of the long blank section which makes it seem more like a bug to me, but it's hard to tell. -Thibbs (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would think that any of them that are written by staff would be usable, considering its a reliable source. Just as long as they're not random users/blog writers.) They should probably be presented as such though when there's more than one. (Primary, "other take", whatever. Its hard enough to get most of the video game writing populace to use reliable source; its definitely not practical to think we could enforce only using certain reviews of a source.)  Sergecross73   msg me   12:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In terms of writing the one thing to consider is if that we are addressing a specific facet of the review, the "official" main one can be reviewed to as representing the whole of Gamespot (though I personally like to ID the reviewer too), but any of these side, staff-editorial takes should be called out by the specific editor. But any such reviews are valid as long as they are staffers at GS. --M ASEM (t) 13:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Gamertag Radio
Gamertag Radio came up while I was doing searches for sources on an AFD. It doesn't look like it's been reviewed here before, but is in use in a few places and appears (Unrelated to it's sourcing usability) to be notable. It's a podcast that has been running for many years and is occasionally picked up by other RS's. When I found them in my searches, it was in relation to interviews. Thoughts? -- ferret (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If the interviewee can be confirmed I could see this as being treated like a WP:SPS, but I see that as separate from the site's reliability. The site, however, has probably the most abysmal Alexa rank I've seen in some time. Generally reliable authors generate a fair amount of traffic to their respective sites. Doesn't seem to be the case here. --Teancum (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The alexa rank may be a side effect of the podcast format, which is often linked or hosted elsewhere. -- ferret (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Teancum about the use of the interview. Generally I trust any plausible claims that the interview is legitimate, so the reliability of the content of the interview rests on the reliability of the interviewee, That places the matter squarely within WP:SPS. -Thibbs (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

A couple more sources to maybe add to the list
There are a couple of sources that are sometimes used that I think should be added to the tables, if others agree with me. They are: What do you think?  Dark Toon  Link  07:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Vooks as a reliable source. Respectable site over a number of years that is a good source of some news, including Australian release dates which are sometimes neglected on larger news sites
 * Nintendo Everything as a situational source. Not full author credits, and most news probably has better sources, so this isn't really a consistently reliable source, but I don't know of any major unreliable issues with it either. So I think it's acceptable to use for interviews and such under some circumstances
 * My Nintendo News as an unreliable source. Blog-like structure, so when people add it as a source, it is usually reverted. Listing it here might lead less people trying to use it then.
 * Absolutely agree with "MyNintendoNews". Definitely not reliable. There have been many times where they have totally misinterpreted stories or rumors in ways no other source would. Additionally, I always used to be turned off by how they'd have database entries/tags for games that there has never been any real reason to believe that they exist. (At one point they had an entry for Golden Sun 3 as a Nintendo 3DS title, for example.)
 * I'm not sure if Nintendo Everything meets some of the criteria for formally being a RS, but, as DTL has probably witnessed, I have used it as a source on occasion when it was "the best source I could find" and knew it to be true. I wouldn't want it any higher than "Situational", but if people make a good argument for it being unusable, I'd concede to that too.
 * I'll have to look into Vooks. I've heard of it, but haven't used it much before. Sergecross73   msg me   12:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can definitely back up the 'best source I could find' justification for situational, as I explained in this edit. I've seen Vooks used just fine in quite a few articles around the place, and I find it quite credible. The stories all have real authors and news is clearly marked as such. I think they sometimes also get review copies, if that's any support. But I'll wait to see what you and/or others think.  Dark Toon  Link  13:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I took a look at Vooks. The "about" page here is far from reassuring, but then again there is some indication that they may be notable (e.g. here and here) and they do see some citations by other RSes (e.g. here and here). I think the site presents itself professionally but I'd still be inclined to say non-RS based on their lack of credentials to be honest. Given that they have some coverage in the RSes, though, I'd be open to other views on the matter. -Thibbs (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. In the future they might well gain the "critical mass" to support a reliable estimation, but I don't think it has the track record at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you mean by the about page being unreassuring, but if you mean it looks unprofessional or biased then I understand. But Daniel Vuckovic, the owner and main writer isn't really biased, he has other consoles and critisises Nintendo when it's due sometimes, if you're worried about that. Plus he also writes for Kotaku, a reliable source, so maybe Vooks could be listed with author verifiability, so stories by authors with enough credentials can be used?  Dark Toon  Link  11:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not biased. And even "unprofessional" is too strong a word. What concerns me is the statement "The Vooks team is comprised entirely of volunteers. None of us are in the gaming industry, we just love games." The same could be said for the obviously non-RS members of WP:VG. But yes, if Daniel Vuckovic writes for Kotaku then I think he can be cited as reliable. -Thibbs (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok then. Down the bottom, it does mention some articles are written by some forum users and such, so that is a limitation of the source. But since every article has its authors listed, then maybe each article could be evaluated on the basis of the author's reliability.  Dark Toon  Link  11:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

www.maxconsole.com
Is this site a reliable source?-- Sexy Kick  22:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing a world of no? Looks unreliable and the site gives no information that would suggest it could be considered reliable in any way.  Я ehevkor ✉  22:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Even its news appears to be scanty and fan-reported. The large "Maxconsole Store" section suggests that the site may be at least equally focused on trying to sell things as it is on reporting news. In sum, no: this is not an RS. -Thibbs (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Strategy Informer
Strategy Informer keeps appearing in the Metacritic scores when I'm building articles, and the reviews I've read look decent (certainly better than the whiny, off-topic editorializing in this Official PlayStation Magazine (UK) piece). There's a board of staff members, but not all of the reviews come from those people, else that page hasn't been updated in a while. Strategy Informer has been brought up in two discussions before, but never got any substantial commentary one way or the other, and the last time it was brought up for review appears to be 2011. I'd like for the experts to take a look and render a judgement so that I know if I can use it or not.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  05:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It accepts user content, so it cannot be reliable. It could very well be situational when considering staff reviews. But I'm a little concerned how nondescript their staff page is and lack of any editorial policy pages. Their reviews do feel more about quantity over quality. I see reviewer names, but the linked about page doesn't actually list them, so no idea who they are. Googling their names brings up random results for people not related to Strategy Informer, although participating in VG field in some way. I feel like they hire freelance writers and get individual pieces rather than have in-house writers and editors. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

ISSNs
I just made this bold edit which I hope is non-controversial. Basically I'm trying to say that an ISSN is a loose indicator of reliability. The ISSN criteria are probably more indicative of notability than reliability honestly, but the two are loosely linked. It's extremely rare, for example, to have a really reliable and established third party periodical that doesn't have an ISSN number. Please revert per BRD or tweak as needed if there are any disagreements with my edit. -Thibbs (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

GamePolitics
I feel we should discuss the possibility of this as a source - especially considering its value as a website that explores a specific niche. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Not much to go on... This is the closest I found to an "about" page on a quick look-over. The managing editor was quoted here... Do you know of any editorial policy or staff roll or third party reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? -Thibbs (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thought this was just another blog, but it started back in August of 2006 . Not saying I'm swaying one way or another, but it's impressive. It's Alexa rank is decent, too. Again, not meriting a sway, but good for them. EDIT: Here is some more background on the managing editor. --Teancum (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This definitely bears more discussion. Apparently GamePolitics editor Dennis McCauley writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer so that sounds promising. And the site seems to have tie-ins to Joystiq (listed as situational) and they're apparently able to get face-time with politicians for interviews on VG-related legislation. The ESA got into a bit of a fight with it, though, and the ESA claimed that it was biased and couldn't be considered a news source (which I interpret to mean a credible/reliable source). The ESA had been criticized in a GP post, though, so it's not like the ESA was making a casual observation. Links: 1, 2. I think there's potential here. I don't have much time to investigate it thoroughly right now though. -Thibbs (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Russian print magazines
Hi! I'd like to propose several Russian print magazines (with some online presence) as reliable sources. Current candidates include ongoing Igromania (Игромания), defunct Velikij Drakon formerly VideoAce Dendy (Великий Dракон/Великий Дракон) , and defunct Game.EXE. I've never really dealt with print magazines, so I'm not sure what I would be looking for to establish if they are reliable. They would most likely pass our website criteria by a mile, and I guess they aren't included because they are Russian and obviously foreign coverage is lacking. I've added all three to the reference library. I'd like to eventually include their reviews in the articles (especially contemporary ones and Russian games without English coverage), but I'd first like to make sure we consider them reliable. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Well from skimming through ru.wikipedia I can see that Igromania and Game.EXE both have about 100 citations. Velikij Drakon has fewer at around 40 (counting the alternate spelling "Великий Дракон" which may be more easily parsed since it doesn't use the Romanized "D"). I'm not sure whether that tells us anything substantial though...
 * Non-English RSes is something we have previously dealt with in only a limited sense at this board. The difficulty comes from the fact that most of us don't speak the language of the source so it's hard to determine reliability. Basically the best way to determine this is to have the help of someone who speaks the language and who has demonstrated (in en.wikipedia) a proper understanding of how to apply WP:RS. I think you would fit this description, Hellknowz. So there are a few options.
 * One way to proceed is to go through the traditional Russian RSes (newspapers, academic sources, etc.) and see what kind of reputation these game journals have gained for themselves. Then link evidence of this reputation here along with a translation.
 * Another option is to approach it similarly to how we handled the Polish sources. Previously we were able to adopt a number of Polish sources as reliable here by (1) comparing their version of WP:RS to our version of the policy and finding it to be substantially identical, and then by (2) examining their version of WP:VG/RS and applying a conservative adoption process. If the pl.wikipedia WP:VG/RS declared a source "unreliable" then we automatically accepted their designation. If the pl.wikipedia WP:VG/RS listed a source as "situational" then we erred on the side of caution and considered it unreliable. But if the pl.wikipedia WP:VG/RS listed a source as "reliable" then we accepted that designation and added it to our list.
 * The Russian version of WP:RS is located here. How closely does it match our version? If it's not substantially similar then we have to try to find evidence from the traditional Russian RSes. But if the two versions of WP:RS are substantially the same then we can move to their sources page. The Russian version of WP:VG/RS is located here and all three sources seem to be listed. Does Russian WP:VG describe them as reliable, situational, or unreliable? -Thibbs (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for detailed reply. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Russian wiki RS status. "Авторитетные источники по тематике компьютерных игр" means "Reliable sources for the topic of video games", where "Авторитетные источники" means "Reliable sources" and "Важнейшие источники" section means "Most important sources"; "Статьи о компьютерных играх" means "Articles on video games". In short, they are listed as reliable and important. That page doesn't list anything situational/unreliable. Problem is, they were copied from their "WP:video game articles" page where they were almost all added by a single user who briefly announced this on talk, which got 2 replies saying "looks good, expanded version of VG/RS page". This unfortunately means this isn't necessarily indicative of individual reliability as it wasn't actually discussed anywhere. I guess this would be trusting the editor's judgment/common knowledge and that no one reverted in 3 years so people agree.

After skimming through lots of hits (I may have made some mistakes due to the sheer number of stuff I have to sieve through), I see everyone treats the top magazines as something everyone knows already, that is, "don't need to explicitly talk how notable the magazines are, everyone knows it". So rather than individual pieces serving to prove the status of the magazines, it is mentioning these magazines or their editors and that gives the pieces authority. I guess what I'm saying is that (at least for the big names) I'm trying to prove reliability of something that is inherently defining what reliable Russian VG media is. That said, their standards are lower than Western counter-parts. And attribution and referencing has never been Russian media's strong suit, which also makes this hard. I see articles and text which is copied and pasted with 0 attribution, so I'm not even sure if below links are the original sources. Well, I'll try anyway.

As for the magazine game review/commentary content, they devote anything from a brief paragraph to multiple dozen pages. It seems to be the same between all magazines and match western magazines. Reviews (вердикт) are generally noted as such and they give out reasonable scores. There's also plenty of miscellaneous columns about upcoming stuff, industry, consoles, people, the usual. All of the magazines share the same pattern -- they start off as descriptions of games for the first years of publication and then evolve into commentary and reviews with more in-depth pieces.

Russian wiki usage as sources (trying to avoid what links here, because besides latest reviews, they aren't actually online). Igromania: - tons of cites. Game.EXE: - a bunch of cites. Velikij Drakon: - some cites. This does however correspond to their online presence - Igromania is current, Game.EXE closed in 2006 and Velikij Drakon closed in 2003 (only 2 years after Wiki).

I think Igromania with its many cites pretty much passes RS line without me digging through individual Russian media, as they have tons of hits in news. They are pretty much in Russia what something like PC Gamer is in UK relative to target audience. They have a nice how-top-apply-and-get-hired page, which is basically an application with CV/resume plus a sample piece, so it at least says they don't pick anyone from the street. They have a full editorial team (as they mention individual editors and writers in various places), though they don't have a central page for this. Their editor Алексей Макаренков himself writes. Here's a history piece of their editors. I could dig into individual people, though I don't know if there's a point unless this is contested.

Game.EXE has a bunch of news mentions, mostly mentioning with people associated and some regarding their pieces. ru:Kanobu.ru (listed as RS) has made a 2-part 40min video piece interviews about Game.EXE history calling it a cult magazine.part 1part 2accompanying article. In fact, it gets called "cult magazine" in passing. I see lots of magazine's and former editors/writers of the magazine being mentioned with notes to Game.EXE, for bigger examples interview with former writer or piece about former magazine's publisher. Here's magazine history with mentions. When it was being closed/sold by the publisher, it got related mentions. The magazine has been referenced/mentioned by a couple other RSes, others are mostly comments.

Staff of Game.EXE. Their chief editor was Игорь Исупов (interviewed in that video), previously "editor" of literary section of "Компьютерра" magazine and with academic credentials. Rest of team he describes as talented but without experience (this is 95-96 before name change). What I gather is their pieces were more literally than review-y, if that makes sense. One thing is that pretty much everyone related went on to do big stuff, so that has to speak for the magazine's reputation. For example, editor Андрей Ом became LiveJournal chief editor, Russian PC Gamer version editor. Original (95-96) chief-editor Дмитрий Мендрелюк founded Компьютерра publisher. As far I say understand (especially from user comments), Game.EXE was to Russian gaming scene what Igromania is now.

Now, Velikij Drakon is not as easy. It is the oldest Russian video game/anime magazine. From the existing sources in article it was covered by GameSetWatch, mentioned by HCG101 , lists their editor/contact page. Here's a history piece/interview, here's magazine history with mention , another history piece. Here's someone picked up on a rumor it might reopen. Passing mentions in RS, other. Unfortunately, most hits are blogs and such, like. Here's an interview with their chief editor Валерий Поляков, some coverage and history of that. Russian Wiki list editors/writers and notes they were notable at the time. For example, Валерий Корнеев, later otaku.ru editor, АнимеГид chief editor , has held lectures.

I'm more than sure that the first magazine in Russia received more than enough coverage at the time, unfortunately this was before Internet era and I don't know where to even begin to search for such offline archives. Contemporary sites don't really mention it as much as I'd like.

Anyway, that's what I got for now. I'm kind of exhausted and might try to find more stuff later. I think above shows Igromania and Game.EXE as reliable. I believe Velikij Drakon is too, but I can't show it that well unless others would agree. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow. Thanks for all the research and the thorough presentation! I agree with your assessments regarding Igromania and Game.exe. I also suspect that you're right about Velikij Drakon. As the earliest example of video game journalism in Russia it is surely a significant source and I would think that at the very least its reviews would be acceptable since reviews are opinion-based information anyway and the journal is notable. It would be excellent to have some Russian coverage of the pre-1995 period. And even if the discussion at Russian WP:VG/RS was small, the fact that they were brought up on the talk page and that nobody objected for 3 years is significant. So yeah, I'd say all 3 look good to me. I tend to have slightly greater trust in the reliability of registered periodical sources (and here all three have ISSNs) and in print than in online sources anyway though. -Thibbs (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else, at least some general opinion? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think, like Thibbs, that I'm more inclined to believe that registered print sources aare typically reliable. I think that probably English and Japanese sources should hold preference in things like review tables, or if there's trimming of bloating or something, but I'd definitely say they're useable. Sergecross73   msg me   20:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Traditional news websites
While I feel this has been discussed in the past, I think it's important for us to have a section listing websites that discuss video games to a non-trivial degree (such as The Guardian). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea, although someone needs to volunteer to make such a list or at least start it. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of these sources that are not primarily VG-focused (e.g. New York Times and Maxim) already appear in the checklist. I think we could probably find good support for sources like The Guardian for example at WP:RSN. As far as placement in the guidelines I'd make it the new "11.1.4" in the ToC. Any thoughts about that? -Thibbs (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem! needs a lot of work but a few months ago nearly two years ago (already?) I threw in reviews from traditional news publications in the reviews template (even though such padding is discouraged... sshhhh); they're from The Guardian, The Telegraph and The New York Post. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

ProtoGalaxy sources
ProtoGalaxy is a FAC and it appears to use a few unreliable sources. I'm bringing a few here for final verdicts. czar ♔  20:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Mana Pool
ProtoGalaxy uses a review and interview from Mana Pool. The about page says it's written by volunteers in their spare time. Team doesn't appear to have editorial experience. I'm thinking the site's unreliable. czar ♔  20:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks unreliable. The about page and credential leave me wanting more. The reviews are okay-ish, although I'd expect a bit more and some editorial oversight. Some of the stuff they say wouldn't pass if an editor was involved. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Game Boyz
Game Boyz review also used in ProtoGalaxy. About page doesn't mention editorial oversight or experience. I don't think the site is reliable. czar ♔  20:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Doesn't look too bad and the about page is more substantial than a lot of places and they do have 2 editors-in-chief. That said, they don't list their credentials. It's also been around since 1996. N4G mirrors them and GameRankings use it, although N4G parrots everyone and GR uses many we don't consider reliable. Kotaku mentioned it when discussing who reviewed a particular title. Their reviews look okay, although the site is straight from 2000. Overall, I wouldn't call it unreliable, but I wouldn't call it reliable either. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the same thing. This is probably the best of the three but I still lean toward non-RS based on the lack of credentials and the scant citation in other listed RSes. -Thibbs (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Game Interface
Review was written by "virus". No About page or editorial oversight. czar ♔  20:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks unreliable to me due to lack of any indicators of reliability. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I just e-mailed Scott Burton, the owner of Game Interface, to inquire about the website's editorial policy. He responded asking what details I was looking for. What specifically should I ask him? Neelix (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Basically we'd be looking for an editorial policy that lives up to the requirements of fact-checking and accuracy as set out in WP:RS. So first of all, is there an editorial policy? Is there an editor in chief who provides oversight of the material that is published? Are there any other kinds of editorial control/oversight? Are efforts made to fact-check prior to publication? Are corrections issued when incorrect information is published? How are corrections issued? Those are some of the basic questions. -Thibbs (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like Game Interface doesn't have sufficient editorial policy; Burton hasn't gotten back to me. Neelix (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * It would be nice to keep the discussion together. Would you mind if this thread was moved to the ongoing FAC for this article? Neelix (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The sites' reliability is usually determined regardless of its current use in articles. Any local consensus about their usage within the FAC would still want to be hashed out here. But sure, Farm-Fresh eye.png also see the linked FAC czar  ♔  05:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll treat this as source review and by large ignore their use in the FACed article. An interview could be a situational source from any of these, given the interview is unbiased. I don't think any of these sites have ulterior motives. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree about the interview since it's more akin to a self-published source on the topic of itself than a review. And a source review is of course the correct way to handle this request instead of a reliability review. Reliability is more a matter of factual accuracy than anything else. Reviews are inherently subjective so it's not very meaningful to discuss them in terms of reliability. There's rarely any reason to doubt that the review represents a reliable reflection of the reviewers' opinions. When considering which reviews to include in the article, reliability of the source is a factor but I think notability of the source is perhaps more important. Everyone has opinions. And most reviews are reliable reflections these opinions. But why should readers care that examplefanpag.com reviewed the game? -Thibbs (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.digitalspy.com/
Opinions?-- Sexy Kick  16:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Digital spy is fine, its used in lots of articles here and is owned by these guys. DWB (talk) / Comment on 'Dredds FA nom! 16:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Already has a ✓ on the main page, with several discussions czar  ♔  17:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Penny Arcade Report now defunct, links dead
I thought someone posted somewhere about this recently, but I can't find a previous discussion. Penny Arcade Report was announced as shutting down, but as of the new year (Happy New Year), it looks like their article URLs are official redirecting back to the main site. The Google caches are still available if you want to make a last ditch effort to replace and archive your PAR links—otherwise they're all dead as of now. The WP:VG/RS search is also still showing PAR results, if you want to archive anything for future articles. czar ♔  16:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Indie Game Magazine
I wanted to use this site as a source for Fez announcement data, but the editorial policy is nonexistent. Top WPVGRS search hits are about paid reviews. Wanted to see if anyone else had input, or whether this is just a solid no. czar  ♔  00:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

retrovideogamer.co.uk and coi
Anyone knows if retrovideogamer.co.uk is reliable? This matter is related to Talk:Atari Lynx. According to the discussion, Kieren Hawken may have a COI.  « Ryūkotsusei »  06:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, unless I'm missing something. No editorial policy and a ton of user-contributed stuff. Might be okay for situational purposes, depending on the author and whether it's being used as a self-published source. I'm going to comment in the Lynx thread. Thanks for bringing it here. czar  ♔  07:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Gamer Network
Are all sites under Gamer Network considered reliable? --Mika1h (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Some of them are definitely considered reliable: One other source has been discussed here but no conclusion was reached: The others haven't yet been discussed yet: Hope that helps a little. -Thibbs (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Eurogamer (presumably including Eurogamer Expo and EuroGamer Creative) is listed as reliable here
 * GamesIndustry International is listed as reliable here (as gamesindustry.biz)
 * NintendoLife is listed as reliable here
 * RockPaperShotgun is listed as reliable here
 * VG24/7 is listed as reliable here
 * PushSquare.com was discussed here (shame on me for not following up on that...)
 * BrasilGamer.com.br - This is a EuroGamer affiliate so I'd guess that it's reliable, but I haven't looked deeply into it
 * Rezzed - >15 citations within Wikipedia
 * USGamer.net - >25 citations within Wikipedia
 * GameHorizon
 * Modjo.com
 * Outside Xbox
 * I think USGamer is just the American version of Eurogamer, and Eurogamer promotes a lot of Outside Xbox content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * USgamer ✓ is definitely a pass from me. Their staff is solid. BrasilGamer ✗ looks like their up-and-coming Brazil spinoff, but their editorial staff doesn't look reliable yet—mostly contributors and no industry experience, and no editorial guarantees. EGX Rezzed and GameHorizon are not news sites but events, so unless they have hidden news sections, they looks like a self-published source for situational use and don't need to be listed here. I don't really know what's going on with Modojo !!!, as they have a tiny staff (hidden in right side bar) and no editorial policy. They have two editors listed and a publisher. Editor Chris Buffa came from Joystiq and John Bedford from Eurogamer. Publisher John Benyamine has some USgamer background. Other major contributors like Robert Workman do not much of a history. So I'd say that Modojo is likely prone to improve as one of GN's top properties, but it currently doesn't have an editorial policy publicly available and its reliability would depend on the history and integrity of its individual contributors. Outside Xbox ✗ isn't much of a source but a page for a video channel. I wouldn't exactly call their shows reporting, and they write very little text. Four-person staff with three editors: Farrant (who posts on EG), Douglas, Channell from OXM. Overall, I'm not sure why anyone would cite the site, but it doesn't appear to have editorial oversight of the few statements it makes... so even though they are EG perennials, I'd say no for now. Push Square ✗/ !!! looks situational, again. It has a number of editors, but no policy. It shares some staff with Nintendo Life ✗/ !!! and is likely as reliable (which is to say what I started to say last time—that I wouldn't personally use or trust either just yet despite Odie's research). PS and NL are in the same company (NLife), which appears to be affiliated with but not run by Gamer Network. czar  ♔  04:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between Gamer Network sites and their partner sites. Everything that Gamer Network own and run, I consider reliable, they're a professional news organization.  Partner sites should be considered individually, they have separate editorial standards and only share the Eurogamer advertising platform. - hahnch e n 14:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of "Push Square". They seem to be on-par with "Nintendo Life" pretty much. Their info hasn't caused any controversy or steered me wrong yet with content creation at least... Sergecross73   msg me   14:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

gosugamers.net
Anyone know if gosugamers.net is reliable? I see someone talk about the reliable source about video game. Does anyone discuss about this source? If not, I hope someone can discuss about this and give a consensus whether to consider it as a reliable source.Miracle dream (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2014‎   (UTC)
 * They have no apparent editorial oversight policy or structure and their contributors  don't come from editorial pedigrees. They're mentioned a fair amount of times in WP:VG/RS searches but it looks more for supplemental reporting and not scooping their whole stories. So this is a "not yet" from me, personally.  czar  ♔  15:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The Escapist
So I'm reading the discussions about The Escapist (magazine)'s reliability and I'm not 100% sure what parts of it is reliable. Its marked situational but I don't know if that means that Zero Punctuation is unreliable or not or anything Jim Sterling says on the site is reliable. GamerPro64 22:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Off topic, Jim Sterling is a total idiot. On topic, as I understand it the satirical nature is the biggest issue here as it can be interpreted multiple ways. --Teancum (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Four things, one: The Escapist was bought by Alloy Digital some time ago, which merged with Break Media to become Defy Media, so that's explains that change. Second, Zero Punctuation is not satire since he displays a depth of seriousness behind his claims, save for that one Duke Nukem Forever review. I don't know where that idea came from. Third, as for reviews on the rest of the site, they are generally pretty good with them being used as part of Metacritic. So perhaps it should be moved out from Situation? Finally, Jim Sterling is not an idiot. He criticizes the gaming industry and gamers with strong strikes and is quite good at it. Zero Serenity (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

GameBoomers
Stumbled across this website while working on a GAN and while I removed it from the article just to minimize its Reception section, I have no clue if the actual site is reliable or not. It has an About section so there's some promise in it but I never heard about it until now. GamerPro64 00:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

NowGamer
Saw this site for the first time today here and it's published by Imagine Media, which has other reliable material, but looking at the staff, I'm unsure. Verdict? czar ♔  22:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * NowGamer is reliable, it's Imagine Publishing as you mention. It's editor, Ryan King was previously editor at Play (UK magazine) and was at Future Publishing before then.  You can Google some of the writers and find their linkedin profiles, there's a mixture of experience but it's clear it's a professional publication. - hahnch e n 04:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Forbes
Can we add this to situational sources? And explicitly note that not all Forbes articles are reliable? Although the magazine and website both feature reliable professional staff, its website features contributions from "Forbes staff" & "Forbes contributors". The latter follows the content farm approach of Examiner.com and Demand Media, here's a critique - http://pando.com/2013/12/17/the-ouroboros-is-complete-forbes-outsourced-contributor-outsources-journalism-to-actual-journalists/.

Some of the Forbes' blogging network create quite a lot of video game content, such as Erik Kain and Paul Tassi. Some of these are cited by good and featured articles, they shouldn't be.

It can be difficult to pin down the line between Forbes staff and contributors. This article for example is written by Forbes staff, but describes a contributor article as their official review. It looks like http://www.forbes.com/sites/games/, though contributor submitted forms an "official" voice (and so may be considered reliable). - hahnch e n 17:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * With my experience with Forbes, I support this. « Ryūkotsusei » 17:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In general Forbes is a high reliable source, so inclusion - if it needs to be - is fine. As to address the "contributor" issue, if they actually say "here is Forbes' review of game X" and point to "contributor" X, that's as good as say the contributors are speaking for the magazine, and there is editorial control on this . As such, there's no reason to dismiss the contributors from Forbes; it is not like an unmonitored blog that examiner.com has. --M ASEM  (t) 18:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is the Poynter Institute on the Forbes platform - "Each contributor flies solo with his own blog. He is responsible for conceiving and creating the content, ensuring its accuracy and building an engaged, loyal readership." Contributors do not have the same editorial oversight that the magazine does, and I'll take the Poynter's word for it over some self-aggrandising contributor telling us how excellent he is. The 300 pages of contributors do not speak for the magazine, they speak for themselves. - hahnch e n 18:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But Forbes chose them to have blogs (it's not a true self-publishing platform, as there is exclusivity) and there are editorial controls. Arguably, you turn to any of the major VG cites, say, like Polygon, and even the articles from the primary contributors are still mostly the voice of the writer, not the publisher.  I do agree that there is likely less editorial control with the Forbes contributors as there is at Polygon, but there is some (particularly with a magazine like Forbes which is meant to be a business-related magazine) editorial control which is the core factor here. For example, I doubt Paul Tassi could write a review for a game with careless regard that could harm Forbes' reputation, as there is some editor checking the work to make sure there isn't any slanderous about it.  Now, from both of the examples both have shown they do fact check (they typically source to other sites before offering opinion), another important facet of a reliable source. --M ASEM  (t) 19:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Polygon has staff writers. They're all "Polygon staff", not "Polygon contributors".  According to Lewis Dvorkin, the chief product officer at Forbes.com, they have 50 staff reporters and 1000 contributors.  The staff are paid a salary, the contributors are paid depending on the hits they get.  Again from the Poynter source - "There is no traditional editing of contributors’ copy,".  Here's Forbes CEO Mike Perlis on contributors, "I'm not suggesting we edit them like we edit a full-time staffer".  There is a difference in editorial standards which is why Forbes should be included as a situational source and should not get a free pass. - hahnch e n 20:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But they are reviewing what's written to make sure it's legit. No, they aren't probably being edited under a microscope but they are being reviewed prior to posting, making it a step better than a blog. I would also add that my experience with both mentioned contributors that when they write factually (non-opinion statements), that information is either backed up by another source, or later collaborated by another source. They are both mentioned by other sources, so they are recognized as Forbes' video game experts. So I would say situationally for those two, or for any staff writer, Forbes is fine. If they get additional contributors, we'd need to watch their history for this. --M ASEM  (t) 20:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * They're not being reviewed prior to posting, read the reliable secondary sources. If they bubble up to the top, a Forbes staffer could look at it. You defend the two guys I named up top, and Tassi has been published by IGN, but his non-Forbes work is not prolific - I can't find anything else he has produced for IGN. His background was blogging at True/Slant as a student before it got sold to Forbes. There are Examiner writers with similar or more experience. If they're quoting their sources, it's safer just go to go their sources. If they're providing opinion, I would only reference them when a reliable source does. - hahnch e n 21:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I support their actual staff/magazine work, but not the contributors. Their work is usually on par with a random essay by a IGN blogger or a post on Neogaf. Not the work of what Wikipedia deems an RS. Sergecross73  msg me   21:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I too think it makes sense to mark Forbes as "situational" based on whether the individual writer is staff, considering the fluctuation in quality czar  ♔  22:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be as keen on shifting from Reliable to Situational, honestly, but seeing as we're talking about adding it to the situational column when it wasn't previously on the page at all then I'm glad to see it's at least included in some capacity so it can be added into the RS search tools. I agree with Masem that the examples here (Erik Kain and Paul Tassi) weren't the best since both writers seem to see a considerable amount of discussion by third party RSes. Are there any specific examples where Forbes or its writers or contributors are being used inappropriately for facts? Or is the idea that any citation to Kain's or Tassi's writings for Forbes should be barred? -Thibbs (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you look through the Kain links, the first use of his work in a video game related article is this piece on DRM. But he's merely cutting/pasting from reliable sources - so just go to those reliable sources.  Tassi's first hit is this article on Twitch, which is set dressing a press release and is covered in reliable sources.  Our guidelines should say that Forbes authored pieces are reliable, and that Forbes contributor pieces may not be - so look for reliable alternatives. The use of Forbes contributors is currently being discussed at the Grand Theft Auto V FAC. - hahnch e n 03:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sales analysis like this seems sloppy on a number of grounds. (Using VGchartz data, cherry-picking data, etc.) Also, similar to what Hahnchen says above, their work somewhat reminds me of "gonintendo.com", where the analysis stuff is questionable, and much of their news stuff is just ripped from other websites -- so just use them instead. Sergecross73   msg me   14:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So I guess if there was a genuine conflict of sources and we had, e.g., Forbes (via Tassi or Kain) on one side supporting claim A and we had IGN on the other side supporting claim !A then I'd easily exercise discretion in favor of IGN's claim. But I do see Tassi and Kain as representing Forbes when publishing there as contributors, and they've apparently gotten Forbes' nod. As such I wouldn't necessarily want to call them unreliable when it comes to lesser matters like assessing a topic's notability. I'd support calling Forbes situational with a note that caution should be exercised when using claims made by contributors (rather than staff) and that references to them should be replaced with superior ones if possible. I wouldn't be totally comfortable with a note saying that all Forbes contributors (or even just Tassi and Kain) are presumptively unreliable, though. -Thibbs (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So I would be find calling it situational, highlighting that stories from actual reporters (not contributors) are fine, and opinion pieces (eg reviews) from contributors are fine (since Forbes considers this "their" reivew of the game), while when these contributors make analysis or other reporting there are likely better sources (the ones they site) or otherwise questionable analysis that can be used. I would still say that there's enough editorial control that if one of these contributors highlights something that is in other sources, that a point towards things like notability considerating that Forbes does allow that topic to go through, but obviously there should be more for that. --M ASEM (t) 14:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Added it. You might also want to note how http://www.forbes.com/sites/games/ could be considered official. - hahnch e n 22:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Digital Trends
Some research suggest that this site shows reliability. I am looking for a consensus. Thanks! Valoem  talk  19:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

TouchArcade
This source is currently being used in the article Threes!, whose Good Article Nomination I have placed on hold. The website is managed by Eli Hodapp, who doesn't appear to cite journalistic experience. He does appear to be intelligent and experienced within the industry. Unsure on this one. CR 4 ZE (t) 11:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ive always thought of them as reliable. I've used them as a source to prove notability a number of times at AFD, without any opposition. Sergecross73   msg me   13:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Odie5533/VG Source Reliability: TouchArcade.com – "Still by far the best site on handheld gaming." says The Guardian, called "the best app reviewer for games" by Advertising Age. Referenced by ComputerAndVideoGames, 1UP.com, EuroGamer 2, JoyStiq 2 3 4 5, Technorati, Time, CNET, Kotaku |-aftershock/ 2 3, PocketGamer.biz, International Business Times. I would consider it reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't top Odie's list, but wanted to chime in as the Threes! writer that TA has a long-standing reputation in the project as a source for mobile games, even if it hasn't been brought to WPVG/RS before. (Here are the mentions by Polygon alone.) czar  ♔  18:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Big the Cat RS
In the article Big the Cat, which is a current GAN, there are two sites being cited in the material that I have not heard of. Are Axiom Magazine and SegaBits okay to use in this context? Cheat Code Central is additionally being used in an opinion piece; is it appropriate to use in the article? CR 4 ZE (t) 05:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussions linked on the page for CCC show it as generally being seen as unreliable. I don't go about remove every instance of it, because there's no hard consensus it seems, but I wouldn't think it would be fit for a GA. Segabits is just a Sega fansite too, isn't it? Sergecross73   msg me   12:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't see any evidence that AxiomMagazine is reliable. It has barely any hits on Google, and is not recognized at all in the industry. Anyone can start a magazine, but that doesn't instantly create a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. SegaBits is an unreliable fansite. Other industry players seem to only use the site for its finds, but they don't take SegaBits's word for anything and always look at the source themselves . That's not a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And as a nail in the coffin, they've been called out for bad reporting by VentureBeat. That is a giant black mark in my book. Regarding CCC, I don't like using it if it's avoidable, especially some of their lower tier writers like this one is. I wouldn't use it myself, but I wouldn't forbid it either. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll agree with the both of you on Axiom and SegaBits. User:Tezero, looks like you're going to have to find replacements and if you can't you'll have to remove the statements that are sourced from these sites. Now in the case of CCC, you're both right in saying it isn't the best source. The article in question is an opinion piece composed by Angelo M. D'Argenio. He is a senior staff member who's been with them for three years. The article makes point that it is a subjective opinion, and it's written by someone who appears to have some experience. I wouldn't say his usage is cardinal sin in this instance, at least not for a GA, but it appears that Tezero is limited by the amount of RS to be used in the article. Would anybody else conclude CCC's usage as a situational okay in this instance only? CR 4 ZE (t) 13:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember feeling sketchy about Axiom and SegaBits when I first added them, and they're now gone without much consequence. As I recall, I just wanted to be damn sure the article wasn't going to get re-merged. CheatCC, though, I guess I assumed was a decently respected site, maybe on the level of Destructoid or GameZone, but one that happened to host user-submitted cheat codes alongside its more respectable articles. Tezero (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Game Zero magazine
The game was a video game review magazine that published in print from 1992-1994, moved to on-line exclusive, then went to simultaneous print/web before closing in 1998. Some further review and article content was added sparsely by staff through as late as 2006. On-line content peaked between 1994-1996.

During it's peak publishing period it was a top internet site for gaming news with a European mirror site and considered a highly credible source of reviews by both visitors and developers who were fans of the magazine. The current URL hosts the archive of the site content as it was published at the time and features various period news articles, one-of a kind period interviews and at the time commentary that can not be found on other sites on the web due to link rot of the web. Unfortunately most of the online visibility via links to the site are also long gone due to the age of the site and expected link rot of the web and it's pre-Internet Archive publishing period.

Up until December of 2012 there was a Game Zero magazine page in the Wiki but it was removed due to lack of visible notability in contemporary indexes. I do have a mirror of the original page and it's talk page archived on my personal page, graciously restored by the editor who AfD'd the original page. I would also be inclined to have community revisit the subject of notability given the historical precedents the publication set, but I'm sure that's a separate discussion.

Various web sites continue to deep link into the Game Zero archive for citing reference to gaming topics and other material including a steady stream of links from various internet forums that use the site to settle arguments (such as imprints of press releases from Sony, etc... to prove who the first company to have Analog controllers on the market was).

Key articles that maintain consistent link traffic and notability (to name but a few) are:

1995 E3 tradeshow coverage

Shoshinkai, N64 preview

1992 article on "Violence and Video Games"

1992 interview with Howard Lincoln

2006 interview with Dr. H. Peter Hofstee

The Math Behind the Magic series of articles on the basics of Process Design

1995 article on Hellraiser for the NES

Various 1995/1996 news segments.

1995/1996 XBAND features

Thanks for your consideration. In the spirit of full disclosure I must note that I was one of the original owners/staff from the magazine and active owner of the archive. BcRIPster (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd need info on its editorial procedure before coming to any conclusions czar  ♔  02:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It would also be helpful to see examples of the websites that link to the Game Zero archives. Are these links coming from RSes? -Thibbs (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, our editorial process for reviews required all four reviewers to have played a significant portion of the title, potentially completing it (length of game vs publishing deadlines as applicable). If a full stable of reviews were unavailable, then in some cases a single or double review was permitted (but potentially without full scoring).
 * Also, reviews were required to be performed on final releases of games, exclusively! No reviews were allowed on beta or alpha content. This was a key distinction because the core concept of the magazine was a protest against other publications of the era that would routinely review games based on beta game play, sometimes misleading players. Once we were web based, there was no longer a multi-month lead time to print so we had the luxury of getting a review out within 30-days (or less) of a game release and still beat other print publications by as much as a month or two.
 * On the subject of scoring. Scoring/ratings were based on this guide. Reviews were copy-reviewed by the senior editor and type-setter prior to publication. Number scores that seemed to vary too greatly compared to the written review text were challenged and sent back to the review for correction to be in line with their review. Any all 5's were always challenged flat out and I believe we only ever allowed two or three all 5's from a review to ever stand on reviews in the publication. The written review was always consider canon, why the numbers were considered complementary to the review. Editorial staff was harsh enough on this rule that one of the reviewers (who wrote and defended an all 5 review) still keeps the game on display at his house to defend his point... 20 years later.
 * Full articles were written by individual staff members and then copy-reviewed for any issues by the senior editor who was also our type-setter. All article content was reviewed internally for citations and thoroughness of research and A.P. format compliance as applicable. Potential articles were vetted by the entire editorial staff for selection and only articles agreed on by editorial group consensus were green lit for final publication.
 * Interviews were different in that we would provide the final piece to the person or team interviewed for final sign-off before publication.
 * Publication cycle while on the web was generally weekly for core content updates with significant features published atleast once a month. We rotated editorial slots to provide a steady update stream.


 * As for sites that link to the archive. Typically these days it appears to be ranges from forums (such as AtariAge), specialty sites, or even academic sites (I can review referral traffic for some examples if you need) deep linking to individual articles or reviews such as the ones I reference above.
 * In it's era, we had a very large collection of links into the site from other news portals. Especially ISP homepage link portals (pre-search engine as we hosted a very comprehensive link directory of gaming sites that was regularly updated). A typical example of a community news site (which I only recently discovered still on-line) can still be seen here on the Tuscon Weekly website were Game Zero was featured in the site's footer. Nearly all of the sites of this nature though are long gone from the web.
 * Additionally, links to Game Zero would turn up in various printed Internet guides, I have a couple of them mentioned on the archived Talk page off my profile.
 * The magazine was also the official news source for XBAND and they directed all of their customers to us for gaming tips and questions via a dedicated Game Zero XBAND user account and e-mail. (I have some video footage from XBAND displaying Game Zero on the service's portal that you visited from the SNES or Genesis consoles that I'm planning to put up on YouTube at some point).
 * The real problem is that most of what you would call "reliable sources" on-line were all sites that ceased to exist before the Internet Archive mirrored them at the end of the 90's. So this becomes a problematic issue.


 * Sorry if this was overly verbose. I hope this at least answers your questions. BcRIPster (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * OH! One other point. In the magazine, we made use of pseudonyms for all writers/editors. This policy was established because one the core editorial staff was female who did not want to risk persecution by readers based on gender. At her request we adopted the all pseudonym format in order to keep the focus on the content and not the staff's gender orientation. BcRIPster (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I sympathize with your earlier efforts to keep the article up in mainspace, but I can understand why there may have been some who thought the site lacked notability. This sounds like a textbook example of the lack of historical documentation of the internet in its early years. Notability at Wikipedia is directly related to coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources so unless these can be furnished the conclusion has to be "non-notable." I realize that you're asking for something different here at WP:VG/RS but I think it's important to understand that where AfD looks for notability and verifiability, WP:VG/RS is looking for a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Indicators include editorial policies and procedures, staff qualifications, citation by reliable third parties, and to a lesser extent length of time in operation and traffic/readership (these last two are really only the barest of indicators and can't be relied upon). The more evidence that these indicators are present the better. I don't doubt your word that Game Zero was an important source in its day and links like that you provided to the Tucson Weekly definitely help establish the reputation leg of your case. I know it's difficult with gaming topics from this era, but could you provide a bit more? A quick search of Google Scholar shows me that the site has indeed been cited by a few academic works as well as a good number of patents. I'm optimistic about the site's usability as an RS, but I think a bit more hard evidence may be needed to establish its bona fides. Could you talk about the credentials of the staff? Have any of them moved on to write for known RSes or otherwise made a name for themselves since the 90s? -Thibbs (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, well, let me tackle the last question first. After the magazine shut down everyone did go on with their careers. I'm going to try to avoid company names in as much as possible in order to protect the pseudonyms, and in one case a staff member has dropped the magazine work from their CV because it is out of line with their current career activity. But, I can gladly expand in a PM if needed. Magazine policy was that pseudonym disclosure is strictly left to the individual staff member and we still adhere to that rule. Pretty much all of us have stayed in touch over the years. Sometimes, entertaining thoughts of a reboot of the magazine. Anyways...


 * R.I.P. (editor), this is me. Immediately after Game Zero I spent a year writing training and procedural guides for call center workers at a national ISP. Then worked in web publishing for a few national websites (including a syndicated radio program). Most recently I spent the last 12 years working for a Fortune 500 company as a Director in their Corporate Communications department handling global multimedia and social media communications. I also was an internal expert on copyright and online community building among other subjects. I wrote extensively in internally corporate published channels on a wide array of subjects for the company and spoke at a number of internal executive conferences. I also spoke externally on a few occasions, notably several times related to business use of Second Life when that was a thing people were exploring.


 * Salamander (editor) spent time writing nationally distributed travel and relocation guides, then worked as Sr./Lead developer for a company that built the core technology and original site for Travelweb (the first on-line hotel reservation and booking website), then moved into professional video game development working three years for a studio as lead on several AAA titles on XBox/PS2/PC. Then left there to start a small game studio that released a ticket redemption coin-op game, several projects within Second Life that had very high visibility (one of which was featured in a presentation before Congress on virtual worlds) and has been working on military simulation software to name just a small breath of the work.


 * Ferrari Man (editor) is currently the COO of a software/web publishing company that develops and supports several Fortune 500, international real-estate and hotel chain web sites.


 * ???? (editor) is currently a professional graphic designer involved with web and Android application development.


 * Benjamin (writer) did a lot of writing jobs and for the last many years has been a senior writer with the New Times, receiving the Arizona Press Club Awards over several years for his writing.


 * Dr. Otto (writer/cartoonist) currently works as graphic artists and concept artist for a video game studio.


 * Tintagel (writer) went onto a career in Enterprise Network Security for a Fortune 500 company.


 * I'll try and spend some time today locating some additional items for the first part of your request and get back to you. On a side note, I hadn't looked at Google Scholar recently and was surprise when I put in "gamezero.com" to see all of the Nintendo patents linking to a period press release we published on the site. How cool is that?BcRIPster (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And at the time when the staff listed above was working for Game Zero (which would be the time period for the source articles which are being reviewed as RSes) did they have any previous experience or was this where they cut their teeth at video game journalism? From the details you are providing it does sound pretty good, but tangible evidence would probably be the best way to demonstrate reliablity at this point. I know a lot of older paper magazines around the dawn of the internet liked to have a 1-2 page section covering what was "hot" online so I'll look through some of those. In the meanwhile I'd like to hear some other editors' views on the matter to help develop a consensus here. -Thibbs (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This would have been the magazine editorial staff's first "pro" effort at video game journalism. But, pretty much all of the members of the staff had had previous experience with news journalism and publishing of varying kinds at a H.S. and/or College level. Later in the publication's life we brought on some additional writers of varying backgrounds to explore expanding the reviewer roster but core article content was restricted to editorial staff with one or two exceptions. BcRIPster (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Last night I found a large number of e-mails from late 1997 that we still had archived which were e-mails that were being sent out to sites that still had incorrect links to the magazine after we moved to a different provider (we still had a redirect at the old provider for years though). So these e-mails each had included a link to a webpage where we found a bad link and were asking for it to be updated by the owner. Using the Wayback Machine, I was able to get 32 of the ~350+ sites tried to come up with entries archive showing a page linking to Game Zero. 90's web pages are pretty hard to go back and look at these days. Please accept my apologies on your eyes in advance: Wayback Machine links BcRIPster (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I just went through them and only a few are what would normally be considered reliable. Specifically the Haskins Laboratories link (1), the Teesside University link (2), the ClassicGaming link (3 since ClassicGaming is a GameSpy affiliate and GameSpy is a listed RS), and possibly the Student Association page connected to the Polytechnic University of Turin (4), maybe the former 3DO Associate Director Michelle Breiner's fan page (5), and maybe the Hunterdon Central Regional High School's link (6). They are pretty much all just links pages (where Games Zero isn't actually being cited), but presumably these links were vetted by the organizations linking them so that's potentially evidence for the Games Zero's favorable reputation. I haven't found anything in the paper magazines I have, but my search was hardly exhaustive. Do any other editors have opinions on this matter? -Thibbs (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Understood, the links in this sample weren't citations, but as you inferred "potentially evidence for the Game Zero's favorable reputation". Thanks for the consideration and taking the time to look. I'm going to keep digging on this end though. BcRIPster (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: other opinions, I'm not comfortable calling GZ a reliable source just yet. I couldn't find it in WorldCat, so I don't know whether it even has an ISSN. I'd need more vetting from independent, non-affiliated sources (as other magazines have). I know that search can be rough (though the 70s/80s would be even harder), but I think this position is reasonable, given our standards for vetting everything else. czar ♔  06:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I found several citations of Game Zero content. I added 14 of them to the userfied GZ:Talk page. Some of them are PDFs and Word documents.


 * Quick update. It has just come to my attention that MobyGames has been integrating snippets of archived Game Zero scored reviews along with the aggregate review scoring into their MobyRank system. On a tangent, the Game Zero reviews were also once indexed on GameStats.com (mid 2000's) until they condensed their data to only reference actively published magazines. BcRIPster (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

To help keep this moving forward, I would like to posit the scope of Reliable Source be limited to content under the URL "www.gamezero.com/team-0". The content under this directory is directly related to the publication of the magazine under normal editorial procedures with only a couple items that were published later (such as an article on the gaming industry in the year 2000 and continued updates to the Polymer City comic). Content outside of that tree such as under "www.gamezero.com/gamezero" was added later in conjunction with my archival maintenance of the site. BcRIPster (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, so it's been a little over a month and a half since I posted this for consideration. Has there been any more thought on this from anyone? Especially with the qualifying information I added in my last comment? Thanks everyone for your time and consideration on this. FWIW, I recently started a project of scanning all of the written correspondence (especially press communications) made to the magazine that were received over the course of publication and considering adding this content to some other sub-directory on the site's domain. I'm not sure if this would be a factor but it could support that the magazine was operating under a Pro status with developers and manufactures. We're talking a few thousand pages of material so it's not a quick process. But I'm still curious if this would help. BcRIPster (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Last bump before this archives... Thoughts? Anyone?... Anyone? Bueller? BcRIPster (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

USGamer.net
USGamer.net is part of the same larger content network Gamer Network that already-reliable sites Eurogamer, VG247 and a few others are on. They are set up more in the style of Eurogamer. The leading editors on staff include founders and writers from other RSes like Julian Rignall, Jeremy Parish, and Pete Davidson. --M ASEM (t) 21:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks good to me. This source has also been discussed here positively before. See previous discussion. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I was going to post the old discussion, but Thibbs beat me to it. I gave it a ✓ there. czar ♔  00:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

PlayStation Universe (PSU.com)
PSU.com is currently being used in Featured Article Candidate Grand Theft Auto V. I would like to have this cleared as a reliable source to use. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 08:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The staff page is located here and doesn't reveal a great deal of professional experience, but the source has been cited by RSes (e.g. by VideoGamer.com and by IGN). I'm not sure I'd jump to reliable yet, though. This may require more investigation. -Thibbs (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

ffnet.org in a Featured Article
I came accross this (now defunct) site when I was updated the dead links in Kingdom Hearts (video game), a featured article. I didn't see any mention of it on the sources list. Looking at the sidebar of the archive I found on Wayback (particularly the list of affiliates), it looks like this is just a fan site. Could anyone who might know more else weigh in on this? --chrisFjordson (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this looks like a fan site. For reference, the "about" page is here and the staff page is here. The staff page in particular seems to just show a bunch of fans. It does look like a good resource, though. It seems that they like to post articles from magazines and to provide links to official information and these sources would be great to incorporate into Wikipedia articles. -Thibbs (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The Escapist as situational source
Following up on its last mention, is The Escapist only situational for Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw's colorful reviews? Is there agreement that the source is good/bad otherwise, and does that warrant its removal from the situational section? czar ♔  17:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Croshaw tends to exaggerate during reviews. Apart from that the Escapist tends to be reliable about stuff. I suppose the only reason it's still left in situational is because of it's sparse news articles and the majority being opinions and editorials. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I'd use the word exaggerate, per se. He definitely get's emotional with his reviews and goes over the top in his presentation but his points are generally spot on.BcRIPster (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Passionate then? Zero Serenity (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a reasonable term.BcRIPster (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say the Escapist is generally reliable in my experience as well. It's a Webby-award-winning online game magazine with some solid contributing writers and it does get cited by RSes (e.g. by 1up). About page is here and press releases listed here. -Thibbs (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to second this. The Escapist site has definitely fallen into my collection of trusted sources for when I'm reading on a subject. Currently it runs between them, Kotaku and Joystiq for consumer facing news. Gamasutra and GamesIndustry News for trade/business stories.BcRIPster (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the promotion. I couldn't think of proper wording of limitations on use since it comes down to personal judgment (as in knowing what's purely for comedy and what is more journalistic, like the difference between Zero Punctuation and The Jimquisition versus Jim and Yhatzee's Rhymedown Spectacular.) Zero Serenity (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Major Nelson
I'm not suggesting promoting him to reliable source, but I think the information written about him is not right. Here's a suggested replacement:

"Can be used for specific data on Xbox usage/download statistics, or for lack of any other corroborating sources on downloadable content, demo release dates and updates to Xbox services. Crossposting from Xbox wire is often and using wire is preffered."

"Self-published by Larry Hryb in a semi-professional manner."

That second item I'm a bit raised eyebrows about, since after reading his FAQ apparently it is just a bit of a spare-time hobby to him. Zero Serenity (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

What Culture, Complex, and Crave Online
I would like opinions in the following:, , and. The former appears to be user-contributed, but the implication is that the content must be approved for posting. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatculture: absolutely not. From their site: "You do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications". This is an encyclopedia, and such sources have no place here. Complex appears reliable. I didn't look at everything on their site, but their review of the recent major Wolfenstein: The New Order release was done by Michael Rougeau who has an impressive list of clients on his linkedin. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Niemti
has made, in effect, a declaration to ignore the list of reliable sources gathered and has more or less declared the continue usage of sources of disputable sources regardless of their assessments on this page. I would like to get some input and comment from other users on the matter so that we can settle the situation, and I invite Niemti to make an argument for the sources that he wants to use. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I imagine he'll get reverted when he gets noticed/caught, and eventually blocked if he repeatedly edit wars against consensus. I'd also notify, who has helped in the past with blocking Niemti for his trouble with editing collaboratively. (I've been too involved in too many arguments prior to being an Admin to act as an Admin against him.) Sergecross73   msg me   20:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't really an issue for WP:VG/RS... We're here to discuss the reliability of sources, not the misbehavior of individual editors. I'd bring this issue to WT:VG or outside of the WikiProject. And it would be helpful if you could include a link to show where Nimeti has made this declaration and evidence that he is making good on it. -Thibbs (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)