Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

XBLA Fans

Find video game sources: "XBLA Fans" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I honestly don't believe this source is reliable. Its only reason for being Situational was its collaboration with gamesauce, but gamesauce itself was never given any consensus on its reliability. So I doubt there's anything concrete to make it anything but unreliable. GamerPro64 18:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Steam Spy

Find video game sources: "Steam Spy" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo I think we should explicitly include Steam Spy as a situational source, specifically noting that we should always used third-party articles that refer to Steam Spy's numbers as evidence that these third-party sources believe the data is reasonably accurate (such as this example article. Otherwise, it should be treated like VGChartz in that it should not be used directly for sales figures (even though he is very open how he collects and estimates data). --MASEM (t) 17:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussion here. -- ferret (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If SteamSpy is included then wording in articles should be preceded with "SteamSpy estimated sales of..." or something similar instead of making it a definitive statement like "The game sold .... copies on Steam." --The1337gamer (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Exactly. If used, it would have to be worded in the prose with the proper context, and kept out of any infoboxes/charts/lists that doesn't allows for any context, much like how we even tend to treat analyst estimates. Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I would like to see text included, just like with VGChartz, that it can't be used for hard sales figures at the various "Lists of best selling" type articles. -- ferret (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The Escapist revisited

Find video game sources: "The Escapist" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Previous discussions: April 2014, September 2016

Revisiting this discussion as I don't believe it was adequately resolved. In 2014, I asked whether The Escapist should remain "situational", as Zero Punctuation was listed as the main reason for holding it back, and some editors said it was trusted. @Zero Serenity changed it to "reliable" and I suppose had a change of heart in starting a 2016 discussion on whether it should remain reliable, where some editors expressed doubts. I have similar concerns and don't fully understand why it is listed as reliable. Time to lay it all on the table. czar 17:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said, after that one incident that will remain nameless and then the huge staff upchange I'm unsure that it's reliability can be adequately be justified anymore. ZP is fine (always has been) but most of the other content is kinda "eh." Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I still think this website is reliable, all things considered. You can complain about the websites current quality all you want but I think everything else, especially from the past, is still usable. GamerPro64 23:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

IGN

NO ACTION
"We don't reclassify a sources reliability based off of how far their review scores stray from the average/median score." Gamingforfun365 02:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On Wikipedia, I would use IGN as a source of news, but now it is coming under fire by me because I notice that in the Reviews section, IGN tends to assign a film or video game either a score slightly more positive than the product's consensual score, a score moderately more negative than the product's consensual score, or not by least and most importantly, a score that is far much higher than the product's consensual score. For example, IGN gave Doom a score of 7.1/10, the most critical score of any noteworthy video game source on Metacritic. Although The Angry Birds Movie was only received by 43% of the critics on Rotten Tomatoes, IGN would assign the movie 7.6/10—higher than any of the given scores for the movie on Metacritic, with an average score of 43/100, and another (even more) blatant example is that even though Independence Day: Resurgence received a Rotten Tomatoes score of 31% and an average score of 4.3/10 and a Metascore of 32 out of 100, IGN gloated over giving the purportedly cheesy product a score of 8/10.

I am worried about when we should use IGN's reviews for articles. To me, it feels so biased and so anti-NPOV that I refuse to summarize key points of IGN's reviews that are blatantly contrary to the critical consensus. Any thoughts? Gamingforfun365 02:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

IGN is without a doubt reliable. No point really in discussing this further, its a mainstay of VG sourcing. It's fine for some reviewers to be outliers. This is why we include some of the commentary in the prose to illustrate why they scored the way they did. -- ferret (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We don't reclassify a sources reliability based off of how far their review scores stray from the average/median score. Doing so would set a dangerous precedent. I'm truly baffled by your proposal. When was the last time we changed our stance on a source because we didn't like their review scores? Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I guess that it is a silly question. Awkward. Shall I close it? Gamingforfun365 02:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't imagine this going anywhere... Sergecross73 msg me 02:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Critical Hit

Stylized as Critical|Hit. Would you consider this a reliable source? Keep in mind this is criticalhit.net not .com; also this site presumably used to be known as Lazygamer as Google searching "criticalhit.net" results in Lazygamer popping up. This June 2016 discussion briefly designated Lazygamer as unreliable. This is an archive of how the website appeared in June 2016. The website, in my opinion looks a little sleeker, but would you all consider it a reliable source? Thanks for the help. Soulbust (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Inverse

I don't believe Inverse has been assessed yet. I've used a reference from their's on the Winston (Overwatch) article. Would like to know if you all would consider it reliable. Seems like it at least. Here's their about page. Soulbust (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Tech Times

Tracer article I'm working on is currently using a reference from this source. Here's the reference in case you'd like to take a look. But I'd like to know if Tech Times would be considered a reliable source in general. I may soon ask about one (or a few more) sources. Thanks again! Soulbust (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Reliable - per there About Us page. They've got an established team of journalists and editorial staff, including their Editorial Director, Angela Diegel, was supervisor of editors for Popular Mechanics. Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Is Steam a reliable source?

Is Steam a reliable source when it comes to the genre of a game. Like if it describes a game as a sandbox or action-adventure, can that be used as a source? I know the tags are user submitted and unreliable, but is the "About this game" section of the game still considered reliable?Dohvahkiin (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No. That said, most games which are notable will have a genre assigned to them by reliable sources, so I don't see a point in resorting to Steam. --Izno (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
It's still chosen/written by the developer, so it's a primary source and thus unreliable. They could say they are an FPS and release a 2D platformer. Probably not, but we can't be making judgement calls on whether something is true or not. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
See, the thing is, the game I'm checking has a reliable source to confirm the genre, but it references Steam's description of the game to describe it as such.Dohvahkiin (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, if this sources is the only source that defines it as such, it may not be the best way to define the game anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it should be treated like any first party source - it could technically be used for pure, objective facts (release dates for example) but not anything requiring subjective claims (genre, quality of game, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed with this, both for Steam store pages and developer announcements on Steam. I would avoid using Steam as a source entirely unless there is important information that isn't covered in any secondary, reliable sources (release dates, development information, etc).--IDVtalk 14:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Steam can be a reliable source, depending on the content you are looking for. Some content - Such as the forums - are user-edited and should be treated as a wiki (generally unreliable). Some other information displayed by steam is however reliable, for example the steam rating system for games could be used as a source for what regular people think of the game, because the reviews are submitted by regular people, and the overall rating is calculated using an algorithm, and there are enough steam users to give a proper idea about the general user's thoughts on the game. Also, as Sergecross73 mentioned, it could be used as a source for something such as the release date of a game.EditSafe (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
What non-critics think about games is still "user-submitted" and generally outside our scope. Any sections on critical response should only contain games criticism from reliable sources, and that's true for aggregate scores as well. Even in cases where player feedback becomes notable, we're still summarizing what reliable sources say. See WP:VG/RS#Review sites for more on that. Woodroar (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Just to reiterate what Woodroar said, user reviews are still considered user content, similar to Metacritic, GameRankings or IMDB user scores. The only way those are included is if another secondary reliable source talks about them with some sort of commentary. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone definitively know where these Steam listings come from? Because there's a difference here - if they're user-submitted, then we shouldn't use them period. If they're submitted by the game creators themselves, then it'd fine to use them for run of the mill, objective facts, per how we always handle first party accounts. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Some of the content is submitted by the game creators (such as the description of the game, etc.), some of it is submitted by users (such as user-submitted tags, reviews, etc), and some of it is created automatically by the software itself or by the moderators of steam (such as release dates). It all depends on the type of information.EditSafe (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the user review stuff is definitely not usable per WP:USERG and WP:VG/POV, but the stuff submitted by the game creator itself, if we can identify which is which, would be usable in a limited fashion. It is one of those things though, that it generally shouldn't be all that necessary. Generally basic facts like release dates commonly receive coverage from your typical third party video game sources, and if that fails, can also be found on a game's official website/kickstarter/social media as well. It is probably a rare situation where we'd need to use Steam. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but haven't there been issues with incorrect release dates on Steam? I know Jim Sterling has talked about publishers "re-releasing" old games to stay on the first page of new games. A Google search for "steam incorrect release dates" turns up plenty of complaints on forums, but I'm not seeing anyone talking about it in reliable sources, so it may be a non-issue. If they are updated by the publisher, this may be an ABOUTSELF issue where were generally let it slide unless it appears self-serving or there's contrary information in reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

WatchMojo.com

WatchMojo has some video game content, is this alright to use? (TheJoebro64 (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC))

WatchMojo is an unreliable source. You should avoid using it as a reference. EditSafe (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
What about its opinion pieces? And top 10s? (TheJoebro64 (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC))
I would avoid using those. The content in both their opinion pieces and top 10s are based on the opinions of the producers. See WP:NPOV. EditSafe (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Cracked

Is Cracked a reliable source? (TheJoebro64 (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC))

No, it's not reliable, but it can be used for attributed opinions. --MASEM (t) 00:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
They use too much humor, exaggerations, and sarcasm to be used as an RS. But they often link to the sources they use, which could potentially be used. Their writing, which is centered a little more around entertaining the reader, are still sometimes written around more straightforward, factual works. Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

UploadVR

Find video game sources: "Upload VR" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

In trying to figure out which website covering VR is reliable, I think I found one of the bigger websites. That being UploadVR. Not fully sure about their policies but it seems to have a foothold on the industry. GamerPro64 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Original Sound Version

I found a website named Original Sound Version which focuses on video game and anime soundtrack-related content, including reviews, features, and interviews with developers and the like. I can't tell if their staff have any pedigrees or if the site as a whole is deemed reliable? JAGUAR  22:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

They are pretty similar to VGMO, which is accepted as a reliable source on video game music news. Not sure on if the staff itself have "pedigree", but OST have been doing this for years, which I think helps their cause as a reliable source for what they do. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
They share a lot of staff with other websites (RPGFan, Destructoid for a bit), have done a bunch of interviews ([1]) and have been around for a while. I've used them pretty extensively in VG music GAs. --PresN 22:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's good news! If there are no objections then I'll mark them as reliable on the checklist soon. JAGUAR  23:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Compete

Compete is currently a new sub-site of Kotaku announced today that they are working in collab with Deadspin, principally to cover eSports.

Right now, it exists as a subsite of Kotaku at compete.kotaku.com and it is not clear if they are going to spin off to their own site (they say "the site being hosted on Kotaku has to do with web-hosting technicalities"). If that never happens, then this is a non-issue. If it does, I'm putting this to the articles to help (similar to when Glixel was first announced when it was still operating from Rolling Stone).

This is the announcement article [2] and they spell out their principle editors being Eric Van Allen and Maddy Myers (the article gives their BGs).

Given that Deadspin and Kotaku are both reliable, this should not be a problem for reliability. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I doubt they're going to spin-off the website. Steamed is also a subsection of Kotaku which covers Steam news so it may stay the way it is in Kotaku. GamerPro64 23:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Metabomb

Find video game sources: "Metabomb" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo Metabomb is a site under the Gamer Network (Eurogamer, US Gamer, GamesIndustry.biz) that is a curated game guides for a limited # of games (Hearthstone, Heroes of the Storm, WOW, and Overwatch at this point). A spot check shows that any news they cover is also duplicated at at least one of EG and USG, but I would consider that there's potential use of their guides particularly for characters to at least bolster their sources (here, at least thinking of the current ability to expand on Overwatch characters). It's not an essential RS for our purposes but its one that helps in a few more exacting places. (As always, we're not interested in the strict game guide content, just the broader statements about strategy, etc.). --MASEM (t) 14:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, unless there's any sort of WP:USERG issues, I'd support a website of that sort of pedigree. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Intelligamer and Daily Radar

They're brilliant. And I just discovered them now. Plenty of reviews and interviews with undead links.--Coin945 (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Care to expand on why they should be RS's? Daily Radars "About Us" page ...wasn't...very helpful...in establishing any sort of credentials. Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, we have an article for Daily Radar, which seems to have enough links to establish notability. For Intelligamer, perhaps it's worth mentioning that they said: "We're always looking for well written, objective game reviews and hints and tips for PC-compatible computer games." Intelligamer reviews are also frequently quoted in media such as books.--Coin945 (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Notability and reliability are two different concepts. A website being one doesn't guarantee it is the other. (And even if they weren't, the Daily Radar article is terrible in both sourcing and content currently. If that's all there is on it, I'm not sure it'd pass an WP:AFD...) Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-Assessing ScrewAttack

Find video game sources: "ScrewAttack" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Hello admins and fellow editors, :D. I am here to talk about ScrewAttack's reliability as a source. As of right now it is classified as a situational source. However, I would like to bring up if you type in screwattack.com, you will be redirected to screwattack.roosterteeth.com as the company has become a part of Rooster Teeth. Now the site mostly has videos and little to nothing regarding news info; it seems to now take a format similar to Cinemassacre and Channel Awesome (both of which are unreliable sources). Now that I explained, what do you think about ScrewAttack as it stands now. Should it stay situational or should it be demoted to an unreliable source. The decision is up to the reader. --ULTRA-DARKNESS:) 2 CHAT 20:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I advocated to have it be reliable many years ago but I don't think it should be used as a source these days. Unreliable. GamerPro64 23:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Unreliable As the site has basically moved from what it was to Death Battle and Top Tens (seriously, that's all that's left) and the gaming stuff going to Game Attack, I think we can safely bump this down. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 00:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ive already treated it as unreliable - a lot of it is WP:USERG and the rest...isn't of the highest quality. Sergecross73 msg me 01:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Critical Hit

Posted about this a while ago, but nobody replied. So I'm just reposting it; hopefully somebody will comment this time. Thanks for any help :)

Would you consider Critical Hit a reliable source? Keep in mind this is criticalhit.net not .com. I believe this site used to be known as Lazygamer as Google searching "criticalhit.net" results in Lazygamer popping up. This June 2016 discussion briefly designated Lazygamer as unreliable. This is an archive of how the website appeared in June 2016. The website, in my opinion looks a little sleeker, possibly more reliable, but would you all consider it a reliable source? Soulbust (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Niche Gamer

This source is marked as unreliable, and I think it should be kept that way. Just wanted this to be tracked for the future, in case someone's trying to change the consensus: They just reported platforms for two new platforms for upcoming games, only to delete them later on the day. this tweet and this tweet allude to their self described "bad reporting". They announced Project Re Fantasy (Persona teams next game) for PS4 and Switch, and the upcoming Shin Megami Tensei HD project for Switch as a PS4 game as well. Both reports were false. I think we should keep them at unreliable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Okay? Rather odd to make a post saying that a website should remain being unreliable. GamerPro64 21:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Like of said, it's just a note for the archives. One of the first things we do when reviewing a source is look at past instances of when we discussed a source. I wanted this to come up in those searches, is all. Sergecross73 msg me 21:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

GameCrate

Is GameCrate a reliable source? It's owned by NewEgg. TheJoebro64 talk 01:53 PM, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts:
  • On one hand, its good that it's owned by a legit company. On the other side, it (NewEgg) a retail website, so I'm not sure how much that helps.
  • On one hand, they do have and established staff and editors. On the other hand, of their 30 or so people listed, it looks like only 2 have any sort of credentials.
  • John Gaudiosi lists off contributing to The Washington Post, Wired, Playboy, AOL, IGN, Yahoo!, Entertainment Weekly, USA Today Weekend, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Maxim, CBS and NBC.
  • Josh Ray lists off being an editor at Tiger Beat, which, uh, yeah, probably not the highest level of reporting going on. But at the same time, its also a print magazine running since the 1960s that deals with BLPs. Probably good experienc.
  • The other 28 don't have much in the way of credentials. They mostly list of "I like video game X" or "I'm a real gamer since year X" or whatever random factoids. I mean, not writer on the staff needs to be a pro...but its slightly concerning how high this number is...
I don't know, it's hard to say. They don't have a strong claim to reliability in the Wikipedia sense, but they do check some of the boxes. Any other thoughts to consider? Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd lean on saying we shouldn't be using this site in articles, unless they have something exclusive like a developer interview or something. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Angelo M. D'Argenio has written for The Escapist before and is a professor in game design, just checked. I think we should only use them if the writer has some sort of credentials. TheJoebro64 talk, 7:26 PM, 27 March 2017
Yeah, maybe try using it sparingly? As a last resort and for nothing particularly controversial? (i.e. no "Breath of the Wild is the worst game of the decade" shocking clickbait type stuff.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Which I'd agree with, but having to check each writer's credentials before using an article as a source isn't ideal and could just lead to edit warring over other writers on the site. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
So GameCrate should be considered Situational then? GamerPro64 15:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know we're trying to move away from some of this "situational" stuff, but that's really the only conclusion I can see with the discussion so far. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Vice's Waypoint

Find video game sources: "Waypoint" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Waypoint, Vice's gaming website, hasn't been talked about here yet so we might as well talk about if its reliable to use. GamerPro64 17:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Their staff have credentials and experience at reliable publications:
  • Austin Walker - GiantBomb
  • Patrick Klepek - 1UP, EGM, GiantBomb, Kotaku
  • Danielle Riendeau - Polygon
  • Rob Zacny - PC Gamer
  • Mike Diver - Kotaku, BBC, Clash
And they seem to use established freelancers:
  • Chris Priestman - Edge, Gamasutra, Guardian
  • Janine Hawkins - Paste, Gamespot, Polygon, GiantBomb
  • Ed Smith - IBTimes UK, The Observer, Edge, Play
  • Kate Gray - Guardian, GameSpot, GamesRadar, Official Xbox Mag, Official Nintendo Mag
--The1337gamer (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • They seem more reliable than other websites that have been brought up recently. I've seen them use exclusive interviews with devs in the past before too, which only helps their cause. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd say reliable based on the credentials/history of their writers - they seem to come from a variety sources we consider reliable in the video game and tech world. That being said, in my time in reading them, it did seem like I came across a number of "bizarre takes and editorials", so it may be good to be cautious when using it, to avoid any WP:UNDUE issues from their viewpoints. Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Inverse

Another site I inquired about a while ago, with no response. Again, thanks to anyone who helps out :)

I don't believe Inverse has been assessed yet. Would like to know if you all would consider it reliable. Seems like it at least. Here's their about page. Soulbust (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Spot-checking a number of their staff (not all - they have a massive staff) they all seemed to be actual writers, with educational background and experience in writing at other non-obscure publications. I'd say reliable, though we usually only list list video game-centric websites here, and their subject matter seems to be scattered all over the place, so I'm not sure if they'd specifically be added to our list or not... Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
We've got the likes of Time and The NYT in our list now... --Izno (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Huh, its like someone took my very example of the type of general source not to list, and added it to the list. I don't see the point of adding stuff like that. Who the hell thought a massive, mainstream, long-term publication like the New York Times wouldn't be a reliable source on video games. Who was actually unsure of this? Who does this help? All it does is help encourage bloating our already massive list, as it makes it look like there's another 1,000 general publications that also would be considered an RS for video games. (Not blaming you personally, unless you were the one who did it.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I did not. However, the reason it's in the list is that presumably, it needs to be on the list for consensus to be used in the Google custom search engine. That is my one-stop shop when walking over to AFD to say "that's (not) notable". I've had a couple hits from The NYT which quite persuasively put down a bad AFD when I added it as a source in my keep rationale. --Izno (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
If they are reliable, and also regularly writing video game content (Even if not as a focus), then I don't see a reason to exclude. Since the list acts as a basis for the custom list, it won't hurt anything to add it. -- ferret (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Giggle. Look whose name shows up there. --Izno (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Ha, yeah, I do recall discussing it, I just thought the context was more "Yes, its reliable, but it doesn't need to be on there if its not video game-centric". Washington Post, Seattle Times, Detroit Free Press or any major newspaper would be fine too, but we don't list all of those. Perhaps I'm remembering more casual discussions at other locations or something. (Maybe more passive discussions elsewhere, explaining to people why certain general sources weren't on there, or something.)
I guess it's not a big deal - it's not wrong - I just worry about Wikipedia's constant recurring issue of "example bloating". Someone's going to come along and go "Hey, here's another 100 general publications to add" bloat this list up even bigger. (I feel like its happened before even.) But if it helps with the Google RS search, that's good too. That's why I commonly don't use it personally - so much general coverage is missed with it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: Yup, you again. --Izno (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, at least that one was consistent with what I was saying today... Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

WWG

Find video game sources: "SITENAME" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
This website has a few articles that would be useful for the CSGO page. It looks fine, but what do all of you think? Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I was asked on Discord what I thought about this source, and basically live-tweeted the results of my research on there. For future reference, allow me to just post those messages here:
  • Apparently, it is somewhat related to Comicbook.com, which is [like WWG] a website I never really looked into.
  • The general manager looks pretty good: [3]
  • Ok, so the managing editor of WWG is the CEO of Comicbook.com. (Joe Blackmon)
  • Huh, this website is being really useful to me for looking into who these people are: [4]
  • Nathan Birch definitely looks good, though he isn't listed on WWG's staff page.
  • Matthew Heyes and Dallas Jackson look a lot less expert. Robert Workman has a lot of credits on websites I've never heard of. None of these people are listed here: [5]
  • Executive editor Viscardi has experience at Marvel's HR branches, but nothing video game related. [6]
  • Their expectations for new employees are fairly high: [7]
  • I'd say the website is reliable, though not particularly strongly or anything. ~Mable (chat) 15:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I think I read yesterday that WWG is dropping out of esports coverage. What timing. GamerPro64 16:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Just curious, GamerPro64 - do you happen to know why? I feel like there's been a few dropouts in the esports area, which seems strange because esports seems to be growing in mainstream popularity, with big sources like ESPN even starting to cover it. Or maybe that answers my question? The big guys muscling out the little guys or something? Sergecross73 msg me 16:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
        • I actually have no clue. Just seems that it was announced they were out of the esports game on Twitter and something about their editorial staff being fired. Sign of the times? GamerPro64 21:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

"Broader" news sources

I think it might be a good idea to see which websites or magazines we could add to this list which are more-broad than video games--notably, it might be good to add some PC-oriented magazines and websites, though others (more broadly, such as the presently listed NYT). I was thinking specifically PCWorld when I came here, but there may be others. --Izno (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Newspapers:

-- The1337gamer (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

XBLA Fans author

Although XBLA Fans is a situational source, its entry states that only a select few authors who are in collaboration with Gamesauce may be deemed reliable. However, Matthew Smail is not on that list, but I can't tell if he's a reliable author or not. The entry does state that other authors must be proven reliable on a per-case basis, so I thought I'd check in here first. Can't see if he has a pedigree or not, and coincidentally I've just discovered he's an author at Brash Games too. JAGUAR  12:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't even think this website is reliable, though. I think it should be downgraded to unreliable. Maybe gamesauce too. GamerPro64 14:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I think now might be a good time to reassess them. I was quite surprised to see XBLA Fans listed as a situational source but felt compelled to ask as reviews for a specific game were scarce. JAGUAR  15:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Brash Games

Brash Games is a unreliable source -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 16:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Find video game sources: "Brash Games" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I thought this would be uncontroversial so I went and removed the ~10 references to Brash Games from articles yesterday, however Salvidrim! requested a post here first.

For those that haven't been following recent developments, Brash Games is a game review website. It recently came to light, after an investigation by OpenCritic, that the site's owner has been pressuring reviewers into changing their scores, and even deliberately altering them after publication. He has also been removing author credit from reviewers after their departure from the site (labelling them as written by Brash Games rather than the actual author). The site is also happy to post reviews with no apparent editorial oversight whatsoever. They have since been deleting evidence from their site and otherwise attempting to badly cover up these developments. As such I can't see how we can take their content to be a reliable source and/or notable reviews. They're currently still listed on Metacritic, but OpenCritic have removed them. Sam Walton (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if I wasn't aware of the background! I just saw it hadn't been discussed at WT:VG/S yet and was listed at MetaCritic, so at least deserved a discussion! I'm inching towards Sam's position on BrashGames being unreliable though. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I've just read this informative piece. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, I forgot to mention the shady link spamming too. If you want a thorough overview, Jim Sterling's video is worth a watch. Sam Walton (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Definitely an uncontroversial unreliable. ~Mable (chat) 13:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm all for declaring this website unreliable too. GamerPro64 13:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Unreliable per Sam's initial comments. Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Unreliable --MASEM (t) 14:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the website is dead now so there might not be any point to this discussion. GamerPro64 15:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

its back up.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Destructoid staff/community post separation

Did Destructoid change how their staff posts are differentiated from their community posts? Browsing through their front pages and categories, they look quite intermingled... czar 21:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it used to be laid out, but I haven't been having a problem distinguishing between the two in recent discussions regarding the source. Staff generally have an actual title next to their name, like "director", "editor", etc, while the community writers usually have nonsense next to their name instead. Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Jed Whitaker is listed as Destructoid staff: [8] --The1337gamer (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Wew that's pretty embarrassing. I have seen Jed write for Vice's Motherboard and Game Revolution. GamerPro64 20:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow, I am legitimately shocked. Perhaps we need to re-evaluate how we handle Destructoid then? Chris's work is generally pretty good, but I've been using Jed as an example of what unacceptable USERG content looks like, and not a single person has questioned me on it... Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Can someone familarize me with the problem with Whitaker's? I'm looking through what he's authored at DToid, and it includes their "official" reviews for games among legit news, but that's only in the most recent stuff. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
It mostly just boils down to the fact that I always thought he was just a random user-blogger because his "job title" at the website is "Dr. Dinosexual" and he writes such unprofessional work. Here's some choice selections of his work: Mila Kunis gives birth to puppies on my birthday with a Majora's Mask NEW 3DSXL!, Pig Fucking: My non-obvious, non-leaked E3 predictions, and Top ten games that would be better with Aerosmith. Here's him promoting his own work for good measure too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
As a starting point, I note that all those are under the /blogs/ URL, whereas reviews are not. Perhaps that any "https://www.destructoid.com/blogs/*" URL should be of USERG questionability? --MASEM (t) 15:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
If that's the case, it would appear that he'd be both "writing formally" and "informally blogging" for the website then? Do we really want to get into "well it depends on where each specific writer is writing the content on the website"? Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
We might have to, at least when it comes to the basics of RS. For example, he provides DToid's "official" review, and while its personal opinion I've not seen anything that screaming the same off-kilter stuff as his blog. It would imply that there is editorial control on things posted as news (not under /blogs/) for this. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I still find it rather concerning that this is the type of stuff that gets you a staff role at Destructoid though. I mean, he can reign it in, but its his nonsense writing is apparently which brought him aboard. Writing like this is what inspires their hiring choices? Sergecross73 msg me 16:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, we don't normally include opinionated op-ed entries from places like the New York Times and Washington Post do we? Is this any different? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not aware of other websites where professional staff writers write user-blogs in the same area that anyone could sign up and starting writing. They're usually...above that? User-blogs would be different from editorials anyways - editorials are still reviewed and approved to a certain degree. I mean, a New York Times writer, even in an editorial, couldn't get away with headline that started with an overt reference to sex acts with pigs, or self-referential comments to "dinosexuality" (a label he even uses in his staff writing, for the record.) I just think we're setting the bar a bit low here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
True. I suppose we just go with Masem's suggestion below, and only use Destructoid for reviews? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Except that there are good editors there at DToid too and to me, they far outnumber people like Whitaker. It would be really bad judgment to cut off Dtoid for RS news just because of a few bad apples as editors. Clearly isolate away anything listed under "/blogs/", and put the editors of concern on a careful use list, but we should not blacklist Dtoid completely here. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess I (and anyone who wants to help) can look a bit closer and see if we can draw a more precise line of what would be acceptable. So far, there seems to be loose agreement that 1) their Dtoid official staff reviews generally seem fine, and 2) the previews/news done by the likes of Chris Carter seem just fine, and 3) the work of Whitaker, and other editors who are similarly unprofessional, or have limited background in professional writing, should not be used. Let's see if we can define it any further, and then move Destructoid back to situational then? Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I fully agree with your concerns, the problem is that if we're looking at Dtoid as generally reliable save for one or two editors, that would be okay normally if those editors didn't post much in the way of single-sourced news. Most of the time, this is fine, but because Whitaker also partakes in providing Dtoid's reviews for some games, that creates a situation where we would not be able to include their review for a game just because we've blacklisted that one author. I would be fine saying that Whitaker (and any other questionable editor) should not be used for Dtoid (making it a situational source), except when that person is providing a review for a game. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
So should Destructoid be moved back into Situational status for the sole purpose of Jed Whitaker? GamerPro64 19:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think it kind of comes full circle to Czar's original question. Has Destructoid restructured how they organize and display staff? Or define them? Reading those 2 paragraphs on their staff page], it seems like they have. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Any other insight on this? I think we need to change how we handle it somehow. We can't give them full-on "reliability" if USERG and amateur writing is mixed in there without much in the way of labeling. At the same time, I still believe some of their work to be usable, if nothing else, the work of main editor Chris Carter. Any thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I had to dig around in my history to find why I brought this up in the first place. So I was reading Miyamoto depressed when creating Lost Levels, suggests Nintendo executive (provocative title) until it passed the point of credulity, so I scrolled back up to the byline and "oh" (not that mononyms are bad signs in themselves, but perhaps this was a community post). Note that this article isn't a /blogs/ post and has no distinct markings of a community post apart from the byline, so how is a reader to tell which posts are reliable and which aren't?
And then the main feed has "cblog" stuff like this and that mixed in, so I ask where is the vetting? And if all their stuff is vetted this way, then perhaps we are wrong on their general editorial process? I'm more inclined to throw the baby out with the bathwater if we can't find proof of editorial process—I see a red line where blogs follow the HuffPo model of community content but do not disclose the difference between community and staff submissions. Here is what they post publicly on the subject:

Destructoid employs an in-house editorial home team, and we also accept reader submissions through our carefully moderated Community pages.

If stuff like that Miyamoto article was allowed to pass, I personally lose a lot of faith in that claim of careful moderation. The point of a RS being that its content is reliable by virtue of it being published, not for the reader to discern on their own. But then I didn't know whether Destructoid was always this way or whether it was a recent change. czar 21:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Then maybe we have to go to an extreme route: Dtoid is situational, with a whitelist of editors that we will readily accept, and a greylist for Whitaker and anyone other editor we have questions about that only their reviews to be used (or otherwise if RSOPINION can apply), and blacklist everything else. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd support that as well. Basically, we can list off a couple of the long-term, higher ups as usable (Chris Carter, etc), and state that their official website reviews are generally usable, but discount much of the rest. Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Why are we using this source at all? We use expert sources only sparingly when divorced from their editorial backing (and that's more for academics publishing without peer review than people who have been published in a games magazine before). For example, we wouldn't use a former NYT games reviewer at their own publication just by virtue of their prior credentials—the point of the NYT is that the newspaper itself has editorial control. The writer might know things, but the outlet itself is where the editorial control and reliability reside. How are we determining who would go on this whitelist/graylist? Either the source shows editorial control or it does not... czar 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, they have editorial oversight, (or at least "had" it?) so calling it "unreliable"sounds more like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". It appears they have had editorial oversight in the past, its just that they're now kind of blurring the lines and its harder to tell, right? I haven't encountered any problems with their core, long-time staff. They also report on wide-range of titles, some leaning more on the obscure side. I'd rather not be too hasty either, or it could potentially lead to deletion of articles - Dtoid sources have helped me persuade a "keep" outcome in AFD in the past, I believe. (No examples come to mind immediately though.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
If we are going to make a whitelist/blacklist, we should start figuring out who would be where on these lists. I suspect it will be easier to create the "blacklist" in this case, with Whitaker as the first entry there. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it makes more sense to not use Destructoid than it does to start creating a blacklist/whitelist, as it goes against the concept of source reliability (which happens at the publication and not the author level). If the site was previously reliable, I'm unfamiliar with the basis on which that opinion was formed, but I see no reason to trust it now. czar 20:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
It was reclassified to reliable per this conversation in 2015, and was classified as "situational" since...as long as I can remember prior. Probably per this 2009 discussion? Sergecross73 msg me 21:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Masem Yes, sorry, I've been caught up in music-related projects lately, but I did intend on rounding back and looking into this further. Sergecross73 msg me 21:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Break

  • Yanier Gonzalez (Papa Niero) - Founder
  • Chris Carter (Chris Magnalon) - Staff since 2012, currently "Reviews Director" and "Co-Editor-in Chief"
  • Dale North - Former Editor in Chief
  • Jordan Devore - Co-Editor in Chief, calls himself one of the founders informally.
  • Jim Sterling - Used to be on the staff, has written for other RS's, we currently consider The Jimquisition usable.

This is just a brief starting point - its harder than it should be to figure this stuff out with the way they're currently organizing the website - but its people like these - mostly ones who have special, higher up editorial/managerial roles, should be considered usable. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this to say that Jed Whitaker's staff reviews are not reliable? And if so, I don't see how this publication is reliable if their staff publications cannot be uniformly trusted. I said this above, but reliability rests at the editorial board level, not at the individual writer level. We aren't referring to these reviews as expert reviews, and if we were, we would give them the credibility/mention we give to Jim Sterling, which is to say sparingly and only if they raise a point not raised in any other more reliable (read: vetted, checked) source. If Destructoid is not vetting all staff content, nevertheless distinguishing it from community content, we have no reason to regard it as reliable. I don't see the 2015 evidence-less vote as a mandate czar 17:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
No, Masem previously said something about maybe making it so the main Destructoid website reviews were considered usable regardless of writer. I'd be fine with that - I imagine greater care is placed on reviews meant to represent the website on a whole. As far as Jim Sterling goes, I don't really care, I merely mentioned him to because, as I said, Jimquisition is currently classified as reliable situationally usable on the chart. It was merely for consistency. Feel free to start up a discussion if you'd like to change that - I don't particularly think his brand of self-published hot takes makes for a very good RS, so heck, I'd probably back you if you advocated his removal. Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I actually was referring to Sterling's capacity as Jimquisition (not as Destructoid staff) as an example of how expert self-published sources are a last resort. Point being that limiting Destructoid to specific authors/staff is to call the publication's quality unreliable, and we've already established that they're at best inconsistent. czar 04:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

This needs more discussion, for sure, by can't we at least move it to "situational" for now? I don't see anyone arguing "reliable". Sergecross73 msg me 23:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

If we have to move it back to Situational that's fine as long as there's an explanation for it being moved there. GamerPro64 23:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, the argument seems to be between whether or not they have "partial", or "zero", editorial oversight. Sergecross73 msg me 01:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

PC Power Play

@Czar and Thibbs: This source is already on the RS list but the website doesn't pop up in the VGRS search. Are we of the belief that the website does not show the same level of editorial control and reliability as the magazine, or is this just an oversight? (The magazine source doesn't appear to have been discussed in the archives, but given that no-one's removed it since who-knows-when-it-was-added....) If we are concerned, it gets a vote from Gamasutra for covering a recent interview. --Izno (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I would presume similar levels of editorial oversight and reliability, but this could of course be rebutted by a showing that the same oversight does not apply for the website. For what it's worth, the website's "about page" is somewhat scant of details, but unless Czar is opposed I wouldn't have a problem adding it to the search list (I presume you were speaking about this as the VGRS search rather than the search at the top of VGRL, right?). What say you, Czar? -Thibbs (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Parenthetical: Yes. --Izno (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I imagine the exclusion wasn't deliberate, but I also wouldn't add it unless we can confirm that the print and digital share the same content or else have the same editorial staff (quality), because both of those are not guaranteed. I also don't give much credence to sites linking and hat tipping to other sites—especially as even we use interviews from just about anywhere (not a high bar to use anything that isn't a hoax). I wouldn't block it out of hand, but those are my thoughts czar 15:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

TheMushroomKingdom

Find video game sources: "TheMushroomKingdom" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I think this site needs to be evaluated. Personally don't think this should be a type of source to use for articles on Wikipedia. Especially since its only use as of now is "Factual source only about Mario-related information exclusively". Not sure if the site has actual credentials for use. GamerPro64 20:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it just seems like any other fan site to me, and the staff doesn't seem to have any history with sites we do consider reliable. Unless there's something I'm missing, this should probably be considered unreliable. It doesn't seem like a big loss anyway - the Mario series certainly isn't lacking in coverage, so any essential information will be possible to find in other places.--IDVtalk 22:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, I think this is a leftover from our earlier, more lax days. If it's any consolation, I've seen people remove it on the grounds of it being a fansite anyways, and haven't seen it added much, so this shouldn't really change things much. Sergecross73 msg me 23:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The only real time we should accept these more niche websites is if they offer something that IGN and other established sources don't, like exclusive interviews published only to that site. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This website is being used to source a number of articles (I prefer the search facility, but the external links facility also bears fruit]). Perhaps we should clean these up (preferably by finding a reliable source). --Izno (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The games pages appear to be user-contributed. If we eliminate those, we're not using the site for much else. Reach Out to the Truth 16:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Polygon's eSports sites

These were just brought online yesterday, as explained here:

They are all backed by Vox Media, with a format set by Polygon's Christopher Grant, and there appears to be some cross-pollination (eg if Polygon publishes an LoL article, it will also appear at Rift Herald). Staffwise, it is Julia Lee at The Rift Herald; Victoria Rose at The Flying Courier; and Cass Marshall at Heroes Never Die, and "They’ll be joined by contributors Ryan Gilliam, Austen Goslin and plenty of familiar bylines from Polygon."

This might be a wait-and-see situation, and I'm also trying to see if "community" posts get mixed into the newsfeed but I haven't seen them yet. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be considered reliable. That being said, if the same articles get cross-posted in Polygon, then there wouldn't be any reason to use these sites. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
    • There are articles unique to the eSports sites. They mark the ones that are posted also to Poly. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

InvenGlobal

Find video game sources: "InvenGlobal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This came up in a discussion at PUBG, and reviewing the site it seems to be an English-language site covering the eSports scene in South Korea and SE Asia. The founders include two Carnegie Mellon persons as well as their editor-in-chief of being about 10 years+ in the profession. Kotaku and others have quoted their site for news. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

As a following up, if the source is not deemed appropriate can we possibly cite the interview with PUBG game director (see here) by way of The Express or Microsoft Poweruser? — TPX 16:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yahoo! Esports

It's closing. reddit post. I know a few of you use it here and there (though it's not on the established list). --Izno (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Nintendo Life

What do you guys think of using Nintendo Life as a source? I figured it's about time we discussed this and made a consensus on it since some people deem it as unreliable while others deem it reliable. It is important to note how at times, their information is poorly sourced or incorrect as seen in how some of their reports on upcoming Nintendo Switch games have no proof that they are indeed coming to the Switch as seen in their faulty reporting on 2 Fast 4 Gnomz and Audio Hero which I personally removed after some people failed to review the articles themselves. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It's already on the list, under platform-specific. No problems with it as a source. --MASEM (t) 04:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
"their information is poorly sourced or incorrect as seen in how some of their reports on upcoming Nintendo Switch games have no proof that they are indeed coming to the Switch as seen in their faulty reporting on 2 Fast 4 Gnomz and Audio Hero which I personally removed after some people failed to review the articles themselves." These are rather strong claims to make for a source. Do you have any proof that Nintendo Life is putting out wrong information? GamerPro64 05:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

My proof is how some articles show proof while some don't. Here: http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2016/11/qubicgames_bringing_2_fast_4_gnomz_and_audio_hero_to_nintendo_switch They're source for that is Japanese Nintendo, a random blog with no sources. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Though most of the time, their information is right, it's just the fact that some game articles are poorly sourced. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't require our sources to always cite their sources, so that's not so much of an issue. However, that being said, as Nintendoswitchfan suggests, in my time of monitoring the List of Nintendo Switch games article, it does seem like NintendoLife has been quick to erroneously "confirm" Switch versions of games that haven't necessarily been confirmed yet. However, they've mostly been on these little indie games that don't really interest me, so I don't recall the specific examples. Any off the top of your head, ferret? Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
No specific examples. However, I find that basically 98% of the nintendo<noun> or nintendo<verb> blog sites like this are just reposting twitter/youtube news anyways, or sourcing (sometimes circularly) off each other. I'm not confident Nintendo Life has had any big issue, and it is part of a bigger network of reliable sources, but Nintendoeverything and several others have been demonstrable shown to post unreliable or unsupported information as the list has been maintained. For example, carrying news sourced to some other blog with only 5 posts that claims a decentishly well known indy developer gave them the inside scoop on something. Nintendoeverything has grown from being in no articles to being in dozens since Switch was released, and should likely be deemed unreliable, which I already basically declared at the List talk page. -- ferret (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Both "Nintendo Everything" and "GoNintendo" probably don't meet the guidelines for being an RS here on Wikipedia. I read them both, and I'm pretty sure both are largely just single person-run fansites. I've had issues with both on the grounds of having some factual errors or clear pro-Nintendo spin on things too. But NintendoLife, I haven't enountered the same problems with, though. Rather than remove from the RS list, I'd rather have some sort of note on its entry, to the capacity of "Be cautious of information that cannot be replicated through any other sources" or something like that. Basically some sort of caution against siding with them if there are conflicting reports. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Be cautious of information that cannot be replicated through any other sources - The same can be said about all of these Nintendo fansites, then. Honestly, if Nintendolife is the only site reporting something that IGN or Polygon aren't, then perhaps it's not notable enough in the first place. And if they are, then the sources should just come from the bigger, more known websites. I just don't see why we'd ever use Nintendolife, unless they had something exclusive like a developer interview or something. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Nothing should be marked reliable with a note like that. That's "situational" at best. If other sources are carrying it, then you can just use them. -- ferret (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
My point was more, yes, they were too quick to confirm some of these Switch games recently, but overall, I haven't had issues with the source in using it in creating articles, saving articles at AFD, or anything else. They may have jumped the gun a few times with Switch games, but I haven't had issues historically. Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

OpenCritic

Find video game sources: "OpenCritic" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Since there's currently an RFC to add OpenCritic to Template:VG reviews, I think we should actually discuss its status on whether its reliable or not here. Last time that happened it was started by a co-founder of the site, which was seen as self-promotion. Hopefully he can recuse himself from this discussion as we actually decide if we would were use it as a source here on Wikipedia. GamerPro64 16:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It trawls gaming sites for reviews, then presents summaries and scores to visitors in various formats. The algorithms used are supposedly more "open" and transparent than Metacritic's. Game Revolution says, "OpenCritic’s Gamer-Centric Style Is Everything Metacritic Should Have Been", which sounds like an endorsement. I certainly haven't seen any complaints about it on other sites, whereas there have been complaints in reliable sources about Metacritic. I.e. it corrects certain deficiencies about Metacritic according to reliable sources. It seems clearly like the better site, if we judge them by quality instead of popularity. SharkD  Talk  15:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I have concerned when you say "supposedly more "open" and transparent". So where are the details on this? Metacritic's scoring method isn't public, which has always been the one biggest complain about it. OpenCritic claims to be open, but where is it detailed? -- ferret (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I got that from the Wikipedia article. Quote, "The philosophy of the site was to avoid the pitfalls of Metacritic by making the nature of the review aggregation clear and open." There's a citation at the end of that paragraph. Quote, "The Metacritic algorithm that combines scores is weighted to count some outlets more heavily than others—it's also a secret. OpenCritic seeks to do away with all that, offering a simple average of all numerical critic scores, and including the author's name on reviews." SharkD  Talk  16:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Neither of the two articles you linked above have that quote, am I missing a third link? -- ferret (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said that the first quote is from the Wikipedia article. SharkD  Talk  16:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
That's fine and dandy, but we can't use the Wikipedia article to prove anything. Where does OpenCritic openly and publicly list how they do review scores? It's fine for them to claim it, and for RS's to claim that's what they will do (The two articles you linked above are pre-launch). Where is the proof? Otherwise, they're still as closed as Metacritic. -- ferret (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a "SCORE CALCULATION QUESTIONS" section on their FAQ. SharkD  Talk  16:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see any articles from reliable sources since OC's launch that suggest that it has any sort of widespread adoption. I see a mountain of sources at Metacritic's article on how it dominates the industry and I see sources at OC's launch on how it could upend that domination, but I see no sources that say that the sea change has happened. I also don't see any other hallmarks of editorial credibility to take OC's claims as factual. I even have problems with their statistics—if we were to use their descriptive stats on a game being in the top 2% of games on the site, it's misleading given that OC has only rated very recent games, for example. czar 17:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
    My point is that reliable sources are complaining about the "widespread adoption" of Metacritic, yet WP:VG insists on continuing to adhere to it. Also, is OpenCritic more reliable if Metacritic uses them as a source without telling anyone? So not only are we sustaining a site the industry doesn't want, but we're also sustaining a site that has been caught actively plagiarizing its competitors. SharkD  Talk  21:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
    Here are some post-release articles that cite or mention OpenCritic: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Also, what do you mean by "claims"? Are they claiming something controversial in their blog? SharkD  Talk  22:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
    Also, this page is for "reliable sources", not "widely adopted sources". SharkD  Talk  08:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Screen Rant

I'm not sure about this source. The reason I'm bringing this up is because they published an article with information that could be useful for my current GAN. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Appolicious

Find video game sources: "Appolicious" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo I do not see any usual hallmarks of being a reliable source. No established publisher, editorial team, review policy, fact-checking policy, author pages, etc. In fact, they have a prominently features paid review request page. They specify basic quality control, but as per "We only accept high-quality apps in order to keep our reputation", it seems to be for their own benefit. About says they are "mobile app discovery service". It says "A team of professional journalists comprise the Appolicious Advisor" and then lists like a 100 people and I find it unlikely they all are "professional journalists" with credentials to match. It looks like they are leading a successful app discovery business, but that's not the same as making reliable unbiased content. (Disclosure: saw thew source at an AfD) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Unreliable as per my finding above. No indication this is reliable and several red flags for not being reliable. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Den of Geek

They cover games, seems reliable from a cursory glance. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on why you think it's a RS? Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Probably reliable. About us and Authors lists a presence of editorial team. No info on fact-checking or review policy though. They are owned by Dennis Publishing. Authors don't look like have extensive credentials, but--if their brief bios are to be judged--they are at least not random bloggers. The site doesn't focus on games, but a broad range of media; in fact, there's hardly any game reviews among tons of movies, shows, etc. Even in Games section, mostly, they just regurgitate the same old rumor/trailer/factoid content that everyone else does. The actual reviews are okay (with barely any screenshots and a silly single rating). I dislike the prominent ads in the middle of content. I doubt they will bring anything unique to the table, but they can surely supplement content. I'm on the fence. I think being part of Dennis Pub network is what pushes it to the acceptable territory for me. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

VIDEO GAMES & ART

Do you think my publication could be considered a reliable sources? If not, what i have to do for being a reliable sources?

Website: https://vgartsite.wordpress.com/ See "INFO" page for more informations

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/videogamesart/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/videogamesart1

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/VgArtInt

Greetings, Luca Frangella Video Games & Art administrator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucafg74 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

When looking for reliable sources, we look for:
  1. Does the website have a established staff?
  2. Does the staff have credentials?
  3. Does the website have editorial oversight?
  4. Do they have an editorial/review/ethics policy?
  5. Have any other reliable sources used them as a source, or done articles about them?
That's a good starting point. Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Another point to address: A reliable source, for what? I'm not seeing any content that could really be used AS a source. -- ferret (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Reviews and previews, likely, though this website doesn't exactly cover anything that we can't find reviews for everywhere else. There are some blog posts here that could be useful (this one, for example, would be an amazing source for a lot of articles). Though there are plenty of ways this source could be used, it seems to be a personal blog held by one person. There doesn't seem to be any editorial oversight, nor does Frangella seem to have experience at other outlets. Nothing suggests that we can use this on Wikipedia, I am afraid. ~Mable (chat) 14:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Metacritic / Play Zine

I doubt this will be actionable, but I noticed the difference between Metacritic and Opencritic on Super Mario Odyssey.

One reason that Metacritic might appear a point lower is their selection of "Play Zine," which gave the score a 75.

I'm curious by this choice. Play Zine isn't referred in any news articles as a source. They have less than 1000 followers across any social media. Web traffic estimators put their traffic very low.

Is there a possibility that we reach out to Metacritic and ask about this? I'm confused how it is acceptable for this publication to be included in such an important industry metric.FrozenWasteland (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

We vet sources only in regards to their direct usage on Wikipedia. We do not analyse or double guess the vetting that Metacritic (or OpenCritic, or GameRankings) uses, and its independent to us. If you've an issue with some of their listings, you'll have to reach out to them yourself. This is not the place to air your grievances about Metacritic and their not including your own publication, which you mentioned earlier in regards to Open Critic. -- ferret (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Uh...yeah, as Ferret says, that's really between you and Metacritic. You can handle it however you want. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, Play Zine is listed on OpenCritic as a contributor as well, so this seems like an odd attempt to cast a negative light at MC. No idea why OC hasn't crawled their review yet. -- ferret (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure about the "double guessing" and analysis? It seems like a crucial thing to consider when promoting an aggregator. For instance, a quote from User:Czar: "As explained above, having more reviews included in a score is not any closer a guarantor of quality—in fact, GR tends to have much more unreliable junk than Metacritic in its metascore..." There is also a second quote saying basically the same thing. SharkD  Talk  02:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no role in Frozen's actual question/concern above. Full stop. Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, yeah, we should not be emailing Metacritic to tell them to stop including a website just because it makes us feel uncomfortable. SharkD  Talk  03:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


How do I close this out? FrozenWasteland (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Some new sources

I've compiled a list of sources I've deemed reliable, situational, or unreliable. Feel free to add comments.

Likely reliable

  • Not sure if my opinion matters or what the evaluation criteria is, but I support and trust Push Square. Their writing quality is sound. Interviews are professional. They seem to have access to previews and industry events. FrozenWasteland (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Reliable - Its already on the checklist as usable, per my comments at the AFD that got it added to the usable list. Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • We've discussed this before. What about their "established staff" is established? And what indicates the publication's reputation for accuracy? Simply having worked in journalism before does not make an editorial chain reliable... if the EIC even were to have a background in journalism (he doesn't). Same applies to Nintendo Life czar 19:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • WWG: I think this was discussed before, but they're the sister site of Comicbook.com.

Situational

  • Sega-16: articles from Ken Horowitz, an established journalist, and developer interviews could be OK.
Sounds similar to gaming.moe which I listed above, in which case the situational label fits: Interviews are acceptable, but other content is situational. Sega-16 is also well known for their forum, which is definitely unreliable. TarkusABtalk 02:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable

  • My Nintendo News or basically any blog with the name "Nintendo" and some sort of verb or noun at the beginning or end.
  • Unreliable - I feel very strongly about this one - I follow it, and they have had a lot errors or poorly worded content. Pretty sure it's already marked as unreliable on the checklist. Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • WatchMojo.com: used on multiple articles, but has absolutely no fact-checking from what I can tell. Also probably fails WP:NPOV.
  • Theres definitely already been discussions about this being unreliable too... Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we really need to begin enforcing WatchMojo though. I've spotted them used in numerous articles. JOEBRO64 00:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Unclear

  • Screen Rant: been around for a while, but I'm still a bit unclear about it.

JOEBRO64 21:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Do they offer anything unique that would make them stand out? As far as I can tell, gaming isn't a primary focus for them, and all of the articles they do publish can be easily found on something like IGN or Polygon instead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, they do these "list" articles occasionally, and they've usually got some information that other sources don't have. For example, when I was bringing Knuckles' Chaotix to GA, they were the only place that talked about a crucial piece of development ([18]). JOEBRO64 00:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, this list seems more like a collection of trivia than anything else, which doesn't really help its case. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the title literally contains the phrase "Sonic the Hedgehog Trivia" in it. If a borderline source is the only source to cover something in an article called "Sonic Trivia", that strikes me as another situation where a bunch of GAMECRUFT challenges are going to come your way. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Looking at their About Us page, yeah, the source has been around for a while, and yes, it does have an established staff, and in the first six I spot-checked, they most all seemed to be college educated (though not always in writing or technology), but none of them had any experience/credentials in writing anywhere else but there. Honestly, it strikes me as the type of source that would probably go unnoticed in casual use in uncontroversial claims, but may cause you trouble if you try to use it under situations of high scrutiny, like the GA/PR/FA processes. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Sounds about right. I'd avoid them unless you absolutely can't find info they have that nobody else does. But that has its own issues, such as nobility, as if only one source is reporting something, that could mean the bigger sources don't considered it newsworthy enough. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Gaming.Moe

Find video game sources: "Gaming.Moe" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Gaming.Moe features interviews, reviews, and other editorials. All material is written by Heidi Kemps. Kemps has written for Rolling Stone, Wired, Escapist, Motherboard, IGN, IGN again, GameSpot, GameSpot again, GameSpot several more times, GamesBeat, and US Gamer. She also interviewed Japanese industry legends for The Next Level and took pictures with them: interview w/ Yuji Naka (pic), interview w/ Shigeru Miyamoto (pic), interview w/ Rieko Kodama (pic).

The best part about her website is the interviews section, which provides some rare discussions with obscure Japanese developers. My only concern is the website doesn't mention any editorial process, but I suppose since she is the sole writer and curator, she IS the editorial process. Thoughts? TarkusABtalk 23:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Situational? Can we go with that for now? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 22:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd say the interviews are fine, but the rest of the content is situational. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted to respond before this ages off. Thanks for your answers, I think that's fair: Interviews are acceptable, but rest of the content is situational. TarkusABtalk 02:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There is no such thing as a "situational" designation. If the site's interviews are being used as primary sources about oneself, the website need not be marked at all, because any site can be used under the same conditions. czar 19:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The Escapist

Something to watch for, the Escapist may be going defunct. All paid staff outside of Yahtzee have been let go. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Came to post the same thing, but the summary from your link:

Site turns to volunteer content, with exception of Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, streamers, and EIC Joshua Vanderwall "for a few contracted hours a month"

I've already expressed why I thought it should have been marked unreliable last year, but between a history of subpar content and now a turn to volunteer content, am I missing some reasonable case for keeping the checkmark? czar 18:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. At the very least, it should be marked as "unreliable from 2017 onward" or something. Not that I'm defending the website in its older years. I've never really used the website much on Wikipedia. I don't know if they don't do much in my content area or what. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I got this one. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, this is a shame. I've found many useful articles from The Escapist in the past. JOEBRO64 20:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

GamePro's "The 10 Worst-Selling Consoles/Handhelds of All Time"

These sources ([19], [20]) were proven inaccurate for sales numbers years ago by users who dealt with the Sega Genesis sales figures issue. I've seen them popping up again though. Can we get a final word on this? « Ryūkotsusei » 14:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

What was the issue with it exactly? It's not that I'm challenging you, its just not readily apparent. They don't list their source or anything, so its hard to tell where they're getting the numbers from. Or is the issue just that the figures don't mesh well with the official figures? Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I am under the impression its both. There are discussions in numerous areas, but nothing really centralized about addressing these articles. Here are the concerns: [21], [22]. Another relevant discussion: Talk:Dreamcast/Archive 2#Research into where 10.6 million came from. « Ryūkotsusei » 18:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
GamePro is usually a pretty good source otherwise though. Rather than a note here, which rarely distinguishes between individual articles, it might just be best to add an edit notice/FAQ type thing about it at that article. I can page protect the article too, if its IPs that are commonly the one commonly disregarding the consensus that the source is wrong. (I only assume that because in my experience, I've seen IPs do the most wrongful-tweaking of sales figures.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
GamePro itself is fine, but its just those specific articles I wonder if we should outright exclude them from being cited anywhere for sale numbers. « Ryūkotsusei » 18:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that particular list has caused enough problems to warrant staying away from it. Just not sure I know the best way to convey this. Maybe others do? Anyone? Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Promote Major Nelson

Find video game sources: "Major Nelson" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Run by Larry Hryb. I think he can have a promotion to platform specific. There really isn't anything wrong with the stuff he puts out and I'm quite sure Microsoft is editing it at this point. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd considered this basically a primary source, especially due to the long and very close relationship to Microsoft. -- ferret (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Isn't his "situational" condition to basically treat him like a WP:PRIMARY source? As long as its a blog run by Microsoft, WP:PRIMARY applies, it really should be handled in the same way stated in PRIMARY. (Not playing favorites or anything, I'd say the same about the PlayStation Blog, Nintendo Directs, Sega's blog, or anything else like that. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Official PlayStation Blog is under Platform Specific already. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I agree that we should be consistent, but I don't know if adding them to "platform specific" is the answer. Maybe we should make a new section like "First party sources", where we'd link to WP:PRIMARY, and then list some prominent ones like the ones above? Though then again, if we do that, like everything involving examples on Wikipedia, pretty soon people are going to bloat it out with 100's of video game publisher/developer's website, which isn't really necessary, considering we'd handle them all in the same way... Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Ooooo. I think I like this idea. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 22:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh good. Me too, and I'm not seeing any opposition, so it seems like we can probably move forward with something like this. Perhaps we should just start with listing off the 3 respective sites for the 3 primary console makers, as a sort of a standard to keep from bloating too much? Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I think it sounds good. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Sources like Major Nelson and the PlayStation Blog can be used for uncontroversial detail, but we shouldn't be recommending them as a matter of course when we have plenty of superior, unaffiliated secondary sources for almost any claim they'd make. So to expand on the proposal, I'd recommend instead renaming "Situational" as "Primary/affiliated sources", summarizing the guidelines on when/how primary/affiliated sources should be used, and cleaning up the entries that no longer belong. I don't think the "Situational" section lives up to this page's expectations of helping editors find and evaluate reliable sources, as "situational" isn't the Wikipedia-wide designation, but "primary/affiliated source". (There are prior discussions on this topic in the archives.) czar 02:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, unless I'm misreading the first part of the discussion, what you're describing was pretty much what I envisioned we were going to be doing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

GamingTrend

Is GamingTrend reliable? They're not on the list, so I'm not sure. Their Metacritic profile lists 2,900 reviews, their staff seems reputable, looks like there's plenty of editorial oversight, lots of interviews with industry figures, so they're probably alright? Phediuk (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I've look at this one once or twice now, and am still unsure. They do have an established staff, though outside of one guy who's written for Glixel and Destructoid, most don't seem to really have any industry experience outside of working on the website itself. They do have a Review Policy though, which is good. Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC on reliability of OpenCritic

I was summoned here by Legobot to participate, but this seems to be an inappropriate RfC. Not only is this conversation essentially taking place a few sections up, it was discussed relatively recently, which was put forward by the same user. The consensus there was to oppose it then as Metacritic is the preferred option. (It should be noted that the consensus does not align with the proposer's view.) While consensus can change, I see nothing to show that this will be any different this time around. Nihlus 05:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to request a formal RfC on the topic of whether OpenCritic is a reliable source. There is much vitriol on both sides. The previous informal RfC got sidetracked, so I think it's time for something more formal. SharkD  Talk  01:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support. I think the site is reliable enough to be used as a source in articles on Wikipedia, per previous discussions. SharkD  Talk  01:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. How many times are you going have this discussion? The majority of people here are against the use of it in articles, its reliability (or not) will not really change that. If you do want a formal opinion, then I still oppose the use of it in articles, with no opinion on its reliability. I still don't understand how this will be used as a source if we aren't going to use it alongside Metacritic, you never answered that above. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This is disruptive. There remains no new evidence since the June RfC to warrant revisiting this topic. I'd close it myself if wasn't a participant. czar 02:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with czar. -- ferret (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy close - Don't hold concurrent discussions on the same thing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • All of these discussions use the term "Reliable source" but that's not really the issue. The issue is that it's redundant to use, when we have a similar source that's been the industry standard for years. Is Opencritic reliable? I don't know, probably. Should we use it in place of Metacritic? No. --Deathawk (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Which is what the original discussion was about, now SharkD is trying to argue that if it was reliable, it could be used in place of Metacritic anyway, which (at least for me) is what I am opposing in regards to its reliability. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_17&oldid=1147962131"