Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

OpenCritic

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

There was at least seven discussions about using OpenCritic as an aggregate source, with the last one being in 2017. All of them were made with inconclusive results. Given that, as well as the recent closing of GameRankings, I think it's time we should revisit that discussion and see if we can get a resolution for using OpenCritic as a review aggregate. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Nobody said it was unreliable, IIRC. The argument was that we didn't really need to include it in articles because it's basically using the same sources (and thus scores) as Metacritic, the industry standard. I don't believe anything has changed in the time since, but maybe with the closure of GameRankings it does? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• I think it's fine but redundant in most cases to Metacritic. However, I do like how they take a page from Rotten Tomatoes and have a consensus summary for certain games; that's not something Metacritic has and I think can justify its inclusion in articles. See its pages for Mario Odyssey and Sonic Mania, for example. Also similar to Rotten, they've got the percentage of critics that liked a game, not just a weighted average. JOEBRO64 23:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I like it for this reason as well. Metacritic uses a hidden weighting on each review to come up with their "metascore" whereas OpenCritic just uses a straight average. I also prefer the Rottentomatoes-style % recommend since it's a different view of the same data. Even if OC's main score is very similar/the same as MC's, the % recommend makes it less redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• I'm fine with using OpenCritic as an aggregate source here. GamerPro64 03:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• It would be helpful if we can get a table comparing MC to OC's list of reputable review sources, as to determine how many each use, and which one MC uses that OC doesn't, and vice versa. I would be hesistant to use OC if both have around, say, 60 possible review sources and only 5 are unique to OC, where as if it was 15 or 20, that would be very different and would make sense. --Masem (t) 16:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• I realize that’s a lot to ask of anyone...but I agree. Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • OpenCritic used to have a list of the publications they use but I can't find it. GamerPro64 20:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Does Metacritic publish that list for that matter? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Here's the link to Metacritic's game publication list. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Looks like MC has about 500 publications on its master list, certainly many of which wouldn't pass our RS guidelines (but we knew that). Regardless, I think OC's different reported measures like % recommended are of value in and of themselves, even if they happen to draw from the same publications. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• I tried to make a table. I used the list from Metacritic that is linked above for the Metacritic sources. For OpenCritic I couldn't find a list, so I used the search function (which shows publications as well) and the reviewers of some of the top scored games to get the publications they use. I haven't listed any sources that aren't on the page here, since otherwise the table would be way too large, so this only includes sources that have been discussed to some capacity on here. This is not necessarily comprehensive, although hopefully it will give some insight. If anyone spots an error or finds a source I missed, please let me know. From what I can see here, MC uses 97 reliable, 11 situational, 35 unreliable and 34 inconlusive sources. OC uses 43 reliable, 8 situational, 24 unreliable and 7 inconclusive sources. Based on this data, I'd personally say that OpenCritic isn't better than Metacritic, so I'd say we don't use OpenCritic and just continue using Metacritic. Stefvanschie (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Publication	Status	MC/OC
148Apps	Situational	MC
1UP	Reliable	MC
3D Jeugos	Inconclusive	MC
Absolute Games	Reliable	MC
AceGamez	Unreliable	MC
ActionTrip	Unreliable	MC and OC
Adrenaline Vault	Unreliable	MC
Adventure Gamers	Reliable	MC
AllGame	Reliable	MC
AppSpy	Reliable	MC
Armchair Empire	Unreliable	MC
Ars Technica	Reliable	MC and OC
Attack of the Fanboy	Unreliable	MC and OC
Brash Games	Unreliable	MC
CD-Action	Reliable	MC
CG Magazine	Unreliable	MC and OC
Cheat Code Central	Unreliable	MC and OC
Cincinnati Enquirer	Inconclusive	MC
CNET	Reliable	MC
Computer and Video Games	Reliable	MC
Computer Games Magazine	Reliable	MC
Computer Gaming World	Reliable	MC
CPU Gamer	Unreliable	MC
Cubed3	Situational	MC and OC
Da Gameboyz	Inconclusive	MC
Darkstation	Unreliable	MC and OC
DarkZero	Unreliable	MC and OC
Deeko	Inconclusive	MC
Destructoid	Situational	MC and OC
Detroit Free Press	Inconclusive	MC
Digital Chumps	Unreliable	MC and OC
Digital Spy	Reliable	MC and OC
Digital Trends	Reliable	MC and OC
Digitally Downloaded	Reliable	MC and OC
DualShockers	Unreliable	MC and OC
Easy Allies	Reliable	MC and OC
Edge	Reliable	MC and OC
Electric Playground	Reliable	MC
Electronic Gaming Monthly	Reliable	MC and OC
Entertainment Weekly	Reliable	MC
Eurogamer	Reliable	MC and OC
Examiner	Unreliable	MC and OC
Ferrago	Inconclusive	MC
FHM	Inconclusive	MC
FiringSquad	Reliable	MC
Forbes	Situational	MC and OC
G4 TV	Inconclusive	MC
Game Chronicles	Unreliable	MC and OC
GameFan	Reliable	MC
Game Informer	Reliable	MC and OC
Game Over Online	Inconclusive	MC
Game Rant	Unreliable	MC and OC
Game Revolution	Reliable	MC and OC
Game World Navigator	Inconclusive	MC
GameCrate	Situational	MC and OC
GameDaily	Reliable	MC
Gamekult	Reliable	MC
GameNow	Reliable	MC
Gameplanet	Reliable	MC and OC
Game Power	Inconclusive	MC
GamePro	Reliable	MC and OC
Gamer.nl	Reliable	MC
Game Reactor	Inconclusive	MC
GamerNode	Inconclusive	MC
Gamers' Temple	Unreliable	MC
Gamervision	Unreliable	MC
GameSkinny	Unreliable	OC
GamesMaster	Reliable	MC
GamesRadar+	Reliable	MC and OC
GameShark	Inconclusive	MC
GameSpot	Reliable	MC and OC
GameSpy	Reliable	MC
GameStar	Reliable	MC
GamesTM	Reliable	OC
Gamestyle	Inconclusive	MC and OC
Game Tap	Inconclusive	MC
GameTrailers	Reliable	MC and OC
GameZebo	Reliable	MC
Gamezilla	Reliable	MC
GameZone	Reliable	MC and OC
Gaming Age	Situational	MC
Gaming Nexus	Unreliable	MC and OC
Gaming Target	Unreliable	MC
GamingXP	Inconclusive	MC
Giant Bomb	Situational	MC and OC
God is a Geek	Unreliable	MC and OC
Gry OnLine	Reliable	MC and OC
Happy Puppy	Inconclusive	MC
Hardcore Gamer	Reliable	MC and OC
Hobby Consolas	Reliable	MC and OC
IGN	Reliable	MC and OC
Impulse Gamer	Unreliable	MC and OC
Jeuxvideo	Reliable	MC
Joystiq	Reliable	MC
Just Adventure	Reliable	MC
Just RPG	Unreliable	MC
Kikizo	Inconlusive	MC
Kill Screen	Reliable	MC and OC
Kombo	Inconclusive	MC
Kotaku	Reliable	MC and OC
Let's Play Video Games	Inconclusive	MC
MacLife	Reliable	MC
Meristation	Inconclusive	MC and OC
MMORPG	Unreliable	MC and OC
Multiplayer.it	Inconclusive	MC and OC
My Nintendo News	Unreliable	MC
Netjak	Unreliable	MC
Next Generation Magazine	Reliable	MC
NF Magazine	Reliable	MC
NGC Magazine	Reliable	MC
Niche Gamer	Unreliable	OC
Nintendo Enthusiast	Unreliable	MC and OC
Nintendo Gamer	Reliable	MC
Nintendo Life	Reliable	MC and OC
Nintendo Power	Reliable	MC
Nintendojo	Reliable	MC and OC
Nintendo World Report	Reliable	MC and OC
NTCS	Unreliable	MC
NZGamer	Inconclusive	MC and OC
Official Nintendo Magazine	Reliable	MC
Official PlayStation 2 Magazine	Reliable	MC
Official Xbox Magazine	Reliable	MC
PALGN	Reliable	MC
PC Arena	Inconclusive	MC
PC Format	Reliable	MC
PC Gamer	Reliable	MC and OC
PC Games	Reliable	MC
PC Magazine	Reliable	OC
PC PowerPlay	Reliable	MC
PC Zone	Reliable	MC
PCGamesN	Reliable	MC and OC
PC World	Inconclusive	MC and OC
Pelit	Reliable	MC
Play UK	Reliable	MC
PlayStation LifeStyle	Reliable	MC and OC
PlayStation Official Magazine UK	Reliable	MC
PlayStation: The Official Magazine	Reliable	MC
Pocket Tactics	Inconclusive	MC
Polygon	Reliable	MC and OC
Power Unlimited	Reliable	MC
Pregaming	Inconclusive	MC
PSX Extreme	Inconclusive	MC and OC
Push Square	Reliable	MC and OC
Quandary	Unreliable	MC
Rock, Paper, Shotgun	Reliable	MC and OC
RPGFan	Reliable	MC and OC
RPG Site	Reliable	MC and OC
RPGamer	Reliable	MC and OC
Screen Rant	Inconclusive	MC and OC
Shacknews	Reliable	MC and OC
Siliconera	Reliable	MC
Slide to Play	Reliable	MC
Softpedia	Situational	MC and OC
Sports Gaming Network	Reliable	MC
TeamXbox	Reliable	MC
TechRaptor	Unreliable	OC
The AV Club	Reliable	MC and OC
The Daily Dot	Reliable	MC and OC
The Games Machine	Reliable	MC and OC
The Jimquisition	Situational	MC and OC
The New York Times	Reliable	MC
The Overpowered Noobs	Unreliable	MC
The Verge	Reliable	MC
TheSixthAxis	Unreliable	MC and OC
Thunderbolt	Inconclusive	MC
Time	Reliable	MC
Times Online	Inconclusive	MC
TotalVideoGames	Inconclusive	MC
TouchArcade	Reliable	MC
Twinfinite	Unreliable	MC and OC
USgamer	Reliable	MC and OC
Variety	Reliable	MC
VG247	Reliable	MC and OC
VGChartz	Unreliable	OC
VideoGamer.com	Reliable	MC and OC
Voodoo Extreme	Reliable	MC
Warcry	Inconclusive	MC
Wccftech	Situational	MC and OC
Wired	Reliable	MC
Worth Playing	Unreliable	MC and OC
XBLA Fans	Unreliable	MC
Yahoo!	Situational	MC
ZTGD	Unreliable	MC and OC

Thank you for doing that, it confirms what I felt was the case: that the overlap between MC + OC is very close. That said, the argument that OC does provide something beyond a numerical value ala what Rotten Tomatoes does is a point of consideration. I know the film project uses RT more than MC for film reviews, but they don't dismiss MC, and I could see that argument there. At least one thing going for OC: It makes no distinction for the different platforms for a game, so particularly for many AAA titles, that bulk summary can be helpful. Still not sure yet, though... --Masem (t) 14:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't call one the replacement for another. They provide different viewpoints (summary statistics) on similar underlying data. As long as we consider things like averages more beyond the scope of routine calculations, then I think OC has a place. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I can see why a combination of the platforms can be useful for some games, since often the scores are very similar. But, on the other hand, there are definitely games that garnered very different scores across platforms. Minecraft for example, got a 93 on PC, but its Pocket Edition got a 53 on iOS. ARK: Survival Evolved, got a 70 on PC, but a 29 on Nintendo Switch. In such cases, there's an enormous gap between the scores and throwing them on a pile together likely creates a score that doesn't represent the game correctly. If we're going to make use of OpenCritic, I'd say that we at the very least need to consider for each game individually whether OpenCritic provides a meaningful score for the game, or if we should exclude it because the scores for the different platforms vary greatly. As an unrelated side note, I personally am not a fan of "recommended scores" such as the one OpenCritic provides (or Rotten Tomatoes for that matter). If we look at OpenCritic, Super Mario 3D World currently has a 100% recommended score with a score of 94 - something I'd consider an outstanding game. However, Picross S3 also has a 100% recommend score, although it has a score of 76. Still a good game, absolutely, but not nearly as good as Super Mario 3D World. If I were to look at these two games' recommended scores, I'd have no idea that the first one was received much better than the second, which is why I don't think such a recommendation score is really meaningful. Seeing how closely MC and OC overlap in their publications and that I personally don't think a recommended score is really meaningful, I'd say usage of OpenCritic isn't necessary. (To say OC is unreliable is perhaps a step too far, but perhaps it'd be better to make this one a 'Situational' - in case MC for some reason doesn't have the game listed, use OC, but prefer MC whenever possible.) Stefvanschie (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that care should be used when platform differences are important. But I think your criticism of the recommended score is misguided. The recommended score is a different measure of the underlying review data; it measures a different thing than the average. A high recommended score indicates that a game has a high broad appeal across many reviewers, without adjudicating its specific quality level. This is a feature of this measure, not a bug. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• I do not really see the point in using it when we already have Metacritic. The only rare occassion where it could be used without being redundant is when there is large discrepancy between the two scores for a game, which is unlikely considering the overlap in sources.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk?

Straw poll

Can we get a straw poll going on this reliability? EDIT: I'd rather not contribute to the seven(!) no consensus discussions on OC here so far. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Edit: Axem Titanium (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable. It measures something valuable and different than MC, which can't be done by hand per WP:CALC. There should be some guidance about which of OC's scores to report when it's very similar to MC, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable. I concur with Axem's points above. JOEBRO64 20:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude as redundant. Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That's not what this discussion is about though? Sjones observed that there have been many inconclusive prior discussions on this (seven, in fact!). "Redundant" doesn't really give guidance about whether the source is reliable or not. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • You should probably word it more specifically than “can we get a straw poll going?” then. I thought we would be polling for practical/actual application. Sergecross73 msg me 21:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
      • With respect, this is WP:VG/S, the reliable sources board for this WP, and the discussion subject laid out by Sjones is explicitly about resolving seven inconclusive reliable source discussions. And the first comments below the straw poll discuss reliability, not inclusion/exclusion. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Right, and then reread the actual discussion that played out after Sjones started it. I’d say over half of of the comments veers into the practical application/redundancy discussion, including most recent ones. And this section break did nothing to re-center that trajectory. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
          • Fine, fair enough. I amended the top comment. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't really agree that it's 100% redundant, look at what Axem and I said above. JOEBRO64 21:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This statement is and has been categorically false. There is a different spread of both reliable and unreliable reviewers, and the summary material that OC provides differs in type as well. --Izno (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Come on, you can’t say something like “categorically false” here. I said “redundant”, not “100% duplicate” or “1:1 parity”. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
      • I think what Izno means is that you (and a few others) are not acknowledging that OpenCritic has two key things—an approval rating and a critics' consensus summary—that distinguish it from Metacritic. The approval rating will always be completely different from the MC score, and the critics' consensus is a nice summary. The film project is fine with using both Rotten Tomatoes and MC because both use different aggregating methods (with RT being similar to OC), so I don't see why we can't use OC. JOEBRO64 14:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
        • And I’m totally fine with not seeing eye to eye on those grounds. Just not that dismissive “categorically false” nonsense. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• I think most people here are still missing the original point. OpenCritic as a review aggregator is not any less reliable than Metacritic or GameRankings. The issue is us using them in articles when their scores almost never differ from Metacritic's, thus making them redundant just like GameRankings was for modern games. Unless we find another way to do all this, such as including all aggregator links without specifically favoring any of them, then I don't see the benefit of doing this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I guess a question to ask is whether or not there are games that OpenCritic has on their website that Metacritic does not. GamerPro64 08:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • What about the critics' consensus and approval ratings? Those alone make the "redundant to MC" sentiment unjustified IMO. JOEBRO64 14:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm personally a bit conflicted on whether we want to use the critics' consensus (I'm assuming that you're referring to the Reviews Summary at the top of some of the games' pages?) in pages to begin with. I'm assuming it lists some of the key points reviewers noted about that game, but would we then want to include that, or would we want to directly use what the reviewer said themselves? In a sense, OpenCritic is mostly a tertiary source, since the reviews it lists and, I'm assuming also, the critics' consensus are simply what the reviewers listed have said. You could therefore argue that, since we prefer secondary sources (the reviewer in this case) we should list what the critics have said instead of using what OpenCritic says based on the reviews. Stefvanschie (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
      • I think he's referring to the overall rating (Mighty, Strong, Fair, Weak), which is roughly analogous to MC's "universal acclaim"/"generally favorable"/"mixed" etc. summary phrase. According to OC's FAQ, these ratings are based on percentile rank where "Mighty" refers to the 90th percentile of average review scores. This happens to be 84/100, meaning that only 10% of games have an average score of 84 or higher. The significance of this difference is perception. The popular perception of a MC/OC average of 85 is that this is a B-grade game ("oh this game only has an 85 on Metacritic" is a common insult I see on forums), when in fact, an 85 average is an extremely high score and less than 10% of games achieve it. I think this also provides a different dimension of measurement of the data that OC provides over MC. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
        • It calculates the scores differently, but I wouldn't say this is necessarily useful in this case. MetaCritic provides a similar score (Universal acclaim; Generally favorable reviews; Mixed or average reviews; Generally unfavorable reviews; Overwhelming dislike). Maybe scores from MetaCritic and OpenCritic are perceived differently by people, but a score of 85 is on both sites a score which has a positive consensus assigned to it: "Mighty" for OpenCritic and "Generally favorable reviews" for MetaCritic; since we currently can list this statement as is (as per WP:VG/MOS#Reception), readers shouldn't get the impression that the game only has an 85, since this MetaCritic summary states that the reviews are "favorable". I think in this case the MetaCritic consensus is more useful than OpenCritic, since OpenCritic considers everything below 66 a "Weak" game, which in my opinion doesn't really work when for example comparing two games: one with a 63 and one with a 37. Clearly these games are very far apart in terms of quality, but OpenCritic doesn't say more than "Weak". At least with MetaCritic's consensuses these two games would get a different consensus. Stefvanschie (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
          • That's exactly the misperception that percentile rank is supposed to clarify! It's a well known fact that reviews in general and game reviews in particular rarely use the full range of a 10-point scale. Games rarely score higher than 9 and lower than 6, except in extraordinary cases. Let's take your examples of 63 and 37. Because OC gives percentile rank, you can see that 63 is at the 21st percentile but a 37 average is actually waaayyyyy down at the 2nd percentile. Yes, these are both labeled "Weak" by OC because Weak is defined as below 30th percentile and these two scores are far down on the range. Let's look at it another way, comparing MC and OC's labels, based on Metacritic#Metascores.

Score index

Bucket		MC average	MC percentile	OC average	OC percentile
	1st	90–100	98–100	84-100	90-100
	2nd	75–89	60-98	75-83	60-90
	3rd	50–74	8–60	66-74	30-60
	4th	20–49	1-8	0-65	0-30
	5th	0–19	0-1	N/A	N/A

• • • • • • Notice how the buckets for MC's summary rating are completely unbalanced. The top bucket only covers 2% of all games, the 2nd bucket has 40% and the 3rd bucket has 50% and basically nothing exists in the bottom two buckets. OC's summary ratings are based on percentile so their summary ratings actually give you a sense of how good a game is in comparison to others. According to Metacritic, 90% of all games are either "generally favorable" or "average", which doesn't really make sense to me. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Situational, use the average score only when MetaCritic doesn't have a score for the game or the game at all and only use the recommended score if it's particularly noteworthy. While OpenCritic definitely has things of interest, I personally can't ignore that the ratio of reliable to unreliable sources used when determining the scores for MC is ~2.77, but for OC is only ~1.79 (taken from the table mentioned above). I wouldn't say an additional recommended score (or critics' consensus, but for that see comment above) justifies lowering the standard this much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefvanschie (talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The table above is not at all comprehensive for reasons not least of which include that WP:VG/S hasn't discussed a majority of the 500 publications that MC draws from. I am extremely dubious that the true ratio of "reliable" vs. "unreliable" as determined by (future) WP editors is anywhere near the number from your sample and there's no way to extrapolate an approximation of the real number from the sample that wouldn't be biased by the sample selection. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    • The table isn't complete for neither Metacritic nor OpenCritic, so it's very likely that the ratio will change in the future for both sites. Perhaps MetaCritic's ratio becomes better or worse, same for OpenCritic. Regardless, we don't have that data currently, so at this point in time, I'm considering OpenCritic to be situational. If in the future we discuss the status of OpenCritic again, we can take another look at the publications and their reliability and see what has changed. Stefvanschie (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Then I think it's unfair to allege that one ratio is higher (or lower) than the other when the fact of the matter is that it's entirely unknown. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
        • If we would have determined the reliability of all publications that MC and OC use, then I'd be more than happy to take them all into account. Point is, we haven't and that's not something that will happen in the near future. The exact ratio is unknown, absolutely, but the current ratio is a best-effort estimate, so I'm taking that one to base my decision upon. Like I said, when we have reviewed more publications for reliability on here, we can always re-check how MC and OC compare and see what the results are. Besides, if it's "unfair" like you said to base this stance on this ratio, I'd just say "Inconclusive", cause by that reasoning you can not conclude that OC is reliable nor unreliable. Stefvanschie (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Occasionally reliable but generally exclude. OC should only really be used on the rare occassion where MC does not have a score. I do not see the value in having two similiar review aggregators which will almost always give out similiar scores when rating one game.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of Arcade Heroes (arcadeheroes.com)

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Arcade Heroes (arcadeheroes.com). If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Arcade Heroes. — Newslinger talk 23:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Classic Game Room (CGR)

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

This site has been discussed a fair few times before in the past, but no consensus was made. Classic Game Room is a long-running web series hosted by Mark Bussler, beginning in 1999 up until 2019. It focuses primarily on video games and hardware, but has also reviewed other products such as computers, pinball machines, and gaming mousepads. Bussler is the owner of Inecom, LLC, which owns CGR Publishing, which in turn own Classic Game Room. He and his work have been cited by other publications, such as Vice and VentureBeat. I think that and the fact this show has been in production for such a long time do help establish some credibility, but of course I wanna see what other people think of this. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 17:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Den of Geek

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

Does anyone know if this is reliable for video game reviews/commentary? it covers multiple pieces of media, not just video games. They provide interviews as well so it looks good for news coverage. They seem to have a strong editorial [1][2]. But this isn't my expertise.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 15:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

For reviews I'd be okay, but I can't recall seeing otherwise seeing something covered by DoG that wasn't also covered in one of our main sources. --Masem (t) 15:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

[3] Well there's an exclusive interview from the creator of E.T. game. I don't know how much original content they have or if this interview has redundant information. I'll do some further research and see what i can find.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 15:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Stuff like that is good. I'd just through the usual caution that if it present information that makes no sense that others can corroborate, it may not be good, but in general its okay. --Masem (t) 15:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd say this is reliable. They have a lot of staff (which, by looking at the amount, I assume is paid), they seem to have editorial oversight and some of their employees have degrees in journalism. Scrolling through their articles, they seem to be well written and contain correct information. Stefvanschie (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm also going to go with reliable, since it provides well-written news coverage, interviews and reviews for video games in general. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Reliable - the staff clearly has some expertise in journalism (some even having degrees), and it does have editorial oversight. I've used them in the past too, and I do agree that a lot of their work is well-written and useful. I see no reason to list them as being unreliable. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 03:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

UploadVR

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

• Their team page shows an editorial staff with Ian Hamilton the managing editor having covered VR in freelance at least since 2012. They are name-dropped frequently by other sources, and they recently had E3 expo presence to help show off VR tech. They seem to be the big go-to for anything VR/AR/XR today, particularly with HL:Alyx now released. (The site was asked about here in 2017 but never got any discussion then). --Masem (t) 15:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Also preliminary if we add them here, I would also be asking to add them to the review template too, but that's a separate request over there. --Masem (t) 15:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support both. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support both. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 18:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Bleeding Cool

Find video game sources: "Bleeding Cool" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo Website that focuses on different forms of entertainment such as comics, TV, movies and video games. The website has a wikipedia page. The website seems to focus on "news and rumors". The website is listed as a reliable source by wikiproject comics. The website does not seem to be featured in any kind of gaming related reliable source as far as I can find. I can't find anything on the website regarding editorial oversight or even the people that work for the website. Given this, I'd say this website is unreliable. Stefvanschie (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• I consider it reliable; it's also listed as reliable at Wikipedia:Webcomic_sources#Bleeding_Cool. I'm familiar with the site: it's run and edited by Rich Johnston, who is probably the best comic book journalist in the medium. He's written/edited for a ton of reliable sources (including The Guardian and Comic Book Resources), and the site has a strong track record for factual reporting. Here's its staff page, btw (quite a few list some good credentials). I think it was also a print magazine at one point. JOEBRO64 12:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable per TheJoebro64. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 03:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
• It's generally reliable but nearly all the time I can find the information corroboration by a somewhat better source if we're talking about a video game. --Masem (t) 14:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Prima Games

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

I know that Prima Games is a longtime source that publishes video game guides. I have heard that their guides are credible, and in fact I think I have used one of them as a reference before, but I am wondering whether the website has the same editorial oversight and credibility as the guides. FreeMediaKid! 10:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable as a primary source. Prima Games guides are useful for citing gameplay sections and sometimes have developer interviews that could be used to flesh out the development section. However, they don't establish notability. JOEBRO64 11:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I assume this also means the website version, right? FreeMediaKid! 20:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

That's right. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

In this case, is there no where on the website that you suggest we stay away from? I am thinking of this example. It is by someone with the username mlong, and there is no biographical description of the user. I cannot tell whether they are a Prima Games staff member or simply an amateur. FreeMediaKid! 17:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Pocket-lint

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

After stumbling upon Pocket-lint, I was on the edge to believe that one could reasonably trust the source, but after reading its About and Editorial standards pages, my attitude changed to thinking that the source may not be sketchy after all. Pocket-lint is an independent website that covers and reviews technology and video games. While the Editorial standards page may contain occasional grammatical errors, the message I see is a consistent reassurance that the writers care about what they write and that they do not want to publish anything false or misleading. According to its About page, the site has been cited by mainstream media sources such as BBC, and at the bottom of that page are the authors and their biographies, which appear to be satisfactory. I have not seen any other discussion about the source on Wikipedia, and here is hoping that I managed to have found yet another reliable source. FreeMediaKid! 01:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me, so I'd say it's reliable. Stefvanschie (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Behind the Voice Actors

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

I have been wary about sources providing information on entertainment and pop culture, and Behind the Voice Actors represents the worst of my fears regarding such sources. It appears to be a database of voice actors who starred in films, television shows, and video games. It disclaims at the bottom that the website is unofficial, and more importantly its About page is lackluster. On Tails (Sonic the Hedgehog) I had just found two sources linking to the website and removed them. We may as well start comparing this website to IMDb, right? FreeMediaKid! 17:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Previous discussion. --Izno (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't use these links as an in-line citation, but I think they work better as an EL like with IMDb if we do consider them reliable enough. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

BTVA is fine as long as there's a green check next to the role. That means the credit has been verified as legit, so it classifies as a primary source in that regard. JOEBRO64 19:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Verified via what, the credits or another source? In that case, wouldn't it be better for Wiki to skip using this site and cite the same sources? I don't see what value this site has if that's all it does, especially if it's still user-submitted. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It's verified from the actor's official resumé. That's when it's acceptable to use BTAS, according to the existing consensus at WP:A&M/ORS. JOEBRO64 20:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

If BTVA is at least remotely reliable, then how can I confirm via evidence that the site's verification process is not bogus? It sounds like a website that is at least comparable to IMDb and at most situationally reliable. FreeMediaKid! 00:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

That's what I'm wondering. If it's verified from the actor's resume (and by whom, their about page doesn't list any staff), then why can't we just cite that instead? What benefit does BTVA offer us besides convenience? I'm opposed to accepting BTVA as a reliable source, but it could work in the same general way like we do with IMDb, which is via external link only. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to raise those questions to the anime project, I'm just telling you what the existing consensus is. I have no opinion either way. JOEBRO64 12:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Can sites be considered reliable for one subject/project and not for another? Or should it automatically be considered the same across the entirety of Wiki? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep it around as there are other Wikiprojects such as Television where it would be a lot more spammy to show "Various characters". A voice actor with 50 BTVA references to screenshots would expand to hundreds of cite episode references that easily swamp the article. But whatever, just give time for people to convert them to regular primary cites if you don't want them. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Which is why we prefer reliable third-party sources and not anonymous proxies such as this one. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This is classified Situational on WP:ANIME/RS. if the green checkmark leads to a screenshot of the closing credits, then it is used as a shortcut replacement for {{cite video game}} and {{cite episode}} If it leads to a resume or tweet, then it has to be evaluated as WP:SELFPUB. If the screenshot is inconclusive, then don't use. No checkmark means do not use. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand that, but the problem is why are we considering them any more reliable than a fan blog that verifies the same info in the same way? Their about page doesn't show who exactly is doing the work, and shouldn't all the info be verified from the very start anyway? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

If you don't trust it, then convert each instance back to cite video game and cite episode. You'll get the same result. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

AngusWOOF, exactly, hence why I did not see the need for an unverifiable proxy source such as this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable, not "situational". Unless someone can speak to their editorial credibility, I think Dissident just said it all. Their process is no different from citing a primary source directly except that citing them gives them credence when they're on par with a hobbyist site's editorial process, pedigree, and industry standing. I don't see the upside to citing them under the name of "situationality" (which makes little sense as a concept, as I've argued in this talk page's archives). czar 22:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

For video game filmographies, it just means they again will be converted to cite video game / cite episode and stand on those merits alone. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Right, they'd need to be justified as the WP:Primary sources that they are. czar 02:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

There have been a spate of changes regarding voice actors in Persona 5 and other related games as shown on this site. I was only generous in citing BTVA for cast members having green check marks, but Dissident93 was doing nothing more than being cynical and persistently vandalizing them. They are attacking the foundation of trust of BTVA. Pages on BTVA containing green check marks are too important to not cite on Wikipedia. I would just continue to use such pages like normal. Homechallenge55 (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Please keep on topic. This discussion is for figuring out whether or not we should consider it a reliable source in the Wikipedia context. None of that constitutes a valid reason for or against its use. Sergecross73 msg me 01:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Homechallenge55, disregarding your personal attacks (show me what guideline(s) I violated that constitutes vandalism?), BTVA can not a "foundation of trust" when all they do is have anonymous users add checkmarks to screenshots of credits or resumes. I'm not even saying their info is inaccurate/false (it seems easy enough to verify it yourself), but I do fail to see the use in using them when we could just cite the original game/resumes instead. This is not even bringing up the fact that the Persona 5 characters page already cites reliable third-party publications (which is preferred over anything else), meaning that you adding multiple BTVA citations on top of that violates WP:OVERCITE anyway. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - With there being differing opinions across WikiProjects, I feel like this may be better to open a larger scale RFC to get more input on. As far as the website goes, it reminds me a lot of Discogs in the music content area. It’s generally pretty accurate because it’s just photos and transcriptions of music credits. But because there are errors, and it’s mostly user-generated, it’s not considered a usable source. But it is used as something to look at personally to consider if other sources are likely correct, or if someone has the album info and can confirm the scan, can be used as a point of reference. But ultimately, the album jacket/credits is what is cited in the end. Just a thought. Sergecross73 msg me 22:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Sergecross73, discogs would be a good analogy since the real citation would be citing the album cover. I would also liken it to store listings like Amazon. This is where having access to the set of screenshots would be helpful. If someone is trying to show that the actor is credited as "Peter Parker / Spider-Man" rather than just "Spider-Man" or then going to the site with the screenshot is going to be more helpful than just citing the video game. Perhaps it can be embedded in the "url=" portion of the cite video game which isn't called out or displayed anyway. This would also be an embedded comment. Also the BTVA website itself hosts a bunch of awards that many voice actors consider notable enough to brag about that on their personal websites / social media. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

DarkStation

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

DarkStation was ruled unreliable in the 2017 discussion here; however, the sole comment specifically about DS was "DarkStation doesn't have any editorial or staff page and about is bare bones; no author info.", and checking the site, it looks like all of that has changed in the three years since that discussion. While the Staff page doesn't show any journalistic credentials that I can see, at the least they've got editorial oversight and a pretty thorough site, so I thought a reassessment of its reliability was due.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• No credentials is usually a no-go, unless people dig up credentials from Linked In or interviews or other sources. It happens occasionally, but usually writers are pretty upfront about stuff like that, for obvious reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Daily Esports

Find video game sources: "Daily Esports." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo Seems to be a part of the Enthusiast Gaming Network ([4]). Though, they specify "contributors" as opposed to staff ([5]). Contributing editors list: [6]. I am not sure of their reliablity since I cannot tell if they are either staff or contributors with no editoral oversight. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Leaning unreliable, per above. Additionally, looking at their “network”, it doesn’t seem we find most of the sites they “founded” (Nintendo/Playstation/Xbox Enthusiast) reliable, only the ones they’ve apparent acquired that we already found to be reliable (Siliconera, Pocket). Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

GotGame TV

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

Just earlier today, I had accidentally found a website that I had never heard of by finding what could be useful for Worms-related articles, and while I have doubted it at first, the website itself may turn out to be usable. It turns out that the website has been around since 2002—a very long time, indeed. While there is not much to say about their About page or their ethics, there is a section of the website that I find satisfactory. It is called GotGame TV, and the videos appear to be about GotGame employees interviewing game or technology developers. I have no reason to suspect that the interviews are doctored in any way. I would personally avoid the rest of the website because I cannot tell whether those areas have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. However, GotGame TV may be a victory for all of us. FreeMediaKid! 02:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Leaning towards unreliable. There is seemingly no info on who runs the website, who is involved and if there's any editorial oversight of any kind. I also can't find any mention of them from reliable media outlets. The TV stuff is nice, but making videos is not really special and since we don't know how the site is run, we don't now the reliability of those videos either. Stefvanschie (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess they are certainly reliable only if they have been cited by primary websites, which is essentially true for any secondary source regardless of reliability. In this case GotGame TV would be no different, and we may as well use those primary sources instead. FreeMediaKid! 09:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

THEGAMER

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

Has a paid editorial staff and pays all those that write for them. https://www.thegamer.com/about/ If you check their press kit it reads https://www.thegamer.com/press-kit/ Launched in 2017, TheGamer serves a readership of 23 million gaming fans annually, and our articles have been sourced or featured at many of the Internet’s most trusted outlets, including Forbes, Medium, Wired, Yahoo! News, The Wire, Cracked, and Wikipedia. In addition, our reviews are featured on industry-recognized aggregators such as Metacritic and OpenCritic. I think this should be added to the reliable sources list. Dream Focus 13:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

"(...) the Internet’s most trusted outlets, including Forbes, Medium, (...) and Wikipedia". That's a yikes from me. Inclusion in Metacritic and (especially) OpenCritic isn't an indication for reliability either, as both websites carry reviews from sources we consider unreliable. However, the managing editor appears to have some journalistic experience from The Escapist (reliable, but he did freelance only) and Screen Rant (unreliable). I would, at most, suggest situational for this. IceWelder [✉] 15:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Small side note, but I feel its not great form for WP:VG to state Screen Rant is unreliable given its usage on thousands of articles. In the context of deciding if a source is reliable enough for us, it feels off to say "He worked here, but that's unreliable, despite its widespread use". The project as a whole (outside of VG), doesn't seen to consider Screen Rant unreliable. Perhaps a discussion point for RSN. -- ferret (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Also just saw that TheGamer and Screen Rant (as well as Game Rant, another unreliable source, and CBR.com) are all part of the same network, Valnet. IceWelder [✉] 15:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Windows Central (+ related)

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

These are all sites under Future PLC, they each have an editorial staff (respectively: [7] [8] [9]). Each site is generally more focused on the hardware and general software around that OS, but they do delve into video game related topics at times - eg Windows Central just had a good story on the Xbox Series X. (There are other sites in the same family but they don't seem anywhere close to touching on VG on a regular basis). --Masem (t) 17:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Leaning reliable. Most Future sites have editorial staff that follow similar guidelines, and these are no exception. IceWelder [✉] 17:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• I think they're reliable. They have editors, staff, and an overarching reputable distributor. Mostly their blog formatting and rather hidden staff info is what bothers me with all those umbrella sites. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable per nom. Stefvanschie (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable as per the nominator's assessment. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Japanese Sega Saturn and Dreamcast Magazines

Find video game sources: "Sega Saturn Magazine" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

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

In Japan, Softbank published the Sega Saturn Magazine to discuss their extensive coverage on the Sega Saturn. Eventually, when the Saturn was discontinued, they published the Dreamcast Magazine to chronicle the Dreamcast games. They had extensive interviews with the developers and other people involved. I think they're considered reliable enough to be included in the articles. Any thoughts or objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable. I've used both magazines in various articles and they're very reliable. They have content not seen very often in western Sega-focused publications. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable. Softbank has contributed multiple reliable sources that are used on WP, so I don't see how these would be unreliable. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 02:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

3DJuegos

Find video game sources: "3DJuegos" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo The two previous discussions were from 2009 ([10]) and 2011 ([11]) both of which were inconclusive, it would be great to update it and determine if its reliable, situational or unreliable. It is a Spanish video game website setup in 2005. According to its website it has "A team of journalists and professionals" ([12]). It also appears on Metacritic for critic reviews. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail

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

Metro was discussed here to be unreliable and there are mentions that Daily Mail (Metro's sister site) is also widely considered to be unreliable. But there are no proper discussions regarding Daily Mail and it's not listed at WP:VG/S. While not common in Wikipedia especially for video games, I've seen them being cited before. For example, at Medal of Honor: Warfighter where I've just removed a source of Metro. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail is deprecated project-wide per WP:RSP. I don't think that this needs a separate discussion for our sub-project. IceWelder [✉] 09:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I didn't know that. Thanks for letting me know! LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We The Unicorns

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

Thoughts on We The Unicorns? Like with Dexerto, I've removed it from PewDiePie in the past (again, because I didn't see it listed on WP:VG/RS). But just like with Dexerto, it is present on several other Wiki articles. It is affiliated with PopBuzz. Soulbust (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Garaph

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

Thoughts on Garaph? From what I can see this is a large database of hardware and software sales data for Japan as released by Famitsu+Media Create, that was updated up until around 2013. It has weekly Famitsu and Media Create sales data for almost every single week from around the fifth generation to 2013, as far as I can tell. Compare its data on Mario Kart Wii to our section on sales in Japan for the game, or at least the sentences that source Kotaku. See also Super Mario Galaxy, Golden Sun, and Final Fantasy X; the same Famitsu numbers from current reliable sources that we use on their respective pages. This is to say that, as it lines up so well with other reliable sources on the more reported-on games, I have no reason to believe it wouldn't be reliable as a source for the less reported ones, where sales data sources are hard to come by. L ke (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

All of their info comes directly from Famitsu, and appears to be 100% accurate as far as I'm able to tell, so I'd consider it reliable. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 20:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean, great, but we don’t usually determine reliability by how well they mirror reliable sources... Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, why not? Surely that would determine reliability pretty well. L ke (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If the actual source is Famitsu then source Famitsu. If the group who is reporting Famitsu's scores is independently reliable then I guess WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, but if it is not itself a RS then I would independently verify the claim and just source Famitsu and forget about the re-reporting website. -Thibbs (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Dexerto

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

Thoughts on Dexerto? I've removed it from PewDiePie various times (because I didn't see it listed on WP:VG/RS), but it is present on several other Wiki articles related to gaming bios/topics (see: Ninja (gamer), Call of Duty: Warzone, NRG Esports, Tfue, Sodapoppin, Offline TV, etc.). I would've said it's sketch back in 2018 or so, but I don't know if it would be considered reliable now. There does seem to be a lot of coverage of esports specifically on Dexerto. Soulbust (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Previous discussion. --Izno (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable - per the sentiment at the link above. It shows up on my news app a lot, and it’s generally pretty low-grade, click-bait type stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 00:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - looks very click-baity indeed. Doesn't seem reliable by any means. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 18:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

GamingNexus

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

I know GamingNexus is considered unreliable for a multitude of reasons, but I'd like to get your thoughts on this - whilst researching Uprising: Join or Die, I found this link to an interview by one of the developers. Here's the thing - it dates back to 1997, way before the current incarnation of the site. As I said, I'd like to get some thoughts on this. MiasmaEternal^TALK 12:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Specific Forbes contributors

Find video game sources: "Forbes - Paul Tassi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo (Tassi stuff may also come up under [13] Find video game sources: "Forbes - Erik Kain" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Starting on the basis that Forbes contributors are generally not reliable for fact, I would like to propose two specific contributor individuals who have been as Forbes contributes for years - Paul Tassi and Erik Kain - as situational reliable , allowing their content but where if possible, replacing/augmenting it with normally RS material. Tassi is often noted by Kotaku, IGN, and others (more recently on Destiny coverage), and has also been named in some mainstream coverage a few years back by CNN, Wired, and Washington Post. I note as a broad brush that most these sources attribute his name to his statements, the type of comment that is "take with a grain of salt", so its not that he is unreliable or making stuff up, but to make how the press uses him, to treat him as situational and make sure attribute if its a contestable claim. (Key thing to keep in mind is that Forbes contributors lack the editorial control. I do not believe that Tassi is doing any misreporting, just that the editorial control is not that, hence the need to situationally.)

Erik's got a bit more omph as a commentator rather than newsmaker, with BBC, NYTimes, and Gamasutra noting on his commentaries and reviews, so these are generally fair game as RSOPINION but again keeping in mind attribution for any odd claim, and that controversial claims should be replaced with non-situational sourcing.

This is not to apply to any other Forbes contributor without further discussion - only Tassi and Kain. --Masem (t) 21:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

In general, I'm leaning against this. I think if reliable sources tend to qualify an attribution so it doesn't get mistaken as approval, that's a sign the person lacks "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It's like a journalistic "retweets are not endorsements" warning. And if the only person making a claim is some self-published blogger using the Forbes platform, then it's probably UNDUE anyways.

Beyond that, I'm strongly against using these sources for any claims about living persons. Woodroar (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you consider them acceptable for their opinion statements (like reviews) only under RSOPINION? --Masem (t) 05:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't, no. My issue is that it equates reference for the purposes of criticism with reference for the purposes of endorsement, which misrepresents the context of reliable sources. We'd be saying "Source X says Source Y is bad, but since Source X references Source Y then Source Y must actually be good". Surely that's against NPOV, right? Woodroar (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m not crazy about this either. I feel like their hot takes have caused issues for Wikipedia throughout the years... Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• FWIW I have no problem with this. JOEBRO64 15:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

IND13games

Find video game sources: "IND13games" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Checking the reliability for this website as its used on Islanders (video game) and I find it to be questionable. GamerPro64 18:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Gameplanet

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

I believe this should be moved to situational. While they do have an editorial policy, they do not list their team anywhere, and clicking on authors in individual articles sends you to their "Contact Gameplanet" form. Also, it needs to be moved under "Defunct".Dohvahkiin (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Adventure Classic Gaming

Find video game sources: "...Adventure Classic Gaming..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · http://www.adventureclassicgaming.com/... LinkTo

Site does have an editorial team and lists their team.Dohvahkiin (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable per "All the contents on the site are contributed by gamers just like you" [14] and "Our staff includes new and long-time gamers, both casual and expert" [15] unless I am missing something. The staff list is huge and it seems any article that passes their bar can be accepted, but this doesn't imply an editorial oversight beyond that. It basically seems like a user-submitted site of higher-than-average quality. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable per above. Sergecross73 msg me 00:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable per Hellknowz. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 02:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Discussed previously. --Izno (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable people

I think it may be worthwhile to create a section that covers people considered reliable. In doing so, people would be better able to identify an individual member as a reliable author on a site whose reliability is yet unclear. Not necessarily making the site reliable, but lending credence to it. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd support this, but as I generally use websites whose credibility is never in question (GameSpot, Eurogamer, etc), I personally couldn't contribute to such a list. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Inverse to be given same status as Bustle

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

Hi,

Id like to submit Inverse.com to be discussed for inclusion as a reliable source. It is part of the Bustle Media Group, whose flagship site Bustle is considered reliable for staff writers, and does cover gaming as a core topic. Personally I'd argue it should be given at least equal treatment to Bustle if not treated as fully reliable. Apache287 (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, and came to the same conclusion on its reliability in the past. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• I’ve...got some concerns. They do an awful lot of articles on...nothing...or garbage rumors at at least. Their reporting on Breath of the Wild 2 has been awful. 1, 2, 3. A lot of “here’s a rumor we heard from 4Chan/A Youtuber” type stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, they've definitely declined over the last few years. I considered them a pretty good source last year, but they've begun to become one of those sites that publishes all sorts of unverified leaks/rumors (of course, other sites like IGN do occasionally, but nowhere near as much as Inverse). I wonder if their editorial standards slouched? They used to be a very good source, especially for interviews. JOEBRO64 01:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I think that's just worryingly standard now, the idea of portraying rumours from 4Chan or Reddit as trustworthy news. I think part of the problem is declining ad revenue and the fact it's been a very slow news year. Apache287 (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. As I've thought about it more, I actually don't think it's an issue exclusive to Inverse; it seems to be an industry-wide trend. I've noticed throughout the past year or so that a couple of sources we've long considered reliable (e.g., IGN and GameSpot) began to publish a lot more articles about unverified rumors, fan theories, and the like. For instance, IGN published a few articles about unverified Smash Bros. "leaks", like the one that claimed Steve and Doomguy would be part of the Fighters' Pass and VG247 treated the Sonic movie leak (which, to be fair, ended up being true) legitimately even when it hadn't yet been corroborated. And these weren't in the forums/blogs, these were articles that ran through the main editorial process. Now, does this mean we should demote those sources? No, not necessarily, but it's definitely something we need to be keeping an eye on. JOEBRO64 20:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of websites do it, but it’s the high frequency that concerns me about Bustle. Also, they do a lot of these articles that basically nothing too. Like they write 4 paragraph that are a lot words that basically message-wise boil down to “yeah we dont know when BOTW 2 is coming out either, but it’ll likely be in the next few years on the Switch”. I actually blocked them on my news app because I was tired of reading these “there’s actually no news on it” articles. I’ll try to dig some up. Sergecross73 msg me 21:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ars Technica

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

Was wondering if this is reliable in regards to game reviews and such? I know its been discussed in regards to IT and tech previously.24.47.203.20 (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

1, 2. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 21:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

If anything, Ars has gained a better reputation since these past discussions. It should be considered a reliable source for reviews, most are done by Sam Machkovech who has a good history with the work (as well as his prior freelancing). --Masem (t) 21:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Previous disucssions have determined AT to be reliable, and looking at the site in its current state, I think this should be upheld. IceWelder [✉] 21:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Gaming Age

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

Gaming Age is related to the NeoGAF site and form. The site has been discussed before (1, 2, 3) but never with any proper conclusion. It has since been placed in the "Other situational" section with no particular restrictions named.

Some editors have pointed out in the above discussions that content pre-2002 was done by quality editors who later moved to other reliable outlets. One noted that it was passed through one FAC process (which one is unclear, though). The question remains, is the website reliable? If it is situational, in which situations can it be used? I had been using a review for Serious Sam Double D, but the source was phased out in the GA review, pending the outcome of this discussion. IceWelder [✉] 21:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If my memory is serving me correctly, Gaming Age used to be part of the IGN network, no? If so, I think content from those days should be fine, treat anything after that with caution. JOEBRO64 21:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Requirements for a Reliable Source?

Generally speaking, what does a source/site need to have in order to be considered reliable?Dohvahkiin (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you digested WP:RS yet? --Izno (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but it doesn’t really tell you what to look forDohvahkiin (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I look for: actual author names (not pseudonyms), author bio with credentials (degrees, history of writing at other reliable sources), publisher masthead with staff and roles, editor names (also with degrees and history), editorial guidelines, part of a publishing network, journalism awards they've won, if and how other reliable sources share their content, are they known as untrustworthy (due to editorial lapses, plagiarism, etc.), if and how they run sponsored content (clear disclosure or hidden), how often they run filler articles (press releases, interviews, top 10 roundups), how often they source their own articles to filler articles, do they run blatant SEO/clickbait content, do they run sketchy content (adult, casinos, CBD, etc.) or add hidden links to those sites in their other articles. There's probably plenty of other reasons but I think those are the big considerations for me. Woodroar (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, these are some of the major ones. WP:USERG is a good one to keep in mind too - anything written by a website that allows anyone to sign up and start submitting content is a no-no. (Unless it’s a place like IGN, where they allow both staff and user submitted content. Then just stick with the staff written stuff.) A website being powered by Wordpress is also another telltale sign of being unreliable - 99% of the time, it means it’s running without any sort of editorial team or policy. Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with those 100%. And what's funny about these qualities is that sites tend to fall completely on one side or the other. Either they have well-known staff and write quality content and are respected among other sites, or they're pseudonyms churning out sponsored affiliate articles with hidden casino links all over the places. Rarely do I find sites in between. Woodroar (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

VideoGamer.com

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

The staff page only lists two people: https://www.videogamer.com/staff. Neither of which is described as Editor-in-chief or anything of that sort. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources Both links here which state that “Full-time staff includes industry veterans”, are dead links. Is this site still reliable?Dohvahkiin (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The site has been effectively dead for some time now (years really since it was bought from the previous owners) and its staff seems to have been reduced to a one or two person operation. Therefore it should probably be regarded as unreliable since the purchase. Apache287 (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Blue’s News

Find video game sources: "...Blue’s News..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · https://www.bluesnews.com/... LinkTo

This has been discussed in the past, but I believe this is questionable at best. They list the staff in the Site Credits page. Most have the emeritus title included, which upon research means that they’ve retired from the position, but are still holding the title honorarily. Based on that, theres only 1 editor. Also, they allow news tips to be submitted.Dohvahkiin (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Gamepedia

A wiki site open to be edited by anyone. I'd assume it's unreliable because of that, however, I noticed it was sourced on League of Legends in esports, so I thought I'd double check. IanTEB (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is not a reliable source. It may be an appropriate external link in some circumstances. --Izno (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)