Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 7

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games‎ | Sources
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:VG/S/A7)
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Thibbs in topic Starmen.net
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Gematsu

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

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

Used to be called Scrawl. Although the writers are volunteers, they seem to do good journalism, like translating announcements from foreign RSs (example: Yoshida cannot yet confirm region-free PS4: Famitsu interview Sony Worldwide Studios boss.) getting good interviews (example: Interview: Tales producer Hideo Baba on Tales of Xillia, more) and detailed critical reviews (http://gematsu.com/c/reviews). While the "Rumors" section would obviously not be reliable, I think the staff reviews and articles certainly are. They're also used as a source by other news outlets:

--Atlantima (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: Gematsu was recently discussed a bit in talk here. See this thread. -Thibbs (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I feel like it should be used situationally, much like Siliconera, on Japanese games that don't have much coverage anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 14:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Any particular reason? What about using their staff reviews as sources for critical reception of games? How about the interviews? For example, could their interview with Martin Defries be used in the Rising Star Games article? Or this interview for Sorcery (video game)?--Atlantima (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Interviews are sort of their own case. Interviews from any legitimate site are reliable for their interview content, but the site might not be reliable itself. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

So, in summary, their reviews and interviews can be cited, as well as their news pieces on Japan-exclusive titles, but otherwise it's not reliable? Okay. (By the way, I found the LinkedIn profiles for two of their staff: Sal Romano and Olivia Slayton. Neither seems to have experience writing for an RS, besides Sal's three months interning at GameZone.) --Atlantima (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are you excluding if you're including news, interviews, and reviews? I don't even see a problem with using their "rumors" section as long as its used in a manner where it's clearly being presented as a rumor. When I say situational like Siliconera, I just mean use it for more obscure titles when there's nothing else to be used. For example, it's not necessary to use Siliconera as a source for a Super Mario or Halo game because there's a virtually infinite supply of coverage in reliable sources, but, let's say you're dealing with a Japan-only Tales (series) or Dragon Quest] game. That's when you'd use Siliconera - because they may be one of the few sites that cover it in detail or actually review it. I feel we should use Gematsu like that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
What exactly are you excluding if you're including news, interviews, and reviews? I'm excluding any news on games that aren't Japan-exclusive, which is pretty much what you just said. I've been told that the interviews are fine to cite, so I just wanted to clarify whether the reviews are good too (when used to indicate critical reception of a game).--Atlantima (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

VideoGameGeek

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

This site has an awesome categorization scheme. Just take a look at their advanced search page. I was wondering if we could use it to verify a game's genre. Regardless, I would recommend it to anyone as a starting point for their research. SharkD  Talk  01:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  • From this it looks like the material is all user submitted... Not a bad starting point for research, but I'd hesitate to call it a full-on RS. -Thibbs (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Additions to VGReviews

Latest comment: 11 years ago28 comments7 people in discussion

I propose officially adding both Giant Bomb and Polygon (website) to Template:Video game reviews. They are both established websites with a large amount of credibility to back themselves up. Also, they're not afraid to give low scores which is something extremely lacking among some of the larger corporate-run review sites (the IGNs and GameSpots of the world). Axem Titanium (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

  • For reference, here are the links to previous discussions of the question for Giant Bomb: 1 and 2. Looks like there's fair support for it. -Thibbs (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Giant Bomb is fine - again, as it started from Jeff Gerstmann (and we make aware there are user-edited parts of the site, we're only talking about staff reviews). Polygon is perfectly fine as a source (at least 4 on staff with past industry chops) -- but do they give graded reviews? If they don't, we shouldn't slot them into the table. --MASEM (t) 04:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Polygon = established, what? Didn't it just open? I am neutral on adding them. If you think they should be added, I have no reason to object. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
    Polygon has at least four big name editors on the site, such as Brian Crecente. I would also request Joystiq be added. After all, two of the major Polygon players came from there, and I've never seen anything to merit they aren't wholly reliable. I know they're listed as situational now, but I would easily promote them as reliable Side note: Any time I've mentioned the promotion of Joystiq I've had 1-2 naysayers that point to their "past" (what?) but can never give me any solid evidence. It's time to promote them, if in no other way than we did with Kotaku. --Teancum (talk)
    I like Polygon, I just wouldn't call it established. I agree, Joystiq should be promoted from situational. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Polygon might have a good pedigree, but that doesn't automatically convey a good reputation; I'd expect to wait a bit longer than three months to make that estimation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree about promoting Joystiq per Teancum. And as long as we're discussing changes to the template, there are a few that I think really should be made to the Template:Vg reviews#Guidelines.
  1. First of all, can we please change the line that includes the phrase "...but I have found that between these, you usually will have a good picture..." to something less chatty and first-person. I'd suggest replacing that exact phrase with the following: "...but it will usually give the reader a good picture..."
  2. Secondly, per WP:VG/RS's guideline to promote broad coverage, I'd suggest that below "For games that are first released in Japan, a Famitsu score is usually helpful." we should add the following: "The same is true for all games that depict or are first released in any country. Scores from reliable sources from that country are usually helpful." This should be indented following the pattern of the line above it.
These suggestions aren't really limited to the WP:VG/RS scope, so should I throw a note up at WT:VG? -Thibbs (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It certainly might help if you want to bring in a wider WP:VG discussion, but I think those two suggestions you've made are uncontroversial and can simply be boldly added. The documentation page for VG Reviews is not protected, after all. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
OK I made these edits. If anyone objects, please revert. -Thibbs (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
As a note, Polygon is basically the video game coverage that was once part of The Verve, and the people involved have been there for ~6 months, though their initial stories were on the Verve's website. --MASEM (t) 06:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • For the record, I also support promoting Joystiq to reliable sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I support Joystiq as well. The only complaint I've seen given is that it's a blog, but that can be said about so many websites these days. Much like IGN or GameSpot, as long as we're using content from the Staff, and not the random user-blogs that anyone could sign up and write under, I feel its reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So, I feel like there is consensus, at the very least, to promote Polygon and Joystiq to reliable, correct? Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That's what I see too. -Thibbs (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that assessment. Giant Bomb is already listed as situational (site staff content only, no user-generated stuff) so that's fine. Is this also consensus to add Giant Bomb and Polygon to VGReviews (i.e. the original topic, lol)? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Looking it over I see fair support for adding Giant Bomb to the VGReviews, and perhaps some support for adding Joystiq as well (this wasn't really discussed much in this thread), but I see resistance to adding Polygon to VGReviews at present. -Thibbs (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I would petition Joystiq's inclusion to the template as well since consensus seems to be that it's reliable. Seems like a no-brainer in that sense. --Teancum (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Where is the resistance to Polygon? The only thing I see is Odie wondering how "established" they are, but they've been around for quite a while actually, under their parent website's name, The Verge. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs also expressed reservations about Polygon. I don't think anyone's really put their foot down on the issue, but it seems like the consensus is mixed at this point. I'm not sure there's really been much engagement with the issue to be honest. For what it's worth, I'd have no problems with adding it as an RS. -Thibbs (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
David's objection was based on the belief that it has only been around for three months, when in fact, it has been around for over a year now, launching under the name "Vox Games" at The Verge. It's the same people under the same parent company but their section of the website wasn't spun out until three months ago. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
In the above discussion, I wouldn't call the support for adding Polygon to VGReviews strong. Some people have expressed reservations, some have been favorable to the idea, and most have been noncommittal. But there's not been any strong objections either. I think there's some consensus that they have good pedigree at least. -Thibbs (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I was asked to clarify my stance, and to be clear I strongly support adding Polygon to the reviews. The site/name may be new but it is coming from The Verge, which was long established, and the majority of the staff are established journalists from other video game sites. I knew they did reviews but didn't realize they numerically scored them , thus making the addition a no-nonsense bit. --MASEM (t) 06:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Templates are tools. If someone thinks many articles could use the Polygon.com entry in the template, and we do consider Polygon.com an RS, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be added. I just use the optional scores in the template to add sites that aren't added, so I have no particular need for the entry, but I would not object to it being added. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Everything I would have said was pretty much summed up by Masem and Odie already. Polygon's credentials, and my experience reading it, makes me think they should be a reliable source, and as such, I have no logical reason why it shouldn't be added to the template. Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • And just an additional comment, considering the future, since we're losing 1UP and Gamespy (two normal go-to reviews for games in the past), it does make sense to add in Polygon in that form as a replace go-to for reviews for future games. I'd say the same with Giant Bomb, particularly as while GB is a reliable site (from content generated by its editors) they also tend to be less.. hauty? with their approach and thus their reviews tend to be a bit more direct and open if a title has flaws. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Well I wanted to leave some time for Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs to weigh in again, but he may be busy. Anyway I think consensus is now pretty clear in favor of adding Polygon to VGReviews too. -Thibbs (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Statistic Brain

Latest comment: 11 years ago27 comments8 people in discussion

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

This site is used heavily as a source on List of best-selling video games and List of best-selling Xbox 360 video games, mainly added by KahnJohn27, presumably as a result of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 142#List of best-selling video games.

Personally, I'm not convinced that they can be considered reliable. For one, their use of Wikipedia/Wikimedia as a source (e.g. here and here, sourced to Wikimedia and Wikipedia respectively), would seem to violate WP:CIRCULAR, so at best they should be considered situational. That of course doesn't disqualify their use on these articles but may be indicative of their reliability (I'm not sure). The main pages used as citations in question are [1] and [2] (although [3] as a citation for Skyrim numbers keeps popping up as well), which both cite "Publisher Release" (and both of which were apparently verified on "7.11.2012"; this presumably means 11 August 2012, since the Skyrim page's date is 7.31.2012) as their source. My main problem with these pages in particular is the vagueness of the sources and how much information it apparently draws from them. Does the 7.11.2012 publisher release refer to a single game or multiple or all of them (unlikely)? If either of the former, whence have they sourced their other figures, and to which figure(s) does/do the "publisher release" refer?

Also a little worryingly, I checked up the data behind their CoD:MW3 day 1 sales, and couldn't find anything which verified their 9.3 million figure that didn't either originate at VG Chartz or had no source stated, and couldn't find a single source which agreed with their $629,240,000 figure, despite them stating that their source for the page (and thus presumably both figures) is Best Buy, a source that would presumably be fairly readily available.

The figures listed on the aforementioned Skyrim page are sourced to Bethesda Game Studios, Steam and Zenimax, which is interesting. For one thing, it reveals that if a page uses multiple sources, Statistic Brain may at least sometimes list them alongside each other. For another, one of their sources is listed as Steam, which is interesting for two reasons:

  1. Steam is a store and/or client, not an organisation or company - that would be Valve
  2. Valve do not release Steam sales figures, so what exactly is sourced to Steam?

Also, what is the "average user review rating" based on? It isn't a Metacritic user score, since those are measured as a single decimal figure, and that figure is lower on all three platforms than the claimed 92/100 (i.e. 9.2) - Xbox 360: 8.3[4], Windows: 8.2[5] PS3: 5.8[6]. That figure was apparently verified on 7.31.2012, so is unlikely to be particularly out of date.

I should probably also point out that I have previously posted about this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Statistic Brain, where X201 suggested I ask here.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I also see no consensus that this is an RS. A single RS/N post where a single editor expressed some support but whose further suggestions were not followed up does not an RS make. Importantly, the follow-up (to "email them and ask them the sources for their information and how they assess its accuracy") would have directly addressed your concerns above. Since it was suggested by RS/N but there is no evidence that it was acted upon, it would seem to go to the heart of the alleged consensus for the source.
Anyway, with that aside there are also some confusions I see concerning what makes an RS. First of all, an RS is allowed to conduct Original Research. It's only we editors at Wikipedia who are forbidden to do so. So there is no requirement that they even have any sources apart from themselves. But since these guys do use sources sometimes, we can often judge the strength of the source based on them. To your point about WP:CIRCULAR, I completely agree. Sources that cite Wikipedia as the basis for their facts cannot then be cited by Wikipedia as support for these facts. The proper thing to do would be to track down the original Wikipedia page that the source used for reference, and use that as the starting point for your own research. See how that page cites its figures.
Secondly (and this is quibbling), I don't think it's fair to characterize the source as NNPOV. Their FAQ clearly states that "[a]ll statistics are U.S. based unless otherwise noted." So they are limited in scope, but not necessarily non-neutral or biased. It's true, though, that using the source on Wikipedia might implicate NPOV.
But the existence of a strong editorial policy doesn't alone make an RS either. There are several factors at play here. Important to consider is whether the organization has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I see no evidence, for example, that our other RSes cite statisticbrain. I also see no information on the background expertise of the staff (is there any staff apart from CEO Seth Harden?).
I see nothing wrong with KahnJohn27's use of the course up to this point as consensus was tilted toward it, but now you are raising questions that go to the accuracy of the source's facts. The questions you've posed above (what is the "average user review rating" based on?, what exactly is sourced to Steam?, etc.) are good ones, but I don't think they're ones that we can answer here. Someone will have to do as RS/N's TimidGuy suggested and write to the company to find out these answers. Until then I recognize your post as a challenge to the RS categorization of this source and from the limited facts I have to agree with you. I'm not convinced that it's an RS. -Thibbs (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Re: "I don't think it's fair to characterize the source as NNPOV." I don't think I did. :/ I agree, being US-centric, while not ideal, isn't a problem for using them as a source. Were you referring to X201's post on the WP:VG talk page? Also, I am aware that sources are allowed to do OR, but given the way they present their pages, I do not believe that they have, at least in this case. (If the data is based on their own research, why give a source?) Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to believe they are a reliable source because I see no reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Regarding MW3, StatisticBrain says it sold 9.3m units the first day, but MCVUK, USA Today, LA Times, and The Daily Mail report ~6.5m/$400m in sales. The Daily Mail cites that the number comes right from Activision. VentureBeat also says the number is from Activision, but only includes US/UK sales. Kotaku cites the press release, which says the number is 6.5m. Maybe StatisticBrain got a hold of worldwide sales. Did Black Ops II outperform MW3 for day one sales? MCVUK said so, but GameRevolution using the 9.3m statistic came to the opposite conclusion. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Have to agree with above assessments that this is far from a reliable source. Any source that claims to have data for US Sales, after NPD Group basically stopped publishing exact sales figures for public consumption, is likely questionable. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with everyone as well. I can see how someone, upon a quick glance, could think it's reliable, the website looks professional and all, and it talks about other websites/places that have used them as a source, but upon doing some digging, as shown above, it doesn't appear to be that reliable. Now that the NPD is so secretive about their figures, I find myself less likely to go for websites like this too; without NPD, it seems sources are too ready to report on figures from VGChartz or Neogaf... Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I thought Neogaf was just a web forum. You can't use that as a source! --Odie5533 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I think the implication was that media outlets are too willing to use NeoGaf as a source, not that we should. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, VGChartz and Neogaf were meant to be examples of places where unreliable/unconfirmed/unusable sales figures are given. I'm saying without NPD giving out many figures, this Statistics Brain, and other questionable websites, tend to use their unreliable sales figures instead. Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I think what they meant by the date was that their sales report(list of best selling xbox360 video games) was published on 7.11.2012. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Also I was advised to try emailing them and ask about their sources? How am I supposed to do that when the website does not list an email ID? KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Good question, but of course emailing them was suggested as a way to verify that they use good sources, that they assess source accuracy well, and that they are thus reliable for our purposes. If we can't verify this by email then we can't really assume it either. Alphathon has brought up some important concerns about these very issues. If these concerns can't be assuaged by information published on the website or via email then they undermine the source and there's already not much going for it as far as I can see. -Thibbs (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
They have a contact page which allows you to send messages to them directly. http://www.statisticbrain.com/contact/ Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think contacting them is necessary; they have no reputation for fact checking and accuracy. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Well then I dont know myself if theyre accurate or not I guess we still have to use the old sales list. But still give me some time 2 or 3 days. Ill try and contact them and try check their sources although I dont think that will bear any fruit. Ill think it over clearly and just so you know I hink Ive started agreeing with what youre all saying. Still I'll give up after a few days. Also I reverted because his sales are 3 years old and the one on statisticsbrsin is half year old. Also no hard feelings alphathon but I was just trying to update the lust. It was a total mess earlier. A notice on the article of the list of all platforms mention that the list contradicts itselfs and is incomplete which proves my point that its completely out of date. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I was going to leave it for at least a week anyway so that as many people as possible had a chance to pitch in. And really, don't worry about it. It seems pretty clear that you're acting in good faith, so I for one won't hold it against you (as long as your motives are sound and you try to follow the rules there's not really much anyone can ask of you). As a side note, the contradictory tag is there because some of the figures refer to units sold while others are for units shipped, yet the title is still "best-selling" ([7]). Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I've contacted statisticsbrain and they'll probably send a reply very soon. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Also one more thing if they're sources turn out to be reliable I think credit sould be given to them on the article like "This is the list of best selling Xbox360 video games as of 7.11.2013 according to Statisticsbrain.com". KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
"Credit" on Wikipedia is generally given through citation, not the article itself. Also, doing so would preclude the possibility of both adding new games when data for them comes along (good examples of this would be Kinect Sports and Minecraft; the former we know has sold many more copies than Statistic Brain state, largely because their figure is as of August 2012, while the latter isn't included at all, presumably because it's an XBLA game). Second, that would seem to violate WP:NOTMIRROR (as would only including numbers from Statistic Brain, or any other single source to the exclusion of those from other sources). Wikipedia doesn't merely re-publish other people's work, and we have the {{single source}} template for a reason. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • What could they reply that would confer reliability upon them? --Odie5533 (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah I don't want to pre-judge the situation before we hear their response, but please be aware that examining RSes at WP:VG/RS requires the weighing of multiple factors. Even if they are able to answer all of Alphathon's concerns that just leaves them at ground zero. A lack of negative marks against it helps, but we need some actual positives to be convinced that it's an RS. Staff expertise and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy are probably the most important factors. -Thibbs (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
      • They could reply with an honest and extensive explanation of their methods and sources. If that method turns out to be robust, then they would be considered reliable. VGChartz's explanation of their methods exposed the fact that they do a lot of guesstimating and extrapolations from known data, which is not an indicator of reliability. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
        • That's still not enough. Current sales sources are also cited by other reliable sources. I hadn't even heard of this website until this discussion came up. --Teancum (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Even I hadn't heard of boxoffice.com until I came upon Dredd and wasn't ready to believe it's box office figures were correct. However contrary to my expectations it actually turned out to be more correct and accurate than Box office mojo although the budget figures were severly inflated and inaccurate. But excluding that budget problem it was proved that boxoffice.com had much more accurate box office gross records than BOM and its figures were backed up by thenumbers.com. And now many users are using it as a source for box office gross instead of BOM which sometimes contradicts it's own figures while boxoffice.com updates it's foreign gross for movies more regularly. That goes to show that new sources with no reputation can be better than old ones. However I am not saying that statisticsbrain.com is reliable but that just because they have very little reputation doesn't mean they can't be reliable. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I sympathize. It's frustrating when there are few or no reliable sources for some important aspect and I think this fact often tempts us to try to give more credence to sources that do cover these things than we should. It comes up a lot for niche gaming genres where there are literally no reliable sources covering the area, but where there are one or two well-written and tastefully presented non-RSes that do cover the topic in depth. When considering whether sources are RSes or not, we shouldn't let our need for them within Wikipedia articles guide our decision at all. It definitely makes determinations like this more difficult, though. -Thibbs (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I give up. They haven't sent a reply till yet and I remember every detail that I wrote in the message was correct. I'm tired of waiting for their reply and proving their reliability. Sorry for any inconvenience. However if they reply in future I will inform all of you. Still thanks for your cooperation. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's no inconvenience at all. And yes, please do update this if they respond. It would be helpful for the record in case this comes up in the future. -Thibbs (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

GameAxis United

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I someone help verify is this magazine is a reliable source? It got suggested on Wario's FAC and it could help broadening the article. Links are found here and here. Thanks. GamerPro64 21:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the magazine is actually called GameAxis Unwired, but anyway they have a website for their online content as well.
  • Their about page can be seen here
  • Magazine credentials are blurry from the scan, but it looks like the critical staff info is as follows:
The magazine belongs to SPH Magazines with the following staff:
  • Chief Executive Officer - Loh Yew Seng
  • Publishing Services Director - Leong Tscheng Yee
  • Printed by Times Printers Plc. Ltd.
  • ISSN - 0219-872X
Not sure what to think yet, but I'll keep looking. -Thibbs (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a good deal of citation to it in RSes like IGN. Kotaku and Games Radar both seem to use it as their go to source for Singaporean gaming news. They seem to have a full editorial staff and although I don't see any explicit editorial policy, I'm more inclined to assume such a policy exists for print magazines than websites. I think they look OK. -Thibbs (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh wow. I did not notice that I gave the wrong title in the thread. Anyway, thanks Thibbs. GamerPro64 22:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
GameAxis Unwired is now defunct, at least as a print publication, but from 2003-2010 it was pretty much the dominant gaming magazine in the Singapore market. It was a spinoff of HardwareMAG, the main print publication associated with the internet portal HardwareZone, and, like all their print publications, was owned and produced from 2006 on by the top-end publication conglomerate Singapore Press Holdings. It never got much visibility in the US or UK, but that shouldn't be a barrier to reliability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Gamepressure.com

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, a FAC I'm reviewing uses one of the guides from this website http://www.gamepressure.com/ as a source. However, this site is not listed at WP:VG/RS and I'm not sure if it is a reliable source or not. Can someone help out? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

According to their info page, they are an English-language division of the Polish GRY-online which is a listed RS here. There seems to be limited citation to them, although IGN has used them before: [8]. -Thibbs (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Jill Valentine

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

I was thinking about reviewing the GAN Jill Valentine before I noticed that some of the article's sources have uncertain reliability. Are any of these reliable? [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I disagree. We've had consensus before that if it's a YouTube interview and the interviewee can be verified that the information can thus be verified. The Facebook comes from the official page, so it's verifiable but also self-published. It could be replaced by this EGM reference and make everyone happy as it covers the whole quote. It's always better to have third party sources that have been defined as reliable. Facebook and YouTube will always throw up a question mark, even if they can be verified later on. --Teancum (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sergecross73:

Contratry to your misguided belief, this is what Wikipedia:External links (your "WP:YOUTUBE") actually says: "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright. [...] There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content."

There's nothing in Wikipedia:Copyrights ("WP:LINKVIO") about either Facebook nor YouTube, and in Wikipedia:Verifiability ("WP:SPS") it's only "This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright" and "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as [5 points] This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." --Niemti (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well there's been some discussion of some of these in the past. For reference:
  • MMGN was discussed here, where it was not well regarded.
  • Screenrant was discussed here, where there was mixed reception.
  • Complex.com was discussed here, where it seems to have been considered reliable but not necessarily capable of providing significant coverage required to meet the GNG.
Regarding the youtube and facebook sources, it's true that they can be used in some cases under SPS as sources on themselves, but SPSes are supposed to be used pretty sparingly. If these are Capcom-related SPSes or some other source intimately connected to the topic then they're fine, but if they are SPSes related to random reviewer groups, etc. then I think it's probably a good idea to make sure the sources are notable. It's not an RS issue at that point, but it's definitely an issue for a GAN. -Thibbs (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's Capcom's FB indeed (with a message from RE6 producer) and a video interview. MMGN: this discussion was 3 years ago, just after it was launched, and actually involved just 1 opinion, apparently (according to its article) it's a professional company with an office and what not. --Niemti (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at the other sites I hadn't looked at yet. Here's what I see:

  • Comicvine.com - Seems from the Terms of Service page to be all user-generated content as DreamFocus suggested. Very little citation to it by other RSes (this was the best I could find). I can't find any info on editorial policy. I'd say it's probably not an RS.
  • Figurerealm.com - Also looks to be a user-generated review site. From their Review Guidelines it looks like their editorial policies don't include much in the way of quality control. The main rules seem to be to be nice to your fellow reviewers and to express your opinion without the use of profanity, or unclear language like all-caps or leet. Again scarcely any citation from the RSes (this was the only RS citation I could find). I'd say it's probably not an RS.
  • Nerdappropriate.com - Their "About" page lists the staff which is nice, but it presents the authors as little more than big video game fans. One of them is apparently pursuing a PhD (no idea what field, though), and another of them claims some inside-industry work with BioWare and Crabcat Industries. Again only a single RS citation to them. No explanation of editorial policies. Not looking like a particularly strong candidate for RS to me.
  • Relyonhorror.com - They have both an "About" page and a "Staff" page. Not much regarding editorial process and policies, but they do seem to be better regarded in the RSes than any of the previous sources. I see citations by GamesRadar, a few from NintendoWorldReport (e.g. [19] and [20]), and several at GameZone.de (e.g. [21], [22], and [23]). I could potentially see this as an RS. I guess further examination of this source would involve tracking down the staff members and seeing what kind of credentials they have.
  • MyFigureCollection.net - The "FAQ" section of their "About" page suggests that is is another community/user-generated content website. The policy guidelines [24] and [25] suggest the same, as do the instructions on how to add to the databases. I didn't find any citations to them by RSes. I would say this is not an RS.

Hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: I just noticed that there is an identical question posted here (at WP:RS/N). We should try to centralize these discussions to achieve a single coherent consensus. -Thibbs (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Comic Vine is a sister site of Giant Bomb, and it has a user-contributed wiki just like Giant Bomb. As the note for Giant Bomb says, "Do not use the user contributed content from the site's article/database section for citations." I'm not sure whether the site's editorial content can be considered reliable, but the wiki content being used as a source here is definitely unreliable. Reach Out to the Truth 18:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Is rponcho, now called Anorak Ai, a reliable source?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would this count as a reliable source? [26]? Dream Focus 03:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no indication they have editing controls in place, and I'm not finding any mention of the site (either version) as a notable source on its own. So unlikely to be considered reliable. I realize using an interview is probably less an issue than if they were reporting on news, but that would put it as a SPS. --MASEM (t) 03:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

GameCritics.com

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What do you think? Seems a pretty decent website (external link). --Niwi3 (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  • The only real prior discussion of the reliability of this source can be found here (David Fuchs emailed the site owners and got a favorable impression of their editorial policies). Their "about" page lists staff, but suggests that they come from a variety of backgrounds so there may be the need for a case by case determination of reliable authors. The other RSes (including IGN articles, kotaku articles, and 1up articles among others) seem to use them as refs sporadically. It looks potentially OK as an RS to me. -Thibbs (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Need help clarifying situationality

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Hey I was just reviewing our situational sources in order to help a new editor use WP:VG/RS and I realized that there are several sources listed in the checklist as situational but whose situational usage is not explained in the "Situational sources" subsection. I think we need to remedy this because unlike a straight RS or non-RS determination, usage of situational sources need to be clearly spelled out for editors (especially new editors). So I don't want to start a new discussion about the usability of these sources, but rather I am interested in determining the prior consensus. Below I've listed the unexplained situational sources and I've provided my understanding of the prior consensus. If there are no objections to my interpretations then I'll add them to the proper subsection.

  • About.com - Basically this source can be used but the article author should be an established expert and there are restrictions against its use for sensitive areas like WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP topics. Further concern arises for unsigned, pre-2005 articles and those that link to Wikipedia.
    • Proposed siuationality text: "This site should generally be used for its sources rather than for its content. Use of this site's content is restricted to signed post-2005 content depending on the reliability of the individual author, and specifically barring its use for fringe theories and BLPs. Articles sourced to Wikipedia are also to be excluded."
  • JayIsGames - Basically this source can't be used to demonstrate notability and should only be used for casual games and if authored by the owner, Jay Bibby
    • Proposed situationality text: "Use of this site should be restricted to casual games and only if the review is written by Jay Bibby. This site cannot be used to demonstrate notability."
  • Screwattack - Basically this source is ok if its content appears on GameTrailers.com and it can be used for interviews and for opinion only, but not for facts.
    • Proposed siuationality text: "Use of this source should be restricted to opinion, interviews, and material that also appears on GameTrailers.com. Factual claims should not be cited to this source. The user blog portion of this source should not be cited."
      • I removed "generally" from the user blog portion because it should never be cited. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Makes sense. I'd included it on the idea that if the author's expertise could be established then the blog possibly could be ok, but that's always true and it's probably less confusing for newcomers if we just make a blanket statement. -Thibbs (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • WomenGamers.com - Basically this source is a blog that has some RS writers, but should be treated the same as Joystiq.
    • Proposed situationality text: "A blog; use of this site should be carefully considered. Often, it is best to demonstrate the reliability of the individual authors sourced."

The last two are a little more complicated and I'd like to get an input on which option seems best to people.

  • GameFan/Die Hard GameFAN - This is a particularly confusing one as it is listed in the Checklist as situational but in the List as a defunct RS. This definitely needs to be cleared up. It seems that the conflict comes from the fact that although the hard-copy magazine is reliable, a newer loosely affiliated non-RS fan group using the same name as the magazine has sprung up. The magazine was originally called "Diehard GameFan" and then later changed its name to "GameFan" and then went defunct. The modern fan website is called "Diehard GameFAN" and seems to be non-RS. I see two options for how to proceed here:
    • Proposed situationality text - "Note, although the magazine is reliable, the loosely affiliated fan website (Diehard GameFAN) should not be used as a source."
    • Alternate proposal - Bump it up to an RS and forget about the fan website since it's really not the same source at all. It shouldn't drag down the reputation of the original print RS.
      • Support alternate. Ignore the fansite. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Reliable - I support it being labeled "Reliable", but I think maybe there should be a comment saying "excluding the unofficial fan-supported continuation" or something in the "Notes and limitations" section. Sergecross73 msg me 18:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Massively - This is also a little confusing one since of the two discussions covering it, the most recent one seems to have dispelled the situationality rationale from the first discussion as the site is not actually under Joystiq. The most recent discussion seems to demonstrate consensus for RS status.
    • Proposed situationality text - "A blog network; use of this site and its affiliates should be carefully considered. Often, it is best to demonstrate the reliability of the individual authors sourced."
    • Alternate proposal - Bump it up to RS per the most recent discussion.
      • Support alternate. We just bumped Joystiq up to reliable so Massively, as a subsidiary, should be reliable too. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

For the last two, in my view, I think (1) GameFan should just be bumped up to reliable and then this determination wouldn't attach to the unrelated fan website; and (2) Massively should maybe be bumped up to RS. Please share comments on all of the above. -Thibbs (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I think the Checklist was originally intended to be a holding pen for sources that haven't been integrated into the table above it, pending discussions. I think it would be good to integrate all the currently discussed sources into table, clean them up (with requisite usage notes), and also add a column to the tables which links to the discussions for each. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Odie5533 had proposed doing exactly that back last December. There seems to be some moderate support for the idea, although I think the current setup does have its benefits as well. I view the Checklist as a place for editors to go to verify that a source they wish to use is reliable whereas I see the List as a place for editors to go who are interested in finding out about new RSes that are relevant to their topic. As I said earlier, if they can be merged without disrupting current usage of this page then I'm in favor of it. -Thibbs (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

OK I just updated the Situational explanations for the first 4, and bumped up the determination from Situational to Reliable for the other 2 per the discussions above. I realize this hasn't left huge amounts of time for discussion (I only proposed this change 3 days ago), but we can always tweak it as needed. I think it's better to have some sort of an explanation rather than nothing which can lead to confusion. -Thibbs (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Three sources

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

All right. I am bringing up three sources to see if we can mention them as reliable, unreliable or situational by Wikipedia standards:

Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Two of these have been already discussed in the past.
  • The Cheat Code Central discussion was back in 2009, but there were signs that a consensus was forming that it was non-RS.
  • ScrewAttack has been discussed at least 5 time according to the checklist, and the current consensus is that it is a Situational Source. This is spelled out in the thread directly above this one actually.
I'll see what I can find out about GameDynamo, though. -Thibbs (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • For what its worth, in the discussions that brought these sources up, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Akuma_(Street_Fighter)#Reliability_of_sources there seemed to be consensus forming there as well that CCC was unreliable anyways. (I was going to come here asking for help about it, but in the end, we could almost use the disussion at Akuma's talk page to help warrant updating its status as "unreliable" here instead.)
  • I looked through GameDynamo, and it struck me as similar to Screw Attack, where there is a lot of unuseable random user content. Couldn't really determine whether the staff stuff was reliable though, but in the end it was chosen not to be used because the article in question offered so little real useable content. They seem to do a lot of "Top X Lists" that consist of a 5 sentences on a given topic, where 4 sentences are off-topic ramblings or bad jokes. I'm leaning unreliable. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If GameDynamo, Screw Attack and Cheat Code Central are considered unreliable, I think it might be best to probably remove the sources altogether. Thoughts or ideas about this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think I already did, since no one supported them, not even the guy who originally kept re-adding them, who stopped on e he heard my explanationskn them. Or maybe I didn't remove all the instances of them? Sergecross73 msg me 01:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see. I was wondering about it, since some other video game-related articles include the CCC, GameDynamo and Screw Attack as sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I looked briefly into GameDynamo. Their "about" page is here. I'm not seeing much in the way of editorial policy. Maybe borderline reliability depending on the author. Some writers appear more reliable than others, especially if they have a past history of writing for RS journalism sources or working within the industry. -Thibbs (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Video Games Blogger

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Find video game sources: "Video Games Blogger" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo

This link was just used in the Halo: Anniversary article, but it ends with "Information via Wikia." Only previous discussion I've found was this lukewarm one. I'm assuming they aren't providing editorial oversight over these lifts from Wikia, but I wanted to run it past y'all, see if it's worth being blacklisted. czar · · 01:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisting is kind of a last resort sort of thing for serious spam problems. Is someone spamming this site? And would a simple block solve the problem? -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
He might just mean condemning it to the unreliable source section, something I myself would support. Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is what I meant. czar · · 15:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to unreliable per Sergecross73. Any news site that gets information "via Wikia" is unreliable, high traffic or not. --Teancum (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to unreliable and since Wikia cannot be used as a reliable source, this source is considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As an aside, VGB is used in about 75 articles. I'll definitely say that their about page is not inspiring. I can't find any information on the staff that lends towards credibility, either. --Teancum (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above. Looks quite non-RS to me. -Thibbs (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Blistered Thumbs

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm bringing this site up because it's already being used in several articles, often in the reception section of fictional characters, such as here (see Ref #2) and here (see Ref #68). Should it be considered reliable or unreliable? Satellizer el Bridget ツ 02:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The about page (here) gives some basic editorial policies. The staff page (here) covers writers with some college education and the like, but not much details on past journalistic background or involvement with the industry. Some of the staff show up in other RSes (e.g. Stephen Broida has been cited by Gamasutra here and here) The website has also been cited, referenced, or linked at placed like Kotaku (here), PC Mag (here), and Indiegames (here). So it's not really an open and shut case either way, but at this point I'm a bit skeptical mainly due to the lack of credentials of the staff. Their biogs on the staff page mainly make them seem like a bunch of random guys that just love video games. I'd certainly be open to considering additional evidence, though. Do you know if the site has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? -Thibbs (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Blistered Thumbs is a subdivision to ThatGuyWithTheGlasses which is deemed unreliable. Just wanted to put that out there. GamerPro64 14:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree, I also believe it to be unreliable. Just wanted to ask as the site is already being used. Satellizer el Bridget ツ 21:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Foreign language sources for consideration

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

For sources like this, input from native speakers is usually extremely helpful. There aren't too many of us that hang out in WP:VG/RS and there's a much better chance of finding a native speaker of any non-English languages at the general WT:VG. So you might consider posting a request there pointing to this thread. If no native speakers can be located at WT:VG, it might also be worthwhile posting a request at the WikiProjects devoted to those languages. If we can find native speakers who are established editors here (or who clearly understand WP:RS) and they can vouch for the reliability of the source then this is strong evidence in its favor.
Anyway with that said, I took a look at them and below are my observations. Full disclosure: I am not familiar with any of these languages.
  • XaLuan - (cited 118 times at vi.wiki, "Gamer Worlds" section cited 0 times) - I can't find much information on editorial policy or the author. The name listed is Kitty (Theo Gamek) and our other RSes have never cited this person. Both the single name (Kitty) and the 2-part name (Theo Gamek) look pseudonymous to me. We'd probably need more info on the author if this is to pass as an RS.
  • Spill.no - (cited 945 times at no.wiki) - The editorial policy can be found here and the lead editor, Jon Cato Lorentzen, appears to have some reasonable credentials (he reviews games for Aftenposten and several Norwegian magazines, and according to IGN he's served on the jury for the Nordic Game Awards). This looks good to me. I think this is an RS.
  • BuddhaGaming - (cited 21 times at it.wiki) - Editorial policy and staff can be found here. I can't find much info on the lead editor, Fabio Colajanni, nor indeed any of the other staff. I think we'd need more info on the writers before passing this as an RS.
  • SpazioGames - (cited 210 times at it.wiki) - Staff list can be found here, but I don't see an editorial policy listed. I also don't find any citations from our RSes to the Director, Editorial Manager, Editor in Chief, of the lead editors for the News, Portables, or Apple sections. I didn't check through all of the editors listed at the bottom, but generally I think we'd need more info on the writers to presume any kind of reliability.
  • Gnn.gamer.com.tw - (cited 120 times at zh.wiki) - I think the editorial policy is spelled out here, but it looks like this is instructions to the general public about how to submit content which makes me wonder if this is just user-generated content. Certainly it's professionally presented, though. I guess I'm not really sure what to make of it. Another troubling aspect is that the authors (when listed) seem to only use single names like "Sam" or "Lu". I haven't found a staff list, but I think that would be critical here to check credentials. This one I'm the least certain about and outside views would be appreciated.
Hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
That Gamer.com.tw link actually says that the staff would promote news submissions to the front page from the contributor's user blog, given that the post meets the criteria listed in the page. Looking at the articles, it seems that it's not an uncommon practice, but they do seem to list "GNN 記者 *** 報導" (Reported by GNN reporter ***) if it was written by one of their staff (seen in this article about Watch Dogs) Arguably, that's also how Kotaku runs things, so it might still be a RS, especially with all that corporate whatnot. -- クラウド６６８ 18:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Artices at gnn.gamer.com.tw are written by reporter, contributing editor (特約編輯, like this one), or reprint/translate from other site (本新聞經 xxx 同意授權轉載 / This news was repeint from xxx with permission, like this). Right, some rticles are choose from user blog, these article are at home.gamer.com.tw, in gnn main page's article list, purple icons "投" (contribution/post) are in the end of these title, it's easily to be seeked for Chinese (and Japanese) user.--Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you クラウド６６８ and Wangxuan8331800 for the help. The fact that the info is not user-generated is certainly encouraging. Can you see if there is any clear editorial policy? Is there any editorial oversight or other structural oversight to the organization? And do the authors have any credentials listed? Are they video game journalists or industry insiders or are they just fans? Have they listed any awards or other forms of recognition from reliable (print?) sources? How long have they been in existence? Some positive information on these topics would go a long way toward establishing reliability. -Thibbs (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

gamesradar.blog.com

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

User:Robertpattinsons is adding this ref to multiple articles, and appears to be the only user using it, including some sketchier edits as he did in PlayStation Blog. I believe it's possibly spam, I don't know why Gamesradar would be using Blog.com, their main site seems fine? Seeking opinion before I go reverting. -- ferret (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, his user page full of bogus barnstars and other stuff outright claims "my gaming blog" -- ferret (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Future's legal team will have fun with that blog name. - X201 (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ifixit

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

See ifixit. Its a blog that tears down video game systems and reports on what they find, especially on new consoles. Back when the 3DS first came out, there was consensus was that it was not useable. However, when I tried to remove it from the Vita article, it was contested. I noticed we didn't really have a definite discussion on it, so I started this up.

On one hand, it's just a random guy's blog. On the other hand, its been featured in reliable sources like PC World, as seen here. I'm leaning towards unreliable. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't normally play into this as a deciding factor, but its global Alexa rank is 6,624, with over 9,000 linkbacks. That's ridiculously high for "a random guy's blog". That's higher than Destructoid (which is situational), and up there near Kotaku and Joystiq. On the other hand, this is contributor-based. Therefore I'd say it is only reliable in the instance that a reliable source cites it, and then the reliable source itself should be cited. Bottom line: the press seems to trust it, but it's contributor-based content keeps itself from being reliable. Cite the press site. --Teancum (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Likewise, I have added BoomPopMedia as a potential source for information (Full disclosure, I know the editor-in-chief quite well and have contributed articles from time to time) because it appears to have a staff of ~20 writers and an Alexa rank below 150,000. AtlasBurden (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Sigh, it's _not_ a "random guy's blog". That's specifically the point I was _trying_ to make back when you originally made that assumption. Please try to understand it's an actual company with _multiple_ guide contributors. As to what comes to other people creating guides, they do have some clear guidelines: How to Make an Awesome Guide, Creating a Repair Guide.
It's probably a good thing you started this discussion to educate yourself a bit about iFixit, but a simple googling would've sufficed. --Diblidabliduu (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Please assume good faith Diblidabliduu. Яehevkor ✉ 16:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Alright, a "random guys blog" may have been a bit off, (Note: every time I've written that, its been before you joined the conversation, by the way, its not a label I'm sticking too.) but what you've said doesn't address whether or not it meets the standards for what qualifies as a Wikipedia-standard reliable source. What you linked to above was not a "staff" list, its a list of anyone who's ever signed up to write one of their guides, something anyone can do. They may have some instructions on how to write a guide, but I haven't found any proof of "editorial oversight", another key factor needed to be considered a RS. Sergecross73 msg me 16:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That's because I didn't link a "staff" list. As for the editorial board thing, it seems like this thing works a lot more like StackOverflow, meaning they have their own rep system, which gives you more privileges on moderating the site as you gain more of it.
Also, an admin always has to accept a guide before it's moved from the "New Guides" section (accessible only to admins). That is, even if it was an admin that created it, though it's not clear whether they can accept it themselves.
E: Just to add, that guide was created by a "Chief Information Architect" of iFixit (author links clickable in iFixit.org articles). --Diblidabliduu (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
After being asked to give my two cents, and after watching this discussion for a few hours, I'm inclined to agree with User:Teancum. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 22:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I support Teancum's stance as well. (Its a common belief that, if a reliable source reports on something from a questionable source, the editorial oversight of the reliable source has fact checked the information of the other source, so its useable.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeuxvideo24

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is this site possibly reliable? Satellizer el Bridget ツ 06:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing the games, official sources, and Kotaku

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to talk about these three related things. I believe the VG/S policy on the subject/s is in error.

A game can not be treated as a primary source, because as a product, it is the actual subject of an article about that product. This also tends to put it above any external source as far as information on the thing goes, provided there are no claims or interpretation being made. Sourcing it for certain data is in no way original research, much as sourcing a book for certain passages or a film for certain quotes. Names, years, specific lines of text, and images (as long as they're not doctored, of course; that's all about trust in humanity) are all great examples of stuff that generally do not require a claim or interpretation; it's right there in the game and is as accessible as the game itself is, which is something that goes for just about any product ever.

That last bit is particularly important, as the policy specifically mentions that instruction booklets and the like essentially supersede the actual subject in this way... why? There's nothing wrong with mentioning the manual, of course; it came with the game, after all. But video game articles are about the game program itself, not necessarily the manual that came with or after it. It would generally be accurate to treat the game over the instruction booklet or the box, especially if there's a disconnect. For example, the game program for Sonic the Hedgehog CD does indeed use "Sonic the Hedgehog CD" as the title, and this supersedes whatever the box has to say on the matter.

Now, official sources might be considered to be "self-published sources", but only so under WP:SPS's second definition, which does not itself inherently put such an SPS above or below any external source. What does is how related that source is to the creator of the subject; as per above, the instruction manual or box that came with the game is second only to the game itself, and a website would be second to that. This even applies to download-only games; any readme.txt, HTML-based document, or .pdf-based manual contained within should be treated much the same as a physical instruction booklet; websites should be treated the same as well. Really, the only requirement to all this is that the entire article isn't completely based on them, and I'm not even sure that's really possible except for extremely niche topics.

Now... Kotaku. I've noticed that Kotaku seems to be making up their own titles even when there are valid official titles available. Here are some good examples: creating a "C1 NES TV" even as we have official names like "マイコンピュータテレビC1" and "Sharp Nintendo Television", also creating a "SF-1 SNES TV" for consistency even as we have "スーパーファミコン内蔵テレビSF1" as an official name, and even using Famicom World as a source even though the article on it doesn't mention any "C1 NES TV" and last I checked isn't an RS for WPVG; then, the more recent case of using "Deadmaus" instead of the correct "deadmau5"--something that's actually supported by other reliable sources on that topic--and even, as a source, puts down an article that does use "deadmau5". I'm sure I could find more examples. At any rate, what this all tells me is that Kotaku does not do basic fact-checking and is overriding official names for whatever they want to come up with. As the whole point of a reliable source is that they can be shown to seek accuracy, I'm starting to question whether Kotaku can even be considered one, at least for the sake of deciding the common name of a thing. Your thoughts? Despatche (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Video games and their instruction booklets are primary sources by definition of what a primary source is. That doesn't make either less important in determining a proper title, but we do have to be aware that there can be disconnects between the game media and the instruction booklet due to changes between press and publication. The examples at Kotaku seem isolated (heck, in the Deadmau5/Deadmaus story, the side link uses "5" over "s" that the main story has) and no basis to discredit them as an RS just because they have certain names for something that conflict with others. If this is an issue with a naming dispute, we have other wiki-wide policies in place for those. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • A game can definitely be treated as a reliable source in a number of cases. It's a published medium, so it can be cited and as long as we restrict the use of it to issues which it would be authoritative on without conducting any subjective interpreting, it's fine. The places where a video game can best be used as a source are within the article on the game itself (usually together with quotations from the game and used to source plot), and rarely within other closely-related articles (e.g. I believe the notes from the trophies in Super Smash Bros could be taken as official claims from Nintendo regarding other games about which the claims are made). Naturally if sources conflict then some kind of a balancing will have to take place.
    Some of what Despatche said above, though, I disagree with. The use of the Sonic the Hedgehog CD game code/program would probably not be an appropriate way to determine the title of that article, for example. The standard (conventional) game-specific place to find the publisher's intended title of a video game is on its label or the spine of its case. The use of third party Reliable Sources may also be required if there is conflict regarding which of several titles should be used. Wikipedia's policy on this question is WP:UCN.
    Regarding Kotaku, it should be noted that they are a video-game-oriented website, and so their name for the musician Deadmau5/Deadmaus wouldn't carry much or any weight in a musical context. As for the issue about the Sharp Nintendo Televisions, first of all a Television is different from a video game in that televisions don't really have titles as such. They may have names or expressions that are used exclusively by the manufacturer (usually a trademarked term like "Quattron" or "Aquos"), but in my view the best place to look for official terms for non-named products like this is in third-party RSes. Secondly, I think it's important to note that this question is closely related to an ongoing RfC which can be found here. I'll recuse myself from discussing the reliability of Kotaku on the merits as I'm an involved party in that RfC. -Thibbs (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem with looking to the published material first is that it's not the actual product itself. The publisher had to verify the game program before it could be put on a physical medium and shipped, and per the previous, the game program would supersede the material.
While Kotaku is indeed a video game-focused website, they still chose to write a subject on deadmau5, so they would have to do the same kind of basic fact-checking.
The brand name of a television is just as valid as the name of any other product; why exactly is "Trinitron" less of an official name than "Sega Saturn"?
Other than that, I don't really understand what a potential RfC has to do with this; this is all removed from that individual discussion. If you're suggesting bias, I don't see how I could avoid being pegged as biased anyway. Despatche (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The brand name of a television is determined by looking at the trademark registry. Trademarking is the legal way to protect a brand from use by competitors. Trinitron and Sega Saturn are almost certainly trademarked. And the RfC was only brought up to suggest that this isn't a casual question. I think your interests in knocking down Kotaku relate to your interest in censoring the common name used in the English-language sources. -Thibbs (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The brand name of a television is determined by looking at the television or the box it came in/manual it came with/etc; a trademark is just further proof. I don't have any particular interest in "knocking down" Kotaku (so now you accuse me), I'm only worried about the meaning of a "reliable source". I am also not attempting to "censor" anything except what has been proven a hundred times to be errors. Despatche (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The trademarking of a term is what distinguishes it as a brand in the first place and not just its inclusion on a box. A trademark registry would also be a reliable source for the brand name whereas a box is open to interpretation. And I'll retract my accusations if since you refute them. All I'll say is that if Kotaku was declared unreliable it might coincidentally advance your cause in the RfC. Perhaps you never intended such a thing. I disagree that anything has been proved to be in error even once much less hundreds of times, but that's a content issue which is relevant to the RfC, not VG/RS. -Thibbs (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
How am I supposed to refute a pure opinion? I have said time and time again that I would otherwise accept Kotaku as a reliable source. Also, it's pretty clear you see this as a fight and I'm trying to "advance my position"; I certainly don't with either, so what's up with that? Yes, if Kotaku was declared unreliable to any extent, then the RfC would have to be closed as all the sources supporting "C1 NES TV" would be similarly declared such. That doesn't suggest any kind of malicious intent on anyone's part; it just shows how much this is all connected, and why a particular question or comment needs to be brought up everywhere it possibly can, so each community can provide their input on the issue. Despatche (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
"How am I supposed to refute a pure opinion?" Using countervailing reliable sources just like normal. I'll have to take your word for it that none of this has anything to do with the RfC. I'm not interested in a fight. -Thibbs (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC) (Note: I just altered my wording above because I think I confused you regarding my intent. -Thibbs (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC))
I'm looking at various definitions of "primary source", and they all only seem to consider the idea of using objects to help explain events. There's nothing that mentions using that object to explain itself.
Sorry I could only find a few examples, they just happened to be available. If I ever find more, I'll start a list. That the sidelink uses "deadmau5" (actually, they use "Deadmau5") seems to make it even worse; there's a lack of consistency here too, and that really doesn't make sense since this is an online publication that can be edited at any time by them, so surely someone's going through and copyediting even after the article's gone out?
As for the first example/s, it is consistently used throughout the article and by a number of reliable sources and simple mentions that all have publish dates after Kotaku's article, except for a bit by GoNintendo (stated to be published the day before); there's no other conclusion but either they or GoNintendo (not currently considered a reliable source) created the name, and essentially created the entire common name themselves. There's strong evidence of this here, one of the three presented sources that uses the exact same "SF-1 SNES TV" term that Kotaku had used before (none of the official material hints at a hyphen). While I understand that getting an official name might not be so easy, I find it hard to believe that there was nothing Kotaku could do to obtain it, especially since they managed to put a corrupted form of it in their article anyway.
I do believe that it's appropriate to bring this up, as it's specifically about Kotaku as a reliable source, and names are a particularly obvious way to determine fact-checking. Now, I can understand cutting out fancy characters, but we have a intentionally fabricated title that doesn't reflect the subject and we already have two valid official names, and an intentional spelling error (as "Deadmaus" is used consistently within the article) that is inconsistent with another published article. I think that goes beyond a general name dispute from somewhere else, which is why I brought it here (I was actually asked to at that dispute). I'm not looking to trash the whole of Kotaku over this, but I think we should start being a little more skeptical of these guys at least for names. Despatche (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll still refrain from addressing Kotaku's reliability here, but I just wanted to point out that the hyphen in "SF-1" which it is alleged Kotaku made up also shows up in earlier Famitsu articles (see example). -Thibbs (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
And now you're being selective. I never suggested Kotaku made up "SF-1", I suggested Kotaku made up "SF-1 SNES TV". Remember when you said you wanted to keep the content on the content page? I certainly did just that, until you decided that it was so important to this issue. Despatche (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
From the RfC we both had a deeper knowledge about the origins of the hyphen which you had used above as a mark against Kotaku. My comment was neither intended to provoke more RfC-related responses from you nor was it intended to got to Kotaku's status as an RS. I'll pipe up on issues I know might fly under the radar like that but otherwise I'm leaving the debate over Kotaku alone. -Thibbs (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

BoomPopMedia

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Find video game sources: "BoomPopMedia" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo I would like to nominate BoomPopMedia as a potential source for information (Full disclosure, I know the editor-in-chief quite well and have contributed articles from time to time) because it appears to have a staff of ~20 writers and an Alexa rank below 150,000. There is a significant amount of video game content and on some search queries (such as Titanfall) they are one of the first results. AtlasBurden (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

(Talk page conversation) User:AtlasBurden recently added "BoomPopMedia" and "Titanfall Report" links to several game articles (contribs), and I requested their removal. The site is a simple WordPress blog with no editorial oversight. The site's news rehashes that of other sites as a tertiary source. It doesn't have an editorial policy other than a disclaimer and its authors are not reputable within the industry or journalism. czar · · 15:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Czar. Even if it were reliable, the blog is a self-described a humor site about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't sound like its even centered around video games either or technology, so it probably wouldn't be listed anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I read BoomPopMedia periodically and have never had any problems with their content - I see no reason not to include them. Dustinmcgowen (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — Dustinmcgowen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I noticed that your account is new. Remember that this isn't a vote and that Wikipedia decides by consensus. It also helps to make an argument from WP policy instead of from personal feelings, which everyone has. czar · · 16:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Also please remember to disclose any potential conflicts of interest on Wikipedia: http://boompopmedia.com/index/author/dustinmcgowen/ czar · · 16:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Also note that "seeing no reason not to include them" is not the same as "seeing a reason to include them". To be listed as an RS, there must be some kind of showing that the source is in fact reliable. We don't presume all sources are RSes until proven unreliable. Of course the basic presumption isn't that they are specifically unreliable either, but rather they are presumed to be non-RSes (i.e. not necessarily filled with blatant falsehoods and inaccuracies, but not demonstrably reliable either). So you'll have to base a "support" !vote on facts going to the source's reliability, not just your inability to determine their unreliability. -Thibbs (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't write about video games, so I didn't see a conflict of interest. They do really good work on the video game side, and I don't think they're a bunch of liars. Sorry. - dustinmcgowen
No reason to be sorry, but please note that nobody here is saying that BoomPopMedia are "a bunch of liars". There are plenty of sources that probably contain accurate and honest information but that do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy or for which there is no evidence that editorial policies and procedures are in place and thus are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Wikipedia itself is a good example of such a source. This doesn't mean sources like Wikipedia are just spouting lies as fast as they can make them up. And it doesn't mean that such a source is garbage. But there is a minimum threshold that Wikipedia requires for sources to be considered reliable. You can read through the exact guidelines here. As for the Conflict of Interest, it comes from editors closely connected to the sources !voting them RSes and/or adding them to articles in order to boost their profile. If AtlasBurden is close friends with the editor-in-chief then he may have a conflict of interest because he would be hurting his friend if he voted against BoomPopMedia as an RS. If you are an affiliate of BoomPopMedia then your votes here will be necessarily biased too. -Thibbs (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Definitely not a reliable source. It appears this is an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote the site. A bit weird that User:Dustinmcgowen has appeared out of nowhere to defend an almost entirely unknown website on an obscure part behind the scenes of Wikipedia.. Яehevkor ✉ 16:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Last I checked, blog sites are universally prohibited from general reliable source lists, with very few exceptions. The primary reason at the time was that blog sites are generally not subject to the same standards as fact-presentation sites, professional review sites, or other related sites that have published review processes. Blog posts are by definition the author's personal opinions and observations, which makes the content inherently subjective and somewhat random in nature, thus suitable at best for review and reception sections. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Nlife sites: Push Square, Pure Xbox, Nintendo Life

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Nlife owns several sites, of which Nintendo Life is currently rated generally reliable on the source list, and its sister sites are unrated. Their editorial oversight isn't exactly clear-cut, and I think their reliability is more based on their top editors' previous work and the opinion of other sites, but I wanted to pose the PlayStation and Xbox sister sites above for consideration as they appear very similar to Nintendo Life. czar · · 14:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

For reference, there are staff lists for both sites on their respective "about" pages here and here. I'll try to take a look at this in more depth if I get a chance. -Thibbs (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Boing Boing

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Is this website a reliable source? I'm specifically concernered about this article:[27] --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, interviews with the people involved in something are reliable wherever they appear at. Dream Focus 03:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not always true. If the source that runs the interview is of doubtful reliability due to identified issues in the past, we can't be sure the interview is reliable. . This doesn't apply to Boing Boing, which is a reliable site for all matters Internet due to its founders and past reliability. --MASEM (t) 03:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been considering Boing Boing reliable per this. Not conclusive on the issue, but it seems like a reasonable source. -Thibbs (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Is N-sider a reliable source for units sold?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, can I use this? Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's not, unless they have an official source, which they don't. The site has been known for poor regard for accuracy or integrity, so I wouldn't be surprised the sales estimate is their own guess. VGcharts probably has a better estimate and even that's unreliable. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Gamesindustry.biz reference for Grand Theft Auto V

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In my editing of the Grand Theft Auto V page I feel I've gathered a good pool of reliable sources to use particularly throughout the "Story and gameplay" section. I'd like to continue that effort in the "Development" section and to begin that effort I've tried locating a source for the estimated budget of the game. I've found this, and Gamesindustry.biz is listed as a reliable source here, but I don't know how credible Arvind Bhatia is as I'd never heard of him before. How okay is this source to use for the article, if at all? CR4ZE (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

He's an analyst for Sterne Agee, and he's been cited a couple times on Wiki [28]. I think it is reliable enough if you base that he is speaking for Sterne Agee which has been around for a while and say this is an estimate. Besides, it is a secondary source (gamebiz) that is covering this. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that advice. So long as I mention that Sterne Agee's predictions are simply an estimation it should keep the information neutral and stable. CR4ZE (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A list of sites which can be used as sources

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

When I try to find references about a game, I search on various websites that I know: "gamespy.com", "gamasutra.com", "gamestop.com", "1up.com", "gamezone.com", etc. I think it would be useful to have a comprehensive list with such websites, to help those people who are looking for references for games. It doesn't have to be a 100% objective list. I also have a small bookmarklet script that can help editors to search for keywords on many websites in the same time. The list of websites will be very useful for improving the script, making the search more efficient. 

javascript:
var sites = ["gamespy.com"
                   , "gamasutra.com"
                   , "gamestop.com"
                   , "1up.com"];
var text = prompt("search query", "");
if ( text )
  for (var i = 0; i < sites.length; i++) {
    var Etext = text.replace(/ /g, "+") + escape("+site:" + sites[i]).replace(/%20/g, "+");
    var x = open("http://www.google.com/search?q=" + Etext);
  };

—  Ark25  (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

..Sorta like the list on the project page? -- ferret (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
There's also a set of custom search engines that are linked for use here. That's what I use to speed up my researching. -Thibbs (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

@Ferret: yes, like that list, but including also sites like engadget.com, mashable.com, arstechnica.com, techcrunch.com, etc.

@Thibbs: That tool is quite nice, is it possible to see the list of the sites where it's searching in? —  Ark25  (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to see a list of all the sites, but the hope is to mirror the RS list including approved members of the checklist. The other (situational) custom search engine is restricted to situational sources listed here and in the checklist. I actually have access to the full list because I maintain it, so if you wish I could post the full list and all of the exclusions (I try to exclude userblogs and userforums). I may add that to my userpage actually if it seems helpful. -Thibbs (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it'd be helpful if it's not too much work, if only for transparency and future usage czar ♔ 16:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes it would be helpful to have a comma-separated list of websites. Another question: why the Wikipedia:VG/S#General list includes ArsTechnica but not other similar IT news sites like Engadget, Mashable, Techcrunch, TG Daily, Geek.com and so on? The Wikipedia:VG/S#Checklist includes Techcrunch but not the others. Should we open separate discussions for every such IT news website in order to add them in the checklist? —  Ark25  (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
OK I'll post the full list when I get a chance then, and I'll drop a note here when it's complete. -Thibbs (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 Y Done. Please let me know if there's anything I should tweak there. I've tried to filter out the bulk of the forums, userblogs, etc. but I may have been overzealous and I've almost certainly missed some.
In answer to your questions about Engadget, Mashable, etc., Ark25: the organization of the checklist and tables is not particularly tidy. Previous suggestions have been made to merge them into one comprehensive table (see e.g. here) but it's difficult to think of the best way to implement it. Generally we should be listing items on the checklist that have received some discussion here in talk first. Anybody can add a source to the checklist together with a link to the prior discussion on it, but we shouldn't be including items on the checklist that are unlikely to come up very often and that wouldn't see much use as citations. -Thibbs (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, in this case the checklist can be followed by a collapsed list containing only the links:

That should be a good enough implementation in order to begin with. I have no idea how often or rarely sources like mashable, engadget or techcrunch are used as citations but I guess they deserve to be in (some) list, for those who want to search citations for a particular game. Here I have a short list with IT news websites. I have no idea if they are already part of some checklist in another WikiProject:

gizmodo.com - engadget.com - fudzilla.com - geek.com - cnet.com - theregister.co.uk - theinquirer.net - arstechnica.com - tgdaily.com - news.softpedia.com - eetimes.com - reghardware.co.uk - electronista.com - gearlog.com - zdnet.com - techpowerup.com - itwire.com - pcper.com - pcpro.co.uk - pcplus.co.uk - techreport.com - techspot.com - techcrunch.com - internetnews.com - eweek.com - popularmechanics.com - wired.com - amdzone.com - googleblog.blogspot.com - securityfocus.com - boingboing.net - copyblogger.com - wugnet.com

—  Ark25  (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Starmen.net

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

Considering the acknowledgment by Nintendo of the site, is it possible for it to be of use for fact-based information in EarthBound-related information? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Nintendo's acknowledgment of it matters very little except perhaps to give it notability. The site's staff/info/about pages can be found here and here, and basically show that it's a fan site. This view is corroborated by sources like Wired (e.g. in this article). But with that said, it's certainly one of the oldest and more notable fan sites. Looking at what the RSes have to say, the founders were interviewed by UGO, and have been discussed in articles by 1up, shacknews, kotaku (though kotaku mainly notes them as a source of tantalizing rumors), etc. Actual citations to Starmen.net (e.g. at at Nintendo World Report) seem to be rare and they are mostly just described as significant in relation to the fanbase. So where does that leave us? I think it depends. In general they should not be cited for facts. In some limited situations they might be citable for facts (e.g. if there was RS-based mention in a Wikipedia article of their translation efforts then they'd be acceptable to use per SELFPUB) but there would have to be very clear attribution and an actual RS would almost always be a better choice. Which specific facts did you want to use the source for? -Thibbs (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
One of the reasons why I brought it up was that RS seems to have made a decision in the past that "The Mushroom Kingdom" is a reliable source of information on Mario facts. As for Starmen.net, ideally I was hoping that they could be used as an image source and as a source for magazines and such (that I cannot seem to find the information for). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
As a source for images, I don't think there'd be much of a policy/guideline-based problem in just taking them under a Fair Use rationale. Are you talking about screenshots from the Mother games? If so, Starmen.net isn't the proper source anyway - Nintendo is. Be cautious with non-free images, though. Even if they meet Fair Use there are some who speculate that they expose Wikipedia to legal liability. Specifically it's easy to twist "equivalent significant information" to characterize almost any two images as redundant and thus legally problematic, and you can imagine how subjectively "significantly increase readers' understanding" can be applied. In practical terms, it's better to avoid uploading images altogether. Now if you're talking about citing the content of the screenshot images (e.g. citing in-game dialog), the game itself should be cited using the {{cite video game}} template. Of course you'd have to verify that the screenshot was accurate and not a photoshop or screencap from a ROM hack. And if you're talking about a screenshot of a translation hack then I think it would be fine to cite them per WP:SELFPUB provided the hack is notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article. Like I said earlier, a lot of this depends on the specific context.
As for the magazines, it's really preferable to cite them directly if possible. And that would also require some degree of verification prior to citation. I personally think a magazine scan is sufficient for verification purposes. It's a bit of a grey area, but unless there's some legitimate reason to suspect that the scans are doctored they should be fine to verify that the claim was made. If you can't verify that the magazine made the claim then I'd avoid repeating it here in Wikipedia since Starmen.net is a fan site and fans are not always very reliable. You might try your luck at WP:VG/RL#Magazines to see if there are any copies of the magazines available. Or post a request to the main WT:VG talk page in the hope that someone out there has a copy of the specific magazine. -Thibbs (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Considering the nature of the website and the significance of the website in gaming media, I think it's fair for us to assess that the website would not fabricate information (especially with screenshots). The site was created by reidman and Tomato; the latter works in the video game industry as an English translator. I think presence in the industry goes a lot to say that the caliber of the website's accuracy and trustworthiness is higher than an average fansite. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
It's really dependent on how you want to use these images. Are you hoping to (1) upload images you obtain from Starmen.net to Wikipedia? Or are you hoping to (2) cite Starmen.net for the content of the images? And if the latter, are the images (2a) screenshots from a game released by Nintendo or are they (2b) screenshots of hacks made by Starmen.net? The only time I'd say it's fine to cite Starmen.net is in the 2b scenario - and then with clear attribution. In the 2a scenario you'd just cite Nintendo (i.e. the game itself) and forget about Starmen.net. In the first scenario you would have to list where you got the image from in the "source" field of the NFUR, but Starmen.net are not the copyright holders so they wouldn't have any stake in the matter anyway. Either way I'd advise against uploading non-free images, though, because they're really frowned upon. -Thibbs (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
What? Uploading non-free images is not frowned upon. Non-free images are suggested if they are considered necessary. Most video game articles that have fulfilled notability criteria can justify showing the cover shot as the most well-known identification for the topic and showing the game to demonstrate what the article discusses. Screenshots found on starmen.net should be cited to the website in addition to the game. There's also the subject of whether Starmen.net should be regarded as a reliable source to cite fact-based information like Mushroom Kingdom is. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but it's Wikipolicy to minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content (emphasis added). If it's really necessary then go right ahead. Generally we try to avoid it, though, and seek out free alternatives. Anyway if you want to upload a covershot of one of the Mother games (I'm guessing it's for EarthBound 64, yes?) and you get the image from Starmen.net then as I said above you'll need to mention them as the source in the "source" field of the NFUR. You don't have to cite them beyond that, and for this purpose their reliability as a source is a non-issue. The same goes for screenshots you get from Starmen.net unless the screenshot depicts a translation hack or other similar modification. As for the general question of whether Starmen.net is reliable, I'd say no per WP:FANSITE. They don't seem to be used very often as a source by the established RSes and they have no editorial policy. I'm certain that anything actually notable relating to the topic could be located in our normal RSes. I know Famitsu has covered them extensively, for instance. -Thibbs (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I know the policies and guidelines of fair use and you know that I do since I've argued against an image you supported with the very argument of limiting images to avoid legal exposure. The addition of fair use images to Wikipedia does not increase legal exposure - the addition of fair use images to Wikipedia that do not demonstrate fair use does. It is not advised that we remove necessary images for understanding on a topic even though that would technically reduce legal exposure. The point of fair use is to allow image use if it can be shown that the image is necessary for better understanding of a topic. If it was simply "do not upload too many fair use images to Wikipedia" then new articles would have less justification to have images due to the fact that they are adding to an ever-increasing list of fair use images. Images for a game's gameplay should be added if the free text demonstrates that the image is necessary for proper understanding of the topic; for example, The World Ends with You has a rather complicated setup with its two screens so we include it to better explain. This inclusion also shows the art style which was praised and the use of two screens. A contrary example is that because Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! does not feature any gameplay that is particularly confusing, the article can suffice by using a free use image of a sudoku puzzle and a free use image of someone holding the DS sideways. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Like I said, if it's really necessary to add non-free images then go right ahead. This really isn't a reliable source issue, though. URLs included in the "source" section of the NFUR are only provided to address the question of where you acquired the copyrighted material. It doesn't matter if the place where you acquired it was reliable or not. -Thibbs (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_7&oldid=1086383812"