Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Hi-fi.ru

There has been no judgment yet on Russian tech site Hi-fi.ru here or anywhere else, so I will submit it here. The site started in 1997; video games are not their main focus, but they do some reporting on games from time to time, including an all-time top 100 games list in 2020. Their content largely consists of reviews of tech products, e.g., earbuds and home theatre projectors. They do seem to be real reviews that critique the products, including scoring them. They provide a list of their editors, most of whom appear to be career tech writers; the site also has an editorial policy, which identifies video games as part of their purview, and indicates that articles go through editorial review; in its words (translated), "the author himself suggests topics for news and some review articles. The editors determine the key points of the month - events that need to be covered and devices that must be tested and forms a test plan, as well as a list of reviews that are extremely important for the market." The site has a handful of citations on the Russian Wikipedia in some tech-related articles. I don't see any red flags here, but I'll put it up here first and see what others think. Phediuk (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

If video games are not their main focus, this should be brought up at the reliable sources noticeboard. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

PC Leisure (UK magazine, 1990-1991)

Find video game sources: "PC Leisure" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

The UK magazine PC Leisure was the first in the country dedicated to PC gaming. During its short publication run in 1990-1991, it included reviews for games of that era, which I'd like to cite. Would it be possible to add this magazine to the list of reliable sources? -Thunderforge (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know realistically how helpful that would be, as "1 year in the UK" isn't going to have all that many instances of use, but generally any print magazines from the 1990s meet our standards for reliability simply because of the work involved in setting such a publication up. It was very different than nowadays where just about anyone can buy a domain name and have a couple random writers contribute. Sergecross73 msg me 20:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I would also say it is probably reliable, considering that they had to go through a lot of effort. Although, I'm not sure how many reviews they'll have for you to cite. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Inverse

Two discussions on Inverse exist (one in 2017 and one in 2020), but have proven inconclusive on determining its reliability so far. I'm leaning reliable but would like input from other editors.

Here are some examples of their coverage: from 2017, from 2020, from last year and from just this past week. They also seem to routinely cover non-video game topics so I don't know how that may factor into its listing on here. Soulbust (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Leaning unreliable. The examples I gave three years ago of their rampant churnalism/"articles about nothing" only seem worse with three years passing. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I dug a little deeper into their gaming-specific output. It looks like they break their articles down by: news, game recs, interviews, reviews, "game theory", guides, retrospectives, opinions, and "oral history" (which I would say is really similar to retrospectives).

I'd say we could maybe list this under situation. Like, I lean toward listing their interviews, reviews, and opinions under reliable. But their news stuff is hit-or-miss, especially recently as you point out so if we listed Inverse under situational, we could note that pre-2020 is all clear, but post-2020 should be treated with caution or not used since I do see your point about churnalism. The more opinionated stuff though I think could still be used, just needs to be pointed out as an opinion when used in articles. And I think the interviews could be useful for articles, don't really see an issue with them to be honest. The linked example from above looks like it'd offer value over on the Paranormasight: The Seven Mysteries of Honjo page. Or this could work for Redfall. I'd assume their game rec stuff could be bundled into their opinion content.

I don't know what to really do with the theory stuff though, that sort of thing seems like it could border on fancruft.

After typing that I also noticed they tag some articles as simply "Gaming", "Tech" or "Feature" and at least those examples I found doesn't seem off. I guess overall I'd say situational with a soft lean toward reliable.

Soulbust (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is your rationale for it being a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense? Most of your comment is just talking about what content they cover or musing about how it could be used if we allowed it. But I'm not really seeing your argument on how it meets our standards exactly. Sergecross73 msg me 11:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

In the past, I haven't really offered my leans one or the other. I like to kinda just trust the community here and use sources deemed reliable. But decided to state my opinion this time, and then decided to give some more context on the source bc I thought that could be useful. I guess, in my opinion the source's opinionated articles hold up to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Same for their even some post-2020 news ones.

I looked at some of the past discussions I started up here: 1, 2, 3, 4 to kinda see what makes some people think sources are reliable and unreliable. Even looking at some other discussions I haven't started, I notice a recurring concept is if a source's about page or related things offer a sense of legitimacy to the source. I would say Inverse has a masthead with a considerably long list of their whole staff/team and it looks like they at least have a legit concern for their editorial quality based on that. Their about us links to a subpage on bdg.com (or Bustle Digital Group) which owns Bustle. A 2019 RfC on Bustle resulted in "There is consensus that the reliability of Bustle is unclear and that its reliability should be decided on an instance by instance basis." Bustle is appropriately yellow-listed over at perennial sources. So I figure that it might make sense for Inverse to have the same or a similar label.

I also just personally think their new/more contemporary stuff is fine. Like this review on Minecraft Legends from just yesterday doesn't raise any red flags or alarm bells for me, at least from a skim of it. I think treating Inverse as situational or case-by-case like how Bustle is also makes sense, including for their news stuff. Because like I feel most people would probably be cool with this news post perhaps? Soulbust (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Situational source Looking over their reviews, they seem eminently reliable and I would have no qualms using them as a gauge of notability. I would classify everything else as situational with overly fancrufty articles or video game rumors to be avoided. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Usually the cruft/churnalism sites are the ones we don't factor in to notability though. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  There is no real evidence that being reviewed on Inverse does not indicate something is notable. I would probably limit its usage in proving notability to a full standard review of the game though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  What does that even mean? What sort of evidence could even exist for such a claim? Sergecross73 msg me 23:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why you are asking me to provide hard evidence when your claim that they are unreliable is an article that was clearly marked as "unsubstantiated" and possibly "a wild guess". While it turned out to be false, it didn't give me the impression they were reporting lies as fact, so I have no clue how that can be used to justify their unreliability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, I'm asking you to clarify your own words. You said "There is no real evidence that being reviewed on Inverse does not indicate something is notable". What would a valid counterpoint be to such a claim? Are you saying there's no evidence of churnalism? Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  Paging through their reviews section, I see an eclectic combination of AAA games, AA games and interesting indie titles with no evidence that they are reviewing spam. Their games seem meticulously picked - do I agree with every single one of their reviews, obviously not, but they appear to be well thought out and not just focusing on the biggest games of the year, with the chance to actually benefit the coverage of lesser known titles once in a while. I don't see evidence they are reviewing un-notable spam games or putting no effort into the reviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  "Review spam" isn't really a problem with these sorts of churnalism websites, it's more their "news about nothing" spam they churn out when there's no new developments. The sort of stuff of stuff linked in the original discussions, like the "Here's why we think Tears of the Kingdom is coming out in 2020" because they read an anonymous 4chan post about it, or the "Here's one insane theory about Tears of the Kingdom" headline and its just some fabrication of "What if Link travels to the moon" or whatever. It's this sort of crap that has no place in Wikipedia articles, and doesn't help establish notability in the slightest. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's why my opinion is that it should only be limited to reviews, a situational source. Any news from them should be considered unreliable. Is it a "we have to ignore all their output if their news is inaccurate" situation? I was under the impression sources could be seen as trustworthy for some of their output. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've had a look at it before, and since it doesn't list sources for some of the stuff it repeats sometimes, I lean Unreliable, perhaps amendable to Situational if their reviews seem okay. I wouldn't want to trust their interviews/news stories. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  My view on their reviews is that they clearly "know what they're talking about" and offer legitimate insight into the game and its mechanics, with nothing appearing to be false or misstated. All in all, I cannot find proof to not take them seriously. We've had worse with regards to Kotaku, which is still considered reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd say situational based on WP:RSP's stance on its sister site Bustle. From my experience, their exclusive interviews tend to be excellent, while their reviews don't have any red flags. However, I'd definitely avoid the churnalism/rumor-type articles and would use better sources like IGN or GameSpot for basic news. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 21:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah honestly, their reviews and interviews don't have any issues imo and would be valuable sources to use. Their straight up news sources should be treated with caution/assessed on a case-by-case basis. For example, these are the two most recent articles on Inverse tagged as news (I excluded an article between these two since it was originally written in 2020 but received a further update). That first one seems a little "churnalism"-esque, since it's basing info off fan theories/Reddit posts. But the latter one about Warzone really doesn't have anything off about it, hence why a case-by-case assessment should be the approach for their news posts. Soulbust (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it should be marked situational, with reviews and interviews being okay, but most news should be avoided. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Moving The Jimquisition from 'Defunct' to 'Situational' in the coming days

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

After a temporary hiatus, James Stephanie Sterling is once posting writing video game reviews on The Jimquisition. (And as usual, their reviews are notable enough to be used in Metacritic's algorithm).

Unless there's any objections, I'll move The Jimquisition from the 'Defunct' to 'Situtation' category in the coming days. Neuroxic (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's active, it should be listed as such. If it was situational before, it should default to that unless there's a new consensus that arises. Are they retaining the same name even though they don't go by Jim anymore? Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

They go by several names. I think for a first name they prefer Stephanie, although if addressed in full prefer James Stephanie Sterling. Neuroxic (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Am I out of the loop here - what temporary hiatus? All I see is Izno moved it to defunct Jan 2021 stating it hasn't had any videos since early 2020. But Sterling has been posting continuously in 2020 and beyond. I cannot find any mention anywhere of taking a break or stopping posting. When exactly was there a hiatus? —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 20:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea, I don't particularly follow them, but also didn't question because it seems like I've heard less about the Jimquisition in recent years, so it felt plausible. Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks like Sterling stopped publishing written reviews on their website in 2017, but started up again in October 2022. I believe that's what this is about. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 00:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Possibly. Based on the written reviews section of the website, it looks like there was a hiatus between the Marvel vs Capcom Infinite review in September 2017, and Disney Dreamlight Valley in October 2022. Sterling has been doing releasing written reviews pretty consistently since October 2022 however, so I think moving it back to situational is probably fine. Sideswipe9th (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

That is correct. Sterling stopped publishing written reviews for a bit, although during this time they till continued to post reviews in the form of YouTube videos on their channel. Sterling is now regularly posting written reviews again. Neuroxic (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

If we're just using the site for reviews, I don't see why it wouldn't be considered "generally reliable"? Reviews fall quite squarely within WP:RSOPINION. The main output of the website appears to be reviews and editorial (i.e. also reviews but for topics more general than a specific game) and my impression is that Sterling is a well-regarded critic in the industry so the website should be reliable on that basis. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Is that the case though? Aren't there plenty of rambling rants and editorials too? I'm not a follower, but my understanding is that there was a lot of that sort of stuff too. Or am I confusing outlets? Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I'd say we should continue restricting The Jimquisition to only attributed commentary from Sterling themself. While Sterling is a professional journalist, The Jimquisition isn't a professional outlet—it's basically just their blog. There aren't any editorial processes, it's simply Sterling's commentary. I don't think there is really any use for it beyond citing Sterling's opinion where necessary. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 23:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say any source that we can't wholesale use is situational. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible re-examination of Eventhubs.com?

Asking about this one because I am noticing it cited in more academic papers, books and websites. I actually had to remove a printed source printed in Guinness because it was citing data from the site, and I was unsure if it was kosher or not. I figure since the last discussion was dated in 2016 it might be worth bringing up again.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It's still unreliable. It was discussed last year actually, and the response basically summed it all up (see here). Xanarki (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

A short essay on Chinese sources

Following a polite request from Axem Titanium, I will share some sources which zhwiki community ("we", "us") consider to be fine.

Video game journalism is still in its infancy in Chinese speaking regions. It is hard to demonstrate reliability by stating that "they are founded by ex-writers from [another reliable source]". Still, I will try my best to demonstrate their reliability.

Starting from 4Gamer.net. The Japanese website 4Gamer.net has partnerships with two websites in China and one website in Taiwan. The first source I will introduce is Gamer News Network.

Gamer News Network (GNN)

Find video game sources: "GNN新聞" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Gamer News Network (GNN) is the aforementioned Taiwan website that has a partnership with 4Gamer.net. It is a part of a larger website "gamer.com.tw" (巴哈姆特電玩資訊站, lit. Bahamut video game information website), which was established in 1996. It focuses on anime, manga (comics) and games (we call them collectively as "ACG"). Aside from GNN, it also hosts a user forum (哈啦區), an anime streaming platform (巴哈姆特動畫瘋), an online shop platform (巴哈商城) and more, much like what Niconico has become today.

Aside from articles in partnership with 4Gamer.net, GNN also hosts their own articles. They are also famous enough to host exclusive interviews with various developers. Like Lies of P, Final Fantasy XVI, Hi-Fi Rush, Heaven Burns Red, and dozens more.

GNN accepts submissions from readers. Not all submissions will be published, but our community are not sure that they would receive the same level of editorial oversight as the articles written by their staff. It is easy to tell whether an article is written by their staff or by readers. Articles by GNN staff is unanimously considered reliable by us.

YYSTV

Find video game sources: "游研社" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Introduction by GameBonfire (see below): [1]

YYSTV (游研社 lit. Game Research Club) is one of the Chinese websites that have a partnership with 4Gamer.net. As stated from their by-lines, it is "formed by severial veteran journalists" but nothing more detailed. YYSTV operates like Medium, which allows readers to publish articles. We consider them to be situational, as articles published by their "leader" and "editorial staff" are fine, articles published directly by various writers from other magazines are fine, and sometimes articles by developers themselves are also fine. Other user-generated contents are not fine.

The practice of transforming a news portal website into a Medium-like website is an ongoing trend in China.

GameBonfire and IGN China

Find video game sources: "篝火营地" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Find video game sources: "IGN中国" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

GameBonfire (篝火营地 lit. Bonfire Camp) is owned by Tencent. It has various well-known publishers' license to translate their articles into Chinese. These include Famitsu, Game Informer, Polygon and formerly, IGN. GameBonfire began to recruit their own writers in 2019, and since then they began to publish their own articles.

GameBonfire used to hold a license from IGN, but later decided to establish a China branch of IGN directly, hence IGN China. IGN China is still operated by Tencent, and presumed to be the staff from GameBonfire. Although IGN China mainly translates articles from the US headquarter, it also writes their own articles. Both IGN China and GameBonfire are considered reliable by us.

GameBonfire has articles about various other video game news websites, giving us insight about their internal operations.

Magazines in China

Find video game sources: "游戏机实用技术" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Find video game sources: "家用电脑与游戏" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Find video game sources: "电子游戏软件" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Find video game sources: "大众软件" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk
Find video game sources: "软件与光盘" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Back in 1990s, various magazines focusing on video games were established in China. Among the above five magazines, only the first one (Ultra Console Game, UCG, 游戏机实用技术 lit. Game Console Practical Technologies) is still "alive" today (although new magazines are not published anymore).

Given the amount of effort to set up a magazine in 1990s, it is hard to think that they will sacrifice their reputation to create hoaxes. Thus reliable to us.

VGTime

Find video game sources: "游戏时光" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Introduction by GameBonfire: [2]

VGTime (游戏时光 lit. Game Time) was spawned from UCG above and later re-merged with UCG. Since we consider UCG to be reliable, we automatically think VGTime is also reliable.

...Until 21 April, 2023. The editorial staff between VGTime and UCG are different, and on that fateful day, all VGTime staffs are fired. Since 21 April, 2023, VGTime began to use web crawlers to fetch other websites' contents, and use machine translation to translate them to Chinese.

Articles before that time are considered reliable by us, and articles after that time are considered unreliable. At least, they should fix their completely wrong machine translations first.

Chuapp

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

Introduction by GameBonfire: [3]

VGTime is not the only website that is spawned from a magazine. Chuapp (触乐 lit. Touch Happy) is spawned from 大众软件 above. Based on this fact we consider Chuapp to be reliable.

Thank you

That's all I will share today, thank you for your patience. There are several other sources considered reliable or at least situational (such as GameLook and Youxi Putao), but their reasons are a little weak to me, so I decide to hold them back until next time. MilkyDefer 13:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this, as I've noticed that an increase of non-english sources has been happening lately, thankfully. Could you provide a translation for the magazine titles? Google Translate says the 4th one is "Volkswagen software"...don't think that's right lol.

Also, I'd like to bring up Play. Seems to have been one of the first major gaming magazines in the country, and obvsly, one of the few Chinese magazines to even have an article here on English Wiki. Edit: might be same magazine as the 2nd one listed above. Xanarki (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

"游戏机实用技术": Ultra Console Game, this is the official name.

"家用电脑与游戏": Play, I never thought it has an article.

"电子游戏软件": lit. Video Game Software, I don't know whether it has an official English name.

"大众软件": lit. The Masses Software, it is a coincidence that Volkswagen's Chinese name is also 大众.

"软件与光盘": lit. Software and Disc. MilkyDefer 00:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm extremely supportive of us integrating more non-English sources into this list. I simply cannot really assist in vetting them, which is the biggest hurdle I think for many of us. -- ferret (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm echoing ferret in that it's tough for us to vet but it's good to have this section as a reference. Based on MilkyDefer's descriptions, I think GNN, GameBonfire/IGN China, and the magazines should be 'presumed reliable' on account of zhwiki's vetting (as distinct from 'confirmed reliable', which is impossible for us to adjudicate). If nothing else, this is a good place to start looking for Chinese language sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Same. More different language/culture sources are a must for an unbiased world-wide coverage. But of course, I cannot vet anything here. I am inclined to trust sources already vetted before by above. I would presume any magazine reliable if it's been in print for at least several years, although I'm basing this on more Western-centric counterparts. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 13:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Anime Feminist

Find video game sources: "Anime Feminist" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Anime Feminist is listed as a reliable source on the Anime and Manga WikiProject. The only issue this site may have is that a portion of the writers are not actually part of staff, and are given the opportunity to remain anonymous (as not doing so may create issues in their real life). However, on the submissions page, they make very clear that they do not accept content like listicles, and that articles have to be written in conjunction with an editor experienced in the area the writer is writing about. The writer is not allowed to submit an already-written article in order to avoid quality or accuracy issues. The Managing Editor, Vrai Kaiser, has experience writing for multiple reliable sources. Another angle in their favor is that the website has been cited a number of times by scholarly sources, books, and other reliable sources. The Japan times also did an article about Anime Feminist. Further, having looked at multiple articles, their information is well-cited; for instance, this article cites multiple reliable sources, including 4Gamer and Game Watch, suggesting that thorough research was done as part of this article. Whatever potential issues from randos being allowed to submit proposals is counteracted, I think, by how thorough the process of getting accepted is. So long as the staff of Anime Feminist is credible, that issue is cancelled out. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest, the Anime Project considering it reliable doesn't give much standing to me. ANN is the root of all anime sourcing and it's a terrible source. That all aside, what I'm struggling with is, outside of a few cross over character articles like Bridget as provided above, is this a video game source? The review section appears to focus entirely on anime/manga, and the description of the review database makes no mention of games of any sort. You may be better off going to WP:RSN. -- ferret (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I've seen them cover video games; there was another article about fighting games and trans representation, and an article about Erica Anderson from Catherine. It's not their bread and butter, as evidenced by them stating that video games are comparatively niche. That said, there are a fair number of visual novels covered on this site, which would be of use for the project. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Anime and manga lists them as reliable as you mentioned though it was recently suggested to add a note about them due to their bias. I think that any appropriate information added to visual novel articles from them could be justified due to that as long as given due weight (the project does cover visual novels), so they don't necessarily needed to be added specifically as a video game source. I couldn't find much visual novel coverage by them though - at least there are only 10 articles that they've applied the tag to. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with Ferret here. It's not a great source and stuff like the anonymous contributor stuff is not the purview of a reliable source in the year 2023. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

While the anonymous source aspect is a concern, I don't know that I agree with it being a serious concern if the editorial process is strong, which it appears to be. The fact that it is frequently cited in reliable sources, I feel, should be adequate to suggest that the source produces reliable and accurate information. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

PocketMeta

Find video game sources: "PocketMeta" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo What would you say about the reliability of this source? Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 02:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

More specifically, I want to use this review: [4] Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 02:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Their "About Us" only says "PocketMeta is the best source for mobile gaming and apps, from news and reviews to tips and guides." Nothing implying an editorial policy, or professionalism. Authors provide no credentials. So...unreliable. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Their "Contact Us" says 'You are however free to submit a monetary offer to publish such an article using the “Advertising Request” choice in the drop down menu' which seems like a red flag too - Unreliable IMO. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

HUGE red flag. Yikes. Unreliable -- ferret (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Haha. Unreliable. Typical cookie cutter blog. I looked at reviews to see if any were actually tagged as paid and there were like 2 alarm clock apps on the same page. It's just some guy making blog posts. And not disclosing ads, apparently. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 13:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how I did not see that. Thanks! Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 14:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Unreliable - this one seems pretty clear, but just to cement it, since we seem to keep on revisiting websites - it fails WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

EssentiallySports

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

This is a source I've been meaning to ask about a while ago but never really got the chance to. I've seen EssentiallySports used in quite a few gaming YouTuber/Twitch streamer pages, such as Ludwig Ahgren, KSI, Dream, Valkyrae and TommyInnit among other BLPs, but oddly enough I wasn't able to find any discussion of the source on here nor WP:RSP. What are your thoughts on its reliability for esports and gaming topics? PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

It's got a tagline that's "from the fan's perspective", a random selection of author bios on the front page doesn't have anyone with any claimed journalism credentials (the people on the editorial team do, at least), and I don't see it getting referenced by other reliable sources. I would say it looks plainly unreliable, with a blog-like setup. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

hisses in displeasure at infinite scroll Every time I try to access links in the footer and it disappears as more page loads, over and over. Boosts that 350 stories a day are published, which I doubt, but if so, there is no way their listed team of editors (about 8-9) could cover that. Buried in the about us, after all the stats and in the news and everything else that screams "we once read a Wikipedia RS discussion, we have Owned by Full Spectrum Services LLP, EssentiallySports has an alumni network of over 1000 people. The staff page lists 96 writers. This page appears to literally and very deliberately check every box we normally look for to the point I feel it can't be coincidental. Not that that, in and of itself, is a disqualification. Just read through this FAQ though, and it's like someone read a discussion on this very page so addressed every point that commonly comes up. I hesitate to say unreliable, but I'm bothered by this approach. They have an Ethics Page, and Editorial Page, a Fact Checking Page, a Corrections page. Page after page describing how reliable they are in very overlapping terms. -- ferret (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I took a quick glance to the esport/gaming section itself. They publish over 20-25 stories a day in this section alone, which is a little niche sub-culture of their primary coverage of physical sports. That's a LOT of stories. This section is labelled and presented as "Esports" but is really general video game content farm. At the moment, the most recent story is "Think Golf Is Tough? Here Is How To Solve The Hardest Putting Puzzles In Zelda: Tears Of The Kingdom", a how-to article for the latest Zelda game. At the bottom of this is a "Let us know your thoughts in the comments". I like to check this to see what kind of engagement a site ACTUALLY gets. Standard Disqus system. There's no comments. None of the 11 articles posted May 19 have any comments or engagement, though of course that has little to do with WP:RS. Rohit Sejwal has written 22 articles in the past week that are Zelda how tos. This is super content mill. Side note, each article I view, my ad blocker blocks 20-30 ads. -- ferret (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@David Fuchs and Ferret: I did see that per WP:USEBYOTHERS they've been referenced in outlets such as Dot Esports, Sports Illustrated, Insider (culture) and ClutchPoints, albeit in basic name-drops where each outlet cited their information from. I actually did notice their fact-checking and ethics policy too, but they do publish a lot of material reminiscent of sites such as Sportskeeda and Game Rant. Kind of a close call, but I would argue situational at best. Some of their writers do seem to have journalistic experience according to their individual writer bios and the editorial page, but it's debatable how much of that experience really shows in their articles. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Unreliable per Fuchs and Ferret. Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of Wccftech

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

I've opened up a discussion about Wccftech on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Wccftech_articles and I would appreciate if more people left their opinions on the matter. - nathanielcwm (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this either closed as inconclusive or unreliable at the time it was sent to the archives. See discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 404#RfC: Wccftech articles. Anyone want to tip the scales or read the consensus differently? Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

DBLTAP

This is its about page. It seems to be associated with/owned by Minute Media which also owns Mental Floss, The Big Lead, FanSided, 90min, and The Players' Tribune.

Relevant discussions included these on Fansided (from 2016, and 2014) and on Mental Floss (from 2021). Those discussions lean toward those two being unreliable, but they are both mainly outside of the scope WP:VG (FanSided is more for non-esports sports, Mental Floss is more of an infotainment magazine), and so I think the DBLTAP can be separately considered.

Considering the that a search for DBLTAP pops up 86 articles using it, with it being primarily used in esports-related articles, I'd figure we should assess it. Soulbust (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning unreliable - they have an established staff, but there's very little in the way of professional credentials. Max Mallow wrote for Fansided (unreliable) and AppTrigger (unevaluated). Their "Head of Video" worked for Marvel, which is impressive...but it's not enough to make up for the lack of exp everywhere else. Sergecross73 msg me 22:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

CinemaBlend

Three discussions on this source from 2010, April 2015, and August 2015. I feel like this might deserve a revisiting since it's been nearly 8 years since the last discussion on it. The source is now owned by Future plc, which also publishes GamesRadar+, which WP:VG/RS considers reliable. Here is CinemaBlend's about page.

Would also be helpful to get some discussion on their podcast, ReelBlend. Of course, the website and their podcast are slanted toward movies. But somewhat related to video games, here is an example of a film review and of an interview. Soulbust (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Future has been gobbling up a lot of websites. I've had to rethink some of my opinions of these websites, I suppose, but I'm not rethinking my opinions on CinemaBlend. I just looked at their front page, and it's still the same junk source as always. It's basically a glorified content farm like Screen Rant. You should avoid it, but there may conceivably be usable content hidden among all the useless junk. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate Yeah, I was pondering if this interview could perhaps be usable for Spider-Verse related articles. I know that since that's film-related and outside of the scope of WP:VG that perhaps the WP:VG/RS assessment may not apply to that, but I know that the site also publishes video game-related content, so I figured I'd start up a revisiting of its reliability on here for posterity.

The actual CinemaBlend website does seem like it pumps out articles in a content farm manner like Sergecross73 mentioned. But I was wondering if the ReelBlend podcast possibly warrants a different assessment, because of its interview content in particular? For example, the Last of Us TV series adaptation falls under the scope of WP:VG, so could/would that interview with the cinematographer of the show (well, of 3 of its episodes) be considered usable/reliable for related articles? Soulbust (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

You could run it by WP:RSN and see what they say, but people talking about themselves would probably be OK. As technology progresses, though, it's going to get harder to cite questionable sources. There's just going to be too much doubt. Eventually, we're likely to reach the point where content farms consist mostly of AI-generated stories full of deepfakes. See this story that alleges CNET has been experimenting with undisclosed AI-generated stories and pressuring journalists to star in advertisements. If this sort of thing catches on, it'll be bad for Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Unreliable per NinjaRobotPirate above. Content farm/churnalism content. Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Honestly, I feel as though there's merit to having a third category of sources. I feel like Destructoid, for instance, is on a different level than CinemaBlend. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Destructoid is listed as "situational" and CinemaBlend as "unreliable", so they're already on different levels, no? – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Well I was more in the headspace of "if CinemaBlend was listed a situational." So instead use GameRant. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the whole thing is a bit of a spectrum anyway. I don't think anybody really considers, say, Bleeding Cool or Red Bull equal with Time or The New York Times, for example, but they're all listed under the same category anyway. More would likely be unnecessary. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Pure Nintendo

Find video game sources: "Pure Nintendo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

It is currently listed as a source with inconclusive discussions. It seems reliable to me, as I do not see any red flags and they have a print magazine. What do you think? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

What part looks reliable to you? Looks like a run of the mill fansite to me... Sergecross73 msg me 17:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I could not see anything that pointed to it not being reliable. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

We work the other way. We don't look for "this makes it unreliable", we look for "this makes it reliable". You've provided zero evidence it's reliable. No editorial policy posted, staff do not list any press or journalism credentials outside of this site. Staff page includes both "writers" and "contributors", which makes it appear there's freelance work going on. No evidence that other sites consider them a reliable source of information. Magazine is interesting but in the day of self-publishing doesn't mean much. "600+" subscribers, including digital, claimed. Not exactly a broad circulation. -- ferret (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

On one hand, their staff roster seems like their main qualification is being Nintendo fans. That said, plenty of sources marked reliable have similar listed qualifications being their gaming experience/love, such as Digitally Downloaded (wittiest and most passionate crew of gamers) or Waypoint (Vice), where one of the writer bios only notes (...the Senior Writer at Waypoint, and he's been covering video games for more than 20 years) in terms of qualifications. Kotaku has staff bios saying things like (a staff writer at Kotaku, and he still cries about the Mass Effect trilogy years after it concluded).

The above said, if it is accepted, a warning about a Nintendo bias might be worth including. A lot of console specific sites go as far as saying something like 'Persona 5 Tactica is releasing on Nintendo Switch', omitting the PS4/5 and Xbox versions, for example this recent news post from them. Same for any mentions of performance issues with 'the game', as this could be and often is a Switch-specific issue.

On the other side, they're on MetaCritic and OpenCritic, which are both positive flags. They also seem to run a print magazine. Both are indicators that it's not a run of the mill fansite. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to add, Engadget have cited them here, but other than that, I don't see many notable links to them. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding things a bit. The problem is when "being fans of video games" is their only credentials. The likes of Kotaku and Waypoint had many other credentials. Writers who have experience at reputable other websites, writers with education/degrees related to writing, etc. "Being fans" is only an issue when it's clearly a placeholder for actual credentials. Sergecross73 msg me 22:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The above three mentioned are certainly reliable. I just added that in because I've seen several replies to other sources (such as Gaming Gorilla above recently) dismissing sites by citing the author bios/staff pages, when those types of author bios seem quite common for gaming sites. Not saying "can you find any credentials to evidence reliability?", but referring to the fact that they don't cite credentials in immediate view as a sign of unreliability. Perhaps it's a little bugbear of mine, but it's heading off saying that they're unreliable due to that, rather than saying it doesn't have that sign of reliability in obvious view and further research is needed.

In terms of Pure Nintendo, I don't think they have any. The founder appears to work in ICT and a spot check of several LinkedIns doesn't show anything promising. Several writers I checked only seem to write for them. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Unreliable - run of the mill fansite, writers do not seem to have any professional credentials, just "loving video games". Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: @Ferret: Should I move it to unreliable now? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd support that. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

thumbs up -- ferret (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

WIN.gg

When searching for sources on vg articles I work on, I often notice this source. Haven't used it and haven't seen a discussion on here about it. A search here on Wikipedia shows that it's used on many articles for streamers/gamers such as Destiny (streamer), Valkyrae, QTCinderella, Jerma985, and Eric Hansen (chess player). Wondering what others feel about the source? This is their about page, for reference. Soulbust (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Leaning unreliable unless there's more information to be found on them elsewhere. There's only 3 staff listed, all managers of sorts, with no info or background listed on them. Not sure if they're just 3 people with fancy sounding job titles churning out all the content, or if they're accepting submissions or something. Either way, there's nothing present that shows they have credentials or even history in the industry. They dont even seem to have standardized company email addresses. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Second what Sergecross says--I tend to remove it when I see it because there's just not enough indication that the site has significant editorial standards. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Gaming Gorilla

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

Gaming Gorilla is a gaming-focused blog that is part of Wealthy Gorilla LLC. While this by itself isn't anything to write home about, Gaming Gorilla did acquire ProClockers.com last year, an outlet with two citations on Wikipedia, those being present on Android version history and Civilization VI. ProClockers themselves were a hardware-focused outlet that seemingly dates back to 2004, while the parent company Wealthy Gorilla LLC describes itself as having 200,000 followers on social media. So with two video game-related citations already on Wikipedia, I think it needs to be assessed as to whether Gaming Gorilla specifically is reliable or not. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'd say let's start by you saying why you think they might be reliable. Too often people are coming to this page to ask and not present a view. Do you have anything to suggest they *are* reliable? -- ferret (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It's more so the the fact that they've already been cited on Wikipedia as ProClockers, prior to when they were acquired, so I just want to go over and see if they could be used as a source for other articles, or see if they aren't a suitable outlet to use for citations on Wikipedia. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable sources are cited all the time, and subsequently removed once someone takes note. Having been cited by a random editor is not a hallmark of being reliable. -- ferret (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah so I want to straighten it out if they are reliable or not - and if they aren't, then I want to remove them from the pages they're currently cited on. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• No, it's just one of those crappy infotainment blogs built purely for ad revenue. The founder claims that Gaming Gorilla is one of several "infotainment blogs" he has founded.[5] The others are about self-development and workout routines.[6] The founder and other writers do not have any professional credentials. Apparently we should trust their content because their two gaming article writers "have spent over 20 years playing video games".[7] Most of their articles are top 10 lists or game guide content. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 15:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, then I say mark it unreliable and get rid any citations they or ProClockers have on Wikipedia. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hold on. We should evaluate ProClockers separately. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Although, I'm leaning towards unreliable for them as well, considering that they operate off of social media. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  While I don't believe this particular source is reliable for most the reasons you've stated, I'd not hold their 'credentials' of 'over 20 years playing video games' as a point against them.

  Plenty of sources marked reliable have similar notes, such as Digitally Downloaded (wittiest and most passionate crew of gamers) or Waypoint (Vice), where one of the writer bios actually notes (...the Senior Writer at Waypoint, and he's been covering video games for more than 20 years). Kotaku's 'About Me' is more about inclusivity, while some of their staff bios just say things like (a staff writer at Kotaku, and he still cries about the Mass Effect trilogy years after it concluded).

  Not saying the above aren't reliable - they've got other hallmarks of reliability. Just noting that it's not uncommon in the gaming space to talk about gaming experience as their 'qualifications'. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

To follow up from earlier, I view both sites as unreliable. No one has presented a view or opinion that they're reliable, and I agree with Tarkus's analysis. -- ferret (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Super Eyepatch Wolf

Find video game sources: "...Super Eyepatch Wolf..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Independent video game critic and Youtuber. Recently used to justify the inclusion of Fear & Hunger. Due to his array of deep dive video game videos I'd like there to be a consensus on whether or not he counts towards notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I would've thought no.

It's a self-published channel on a website for user-generated content. He's not a professional journalist as far as I can see, no editorial control or standards that are noted, not on aggregate sizes like Meta/OpenCritic, and seems to primarily cover anime rather than games. It looks like he's been noted to include some incorrect information in his videos too.

On the plus side, they did have a single guest article in Giant Bomb (though it was a list), an article about them in a local paper which seems to be by a fan of theirs, and some podcast appearances. And of course they're a fairly large channel with a fairly good reputation generally. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

There's the argument in WP:SELFPUBLISH that self-published sources can be reliable when the person is a subject-matter expert. I will say that despite a listicle being what was published, it feels more like a reasoned review than your typical listicle clickbait, and actually goes into discussing *why* most of the games there are good on a personal level. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

On being an SME - I'd suggest that it'd need to be evidenced that he is beyond his own channel. And if he was, I expect he'd be one for anime, not games as that's what he's known for. The argument in WP:SELFPUBLISHED seems to be that their work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications (Giant Bomb is listed as situational, only reliable for the reviews and news by the site staff), and I can't see much beyond that listicle from him in terms of other publications.

As an aside, I do think the method that Wikipedia uses here is an issue, since it essentially creates somewhat of a dynasty, but that's how it works currently.

On the listicle, I don't think it's any better than the standard blog review or listicle and many entries are worse. Many of them barely even talk about the game. The House of Fata Morgana is listed as 10 but he says he put the game down and never played again. The Great Ace Attorney talks more about Digimon than the that game. These sort of things talk about his personal experience, but don't really connect it to insights about or analysis of the game. Some are just really basic too, such as Disco Elysium which is very briefly described as "feels like a game from an alternate timeline where Mario talked instead of jumped".

The Resident Evil one goes beyond the standard listicle, but certainly doesn't evidence any expertise. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems unreliable to me. With no evidence that he's an expert on video games, he's just another YouTuber. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree unreliable. Not demonstrated he's an expert in the field. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thirded. -- ferret (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Just in case my opinion wasn't clear above - fourth unreliable DarkeruTomoe (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi! As the editor who posted this citation, I'm largely going to repost my note from the talkpage as I think it's applicable here as well. WP:RELIABILITY is a real and important content guideline, but WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Citations are reliable with regard to the thing that citation is being used to cite. This citation is not being used to back up any material factual assertion, much in the same way other articles' might cite game reviews to back up subjective assertions about people's impressions and reactions without (necessarily) prepending every sentence with "According to IGN ... " or "According to GameRadar ... " etc. I think WP:RSEDITORIAL is also relevant here, specifically the parts about editorial / review content and how they mix up opinion, simple content summary, and statements of scholarship or fact, and are probably less viable and valid for the third, but remain in scope for the first two. I generally think of all YouTube as self-publishing platform, and therefore comes with all the related caveats around self-publishing, and it should generally be avoided for the purpose of citing scholarship or facts. However, as a subjective appraisal of the content being discussed, obviously there is a spectrum of scale here. Using some random YouTube video essay or review about a video game that has 10 views is probably not a good idea in any article. But that changes with the scale of the audience: a game review you write and show to your parents is not something worth citing. A game review that you write and can independently demonstrate has been read 2 million times probably is in scope for citation. The note above about "random YouTuber" implies that an editorial, opinion work with ~several hundred views and a work with several million views are essentially the same, which ... idk if that is your actual intent here, but if it is then I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. These are not the same, so dismissing as "random YouTuber" seems a little ad hominem and not really engaging with the context of the work, or the context in which it is being used in the article. Ford MF (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

But also like, literally just clicking through the helper links in this template, you see the author being referenced across a wide swath of publications: news books scholar Ford MF (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

So on WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, if anything, I'd think that'd support not including it. Specifically 'In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication'. As a self-published source, unless there's evidence of a team behind the script of his content and not the norm (him, maybe a video editor, maybe someone to help with other bits), it seems it's just one person checking facts.

WP:RSEDITORIAL talks about specialists and recognized experts, but doesn't seem to include size as a factor. Otherwise, we'd have to consider popular but unreliable sources that spam casino links like NicheGamer or YouTubers that make statements for shock value/more views. On a common sense basis, I would suggest size is a factor, but not something that alone would make something reliable.

In terms of sources, they'd need to be considered individually, but a lot of the notable news sources that I see only really seem to support him being a big enough Youtuber to invite onto their podcasts or report news about. Book sources seem to primarily link videos of his on the anime topic, not games, which leads back to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS 'editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible'.

On a personal level, looking at his content, I think there's a good chance he'd not be any worse in quality than some of the sources marked as reliable. I don't see sufficient evidence for it based on the way that Wikipedia editors evidence these things though, which is an issue, but not one we can resolve here. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Unreliable per above. Self-published YouTuber. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Super Eyepatch Wolf's "reliability" is frankly irrelevant in terms of establishing notability. Any source can be reliable for things like the opinions of the source author or even basic information on how the game works. Virtually no critical review of any piece of media is a "reliable" source for every single factual claim its author might want to make. We can probably dismiss a secondary source as unreliable if, on comparison with the primary source, it becomes apparent that the secondary source author did not know what they are (in this case he is) talking about, but ... is that the case here. SEW's videos are self-published, but SEW is probably relatively notable as a YouTuber and (unlike with the case of the most recent video of fellow anime/gaming YouTuber Hbomberguy) it doesn't look like anyone is trying to cite this particular self-published source for WP:BLP information (which is specifically prohibited under virtually all circumstances). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Bounding Into Comics

This is more a formality than anything, but myself and several other editors have seen and mentioned that BiC is not a reliable source given their opinions on certain topics, which conflicts with their about page statement stating they strive for accuracy. Mainly bringing them up here because they are cited on Google News, and I'm seeing them get increasingly mentioned as a source for some more controversial takes in AfDs or the recent matters regarding diversity on Final Fantasy XVI wikipedia page.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Unreliable - This makes Fox News coverage of the 2020 election look NPOV! I doubt anything they say is even close to reliable, and it is definitely not WP:DUE. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I saw Axem Titanium mention they were unreliable earlier, though I'm not sure if that was based off of a prior discussion or just their own stance. Either way, they may want to chime in. Personally, I'm troubled they so casually throw around commentary like "sinful acts of grave depravity" on items that aren't labeled as at least opinion pieces or something. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Reviewed their about page. No one had any professional credentials. One person specifically outlined that they write things to "trigger" people. Unreliable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I saw a few negative discussions at WP:RS/N, hence my edit. They seem to be part of the larger right wing culture war grift. Remove on sight. Unreliable. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm personally skeptical about their reliability but don't think the 'Cis' article would prove a lack of accuracy (even if I personally have a bad opinion of those involved), as all they do is quote the people speaking about it. They don't seem to add in any information themselves, just state what others said, so it's difficult to say they're giving inaccurate information. We should be careful not to exclude them due to their political alignment though. No professional credentials mentioned (which I'd assume they don't have, but for balance often aren't found without digging), but it looks like at least one has written for ScreenRant (situational) and GamePro (reliable).

> Slade has been writing for some of the most prolific pop culture publications since the mid-90s, including GamePro, CinemaBlend, ScreenRant, and more DarkeruTomoe (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

A single writer on the team writing for GamePro isn't really enough to move the needle for the entire website. (We don't consider CinemaBlend reliable, and Screenrant is only marginally acceptable, so not much there either.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention considering some of the stuff he's writing for the site makes me not want to consider him even situational...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Seeing that, it makes me wonder if GamePro (reliable) and ScreenRant (situational) need to be looked into for re-evaluation, since they have him as a writer... DarkeruTomoe (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Despite his claims, I couldn't find him under Screenrant as is, unless he was going on by a pseudonym on there (but then again if we was why list it?)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable. See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_293#The_Reliability_of_"Bounding_into_Comics" and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_387#Bounding_into_Comics -- ferret (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable. It does look like they have a few experienced writers, but that's almost never enough to make an unreliable publisher reliable. That usually requires new management, new editors, and new policies. Without that overhaul, it's just crank authors finally getting to write content that would've been killed by their previous publisher's editorial process. Woodroar (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable. This is one of those clear-as-day cases. No need to even consider them at all. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 13:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Unreliable Of course. Is there a reason this would even be a question? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  While I agree unreliable, I do think it's worth a question since they're easily dismissed due to their (horrible) opinions on certain topics... which is how we get situations like the Onimai page, where we have all outlets cited typically very anti-fanservice, sensitive about how the gender changing theme is handled, etc and primarily damning it, despite the extremely positive audience reception. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Noisy Pixel

Find video game sources: "Noisy Pixel" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I don't believe Noisy Pixel has been discussed yet, but I've seen it appear in articles on occasion and used them myself, but I have noticed some questionable stuff from them, so I thought I'd check opinions. They mostly cover anime games, but also other games and anime, light novels, manga, and so on.

Positives:

They appear to be quick and, mostly accurate as far as news goes in most instances, so usually seem to be a good source for that. In particular, they have a lot of coverage for visual novel news, which is a niche enough topic that very few websites report on it at all. As an example, I can only find two other websites reporting on the recent release announcement of Nukitashi, a highly-regarded visual novel (1, 2).

They're influential enough to get interviews with a staff from companies such as GUST and Spike Chunsoft and previews of games. They're listed on both MetaCritic and OpenCritic and rank well in search results in their niche.

Negatives:

I'd suggest that the quality of many of their reviews varies between low to average due to not providing much in the way of analysis or beyond surface level discussion on mechanics/story, but this is very subjective and they're good enough for aggregate sites. Perhaps related to this, they were 'called out' (not by name, but they were the only ones with a review up then) by industry peers for posting a JRPG review before it would've been possible to spend significant time playing the long game, throwing into question the accuracy of their reviews.

They made incorrect claims in this and this news post regarding Dungeon Travellers 2 having a 'touching minigame', which was mentioned as incorrect by the PR for the game company.

They were also recently mentioned as having broken embargo on Redfall, which speaks against their professionalism.

Another blow to professionalism is that they were called out recently for this headline, which is misrepresenting the situation in a way that could get hate-clicks (clickbait). The content in the article itself is all accurate though.

This isn't a few issues over a long history - it's all things noted over the span of a few weeks that have been noticed by readers and posted about.

Other:

They describe themselves as "dedicated gamers and writers from across the gaming industry", but then go onto say they're "actual players and fans of the industry". They don't list industry experience, but the CEO used to write for Dual Shockers, which is a 'Situational' source.

I'd not list this as positive or negative, as while relevant experience at other outlets is a positive indicator, it's not a necessity. And many 'Reliable' sources at gaming websites have similar author bios where it focuses on their interest, rather than any expertise they may have. For example, Digitally Downloaded (wittiest and most passionate crew of gamers) or Waypoint (Vice), where one of the writer bios actually notes (...the Senior Writer at Waypoint, and he's been covering video games for more than 20 years).

Edit Log: Updated with further information as new negatives came to light on further research and added example to clarify.

DarkeruTomoe (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I've used them as a source here and there without issue. They've been good for coverage in more niche or Japanese games, much like Siliconera and Gematsu. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

If Noisy Pixels does not exist, I would have A LOT OF TROUBLE writing about visual novels. For example, I am desperately searching for a review for Atri: My Dear Moments. MilkyDefer 11:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "i wouldn't be able to source these topics" doesn't really act as a criteria for letting a source be reliable. We have to be cognizant of not approving/elevating unreliables sources for the sake of having something that covers a given media. -- ferret (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Visual novels are definitely a difficult one. English-language media that cover them aside from press release spins, occasional other news, and reviews of those that don't make it to console tend to be specialist ones, so they often don't fit into that 'wrote at x well-known publication' that seems to be brought up sometimes, even if they have other signals of reliability.

I had a search around for Atri reviews, but NoisyPixel does seem to be the only one that could be considered reliable that's covered it. None of these seem like they'd meet requirements, with no real mention of editorial oversight, not listed on aggregators, and a brief check showing reviews coming out long after release date suggesting they may not have good publisher connections : Frontline JP, Sinical Anime Network, The Pixels. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

For many VNs, these sources are mostly in print form, even in 2010s. If someone looks at the Japanese ver of the article Hatsuyuki Sakura, which is a GA, they will find that many of the content is supported by the print sources, such as BugBug, Dengeki Hime, Tech Gian. So47009 (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way I remember Nintendo of America quoting them in a media review trailer for Zelda: TotK. MilkyDefer 11:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Lack of any judgment calls here, but I'm tempted to say unreliable after checking out some LinkedIn.

Their CEO doesn't have any professional qualifications in journalism, having worked for as PR for a year and currently as a 'Customer Success Manager' (he's a computer science major). Their Tech Editor is in graphic design. Their Editor in Chief comes the closest with a B.F.A in Creative Writing (which does lend itself to jokes about the inaccurate information published) but no other experience than news for a Kingdom Hearts fansite. A number of recent errors or issues with professionalism have been pointed out above, which go against a reputation for reliability too.

I've used them myself as a source and they do cover things that are otherwise difficult to source, but the same arguments used elsewhere on this page for unreliability seem to apply to them and there's not much in the positive column other than their influence and position on MetaCritic (which didn't help the recently unreliable marked Pure Nintendo). DarkeruTomoe (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I tried and tried to come up with a way to rationalize them being reliable, but couldn't. Their CEO wrote for Operation Rainfall and Dualshockers...but we don't consider either of those reliable. No one else really has any experience. I also caught them revising a contentious claim without comment or clarification of what they revised, which is not how professional publications do things. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record/future looks at Noisy Pixel, what was the claim that you caught them revising? DarkeruTomoe (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

MacHome Journal

Find video game sources: "...MacHome Journal..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Doesn't look this like this was discussed here or anywhere else. Around 1979 urls are listed [8] that can be used and they list more than 1000 software and hardware reviews [9]. Can this source be considered reliable? Timur9008 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why not. It was a print mag that ran from 1991 to 2006, and back in the heyday of print media was one of the Big Three Mac magazines (alongside Macworld and Macaddict.) Had a proper editorial staff and masthead, issued corrections, the whole shebang. I don't know if their web content was any different from their magazine, but I assume it went through the same editorial processes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Can it be added to reliable sources then? Timur9008 (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it was recommended by The Baltimore Sun, and the Chicago Tribune considered it a notable competitor to MacWorld at one point. I'd say it's roughly equivalent to MacWorld and other IDG properties, such as PC World. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Racketboy

Find video game sources: "Racketboy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Saw this used a few places, and I think it'd be valuable to get a conclusive consensus on whether or not this is reliable for use at all. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• They've been cited by numerous RSs per their About page, which is always a plus, but it seems to be a one-man operation. I'm not seeing anything in the way of staff or editorial policies. So it's a no from me at the moment, but I'm open to reconsidering if anyone is able to dig up something. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 11:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• I would consider Racketboy as a situational source. I've used it in some articles (particularly the rare and expensive game articles) and found it similar to sites like Time Extension and RetroCollect (prior to that website wiping out all of their news articles about retro games). Like Joe said, it is a one-man operation kinda like Gematsu. Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• I tried to find sources that mention Racketboy.

Wired

1Up

Game Informer

Kotaku

Kotaku

Kotaku

Google search "racketboy site:arstechnica.com"

Some of the praise is good, some not so much. Personally, I only know Racketboy for their "rare & valuable" lists, like KGRAMR mentioned. And the problem with those lists is that they are everchanging, both in terms of games on the list and their grey market values. I'm not super confident they are useful. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 04:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@TarkusAB:In that regard, i would suggest using the updated lists. If it's an outdated list, then that must be removed until an updated version is available. Roberth Martinez (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Inven.co.kr

Find video game sources: "Inven.co.kr" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo This website appears to be related to Inven Global, which was listed as reliable for eSports. I'm curious as to see whether this is reliable or not as it reports on different content. The Night Watch (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

General guidance against bot-generated journalism

"Members of the WoW subreddit suspected their words were being extracted and used to create news stories by a bot. So they laid a trap, uploading excitable posts about a new feature called Glorbo. The only problem? It doesn't exist. But that didn't stop an article appearing on gaming site Zleague." - BBC

It's probably time to explicitly say that bot-generated journalism is generally unreliable. Does someone want to try WP:BOLDly adding something here? Shooterwalker (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't think we'd need to specify that, but if others feel differently I don't see an issue plainly stating it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

There's progress towards guideline/policy at WP:LLM#Basic guidance #6. "LLM-created works are not reliable sources. Unless their outputs were published by reliable outlets with rigorous oversight, they should not be cited in our articles.". Sounds like any site with content like this would instantly fail to be reliable under such criteria. We should probably just wait for the broader guideline instead of creating additional fragmented guidelines. Informally though, we should not use such sources. But I don't oppose if someone wants to add something to that effect to the page. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 21:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

> Sounds like any site with content like this would instantly fail to be reliable under such criteria

It sounds like quite a few 'reliable' sites are going to be using AI to some level going forward, so some may not agree that it's as straightforward as 'any site with AI content instantly fails' (seeing the Kotaku/etc discussion above as one example).

This particular 'Glorbo' example seems to have been published under an author name too, rather than a more obvious AI content label DarkeruTomoe (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

If a site does not disclaim they used LLM for content, then they are purely unreliable. We can never trust them to do any fact-checking. This is why I said "any site with content like this" referring to the Glorbo site that not only had undisclosed LLM content, but pretended to be written by someone.

But if an otherwise reliable source publishes some LLM content and tags it as such - then that's no different then a reliable source publishing a trailer or press release or ad or something equally unedited - we just don't use that specific content unless we have a good reason. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 17:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, that's more or less the same way we often treat websites that support things like user-blogs or wikis (like IGN.) As long as they label it, we can simply stay away from the bad stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Those sites need to label any AI work, or not use it at all. If they try to blend it in, without any transparency, that could become a problem. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)