Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 9

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games‎ | Sources
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Woodroar in topic The Mary Sue
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

CG Magazine

Latest comment: 9 years ago23 comments11 people in discussion

Find video game sources: "CGM" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo I was speaking with some of the people earlier about the validity of this site. Some of the issues included staff, and being cited elsewhere. My editor Wayne Santos has worked in the industry for around 20 years at IGN, Game Axis, and The Examiner. Here you go for proof.

http://www.behance.net/Shoeless http://books.google.ca/books?id=DekDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=wayne+santos+game+axis&source=bl&ots=pDXvZwE00X&sig=zIrDjptLoTL6uXcGHdlPTdUFhug&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wVN2U97EMNGiyATUjILYBw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=wayne%20santos%20game%20axis&f=false http://ca.ign.com/articles/2007/10/20/rock-band-ps3-hands-on http://www.cgmagonline.com/articles/editorials/microsoft-can-retake-north-america-now/

And another one of our writers write for a few different places deemed reputable by Wikipedia. http://www.joystiq.com/editor/brittany-vincent http://www.maximumpc.com/user/brittany_vincent http://www.cgmagonline.com/reviews/yaiba-ninja-gaiden-z-review/

Here's Phil Brown's Rotten Tomatoes link, he writes for us as well. He writes for The Globe and Mail. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/philip-brown/ http://www.cgmagonline.com/reviews/godzilla-2014-review/

As for links to other publications citing us... http://jin115.com/archives/51976243.html http://jin115.com/archives/52012383.html vidaextra.com rpgwatch.com bluesnews.com railgun.newz.dk kicktraq.com http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Nintendo-moechte-keine-Homo-Ehe-im-Spiel-Tomodachi-Life-2186464.html http://bindingofisaac.com/post/82762252439/thats-not-a-knife

And we are partners with Maker. And we are part of Magazines Canada. https://www.magazinescanada.ca/consumer?id=507

I hope this is enough information for you guys to look over. If you need more let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody Orme (talk • contribs) 20:27, 16 May 2014‎ (UTC)

@Cody Orme: I've noticed this magazine spammed across many reception sections lately. I'd recommend taking a look at the WP:COI guidelines and not doing that. If it's a source worth adding, we'll do so, but there isn't normally a reason to do so unless there is an absence of sources from the usual places or a particularly important point made from another outlet. czar ♔ 21:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. Unfortunately, CGM has two features that I consider "quick fails" when evaluating sources: lack of an editorial board/policies page listing credentials of editors and journalists, and a prominent "submit articles" link. Woodroar (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - per Woodroar above me. Also, even if it ever was deemed reliable, it still wouldn't be okay for people to spam it across articles like a few editors were blocked for earlier today. Wikipedia isn't for advertizing. Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Non-RS - I wouldn't go so far as to call it unreliable, but I don't think the evidence exists that it's reliable. I'm with Woodroar on the user-submission feature, and mainly I don't see evidence that it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". There is next to no coverage of or citation to this source from our other RSes. I'd be open to considering it situational (for staff-generated, non-user-submitted content) some time down the road, but for now I'm not feeling it. -Thibbs (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe situational depending on the author individual credibility(?). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Everything's situational based on the individual authors—no need to list it separately as such czar ♔ 23:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It doesn't appear to be reliable because I could not find any reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Additionally, the lack of editorial policy page is not a good sign. Regarding the reputation, I couldn't find any other publications discussing the site, or even acknowledging its existence in the industry. The best I could find is C&G Magazine donated games and the donation was mentioned [1]. For the site to be considered reliable, I usually like to see other publications using it as a source, or awards given to the publication, or other publications mentioning it as a great news source. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • There's this from Bluesnews as well. That's the best I could find as far as reputation is concerned. -Thibbs (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't personally count interviews for anything (though I do consider interviews reliable; they just don't support the reliability of the site). Even if IGN were to quote an interview that CGMag did, the only thing they'd be relying on is that CGMag didn't completely falsify an interview, which is a much, much lower bar than fact-checked and accurate reporting. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

From my experience, I haven't seen any "user submissions" as for being cited by other publications I did provide links to four different websites. Also, I am not an editor there. So the comment saying more than one editor was spamming(which we weren't) is invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.188.84 (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the red flag is that the site accepts user submissions. This generally corresponds to low quality blog-type content with dubious editing. Other sites we've had to re-evaluate their content for these types of things: Examiner.com, Forbes, etc. If some random dude can submit content to a site and get it published in their news section, it's usually a bad sign. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I see red flags when someone claims not to be a CGMag editor and then responds to accusations of spamming by CGMag editors with "we weren't"... -Thibbs (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of who added them, if Google boosting was their objective they were wasting their time as Wikipedia puts nofollow on all of its external links. - X201 (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

So essentially, you asked for support that the magazine is legitimate. I provide it then you changed the guidelines half way through. Also, every website has a user submission section. Even IGN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.188.84 (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  1. Theres still a bunch of criteria not met by above editors.
  2. The odds are definitely stacked against the website because you and or whoever else from it decided to spam it across a bunch of video game articles. When people come and do that, and only that, it looks a lot more about self-promotion and advertising, and a lot less about trying to actually better an encyclopedia. That's not okay. Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is shifting the goalposts here, 99.239.188.84. The evidence that some of the writers have legit credentials is helpful to your case, but it's not dispositive by any means. Many of the editors above have suggested that the magazine lacks evidence of a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Very few of the sources that WP:VG has identified as reliable cite CGMag, and those that do barely mention it. -Thibbs (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, we don't have a user submission section. We also have a physical magazine that is available for distribution. You can find us on Magazines Canada https://www.magazinescanada.ca/consumer?id=507. So, that would suggest that we are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.231.242 (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC) We're also available on Pocketmags.com http://pocketmags.com/viewmagazine.aspx?titleid=404&title=CGMagazine. These are distributors that demand reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody Orme (talk • contribs) 14:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you read anything that any of the "opposers" said? Or how Wikipedia defines a reliable source? Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have for both. However, the fact that some opposers are giving reasons that are not correct is frustrating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody Orme (talk • contribs) 18:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Non-RS: Sorry, but as the above have noted, there are significant enough concerns that this publication cannot be considered a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. The promotional editing from before is not helpful either. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, however we did fix some errors that were glossed over regarding reviews of certain games. We weren't trying to promote CGM, we were adding to certain reviews. Some of which didn't even have anything to support any kind of reception. I understand your concern, and I apologize for all this. We'd love to send each of you a print copy of our magazine to show that we are a legitimate source. I appreciate all the effort you are doing to ensure only quality items are put onto Wikipedia to keep the gaming section reputable. CGM is the only videogame print news source in Canada, so we would like to provide a voice for this country. Thank you for the consideration and your time, we apologize for any kind of confusion we may have caused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody Orme (talk • contribs) 13:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a worthy goal. In my opinion Wikipedia does have some degree of systemic bias that can only be corrected by broadening its source pool to include a diversity of perspectives. In that sense I'm eager to see reliable Canadian sources join the other English-language RSes, and I'm hopeful that we can eventually begin to incorporate reliable non-English sources as well. This is an area I really think we could improve upon. But the issue here is that a determination of reliability shouldn't be guided by goals of increased coverage even if this is a worthy goal. In other words we shouldn't be determining a source to be reliable simply because we need it to increase our coverage. The standard is intended to be more objective than that.
I think the best thing to do at this point is to give it some time and make a thorough job of researching the magazine and its coverage and if it meets all of the requirements of WP:VG/RS, WP:RS, and WP:SOURCE then present a unified case for it without being overly promotional. I hope we can gain some Canadian coverage, so good luck! -Thibbs (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A few from Metacritic

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I'm about to do some DLC reviews and I'm trying to see what kind of coverage they have. Could you weigh in for a final verdict on this bunch? They're used on Metacritic but they don't have VGRS consensus. czar ♔ 21:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Gamereactor Sweden

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

  • Previously discussed briefly: Archive 2. May also be "Game Reactor" or countries other than Sweden. About us czar ♔ 21:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Gamers' Temple

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

GameShark

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

  • Previously discussed briefly: Archive 1. This would be mostly to use through archive.org since the site is down. Still can be really useful for old stuff, such as this example. czar ♔ 21:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jappalang from the previous discussion that if it's a claim regarding GameShark codes then it's certainly reliable. Regarding whether its reviews and articles are reliable, there do seem to be a few sources that cite it (e.g. 1 and 2) and it has industry connections in that it is owned by Mad Catz), but I'm not sure that's enough to establish it. Perhaps situational reliability could be given to articles written by staffers who have previous VG journalism experience? -Thibbs (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Gaming Nexus

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

  • Previously discussed briefly: Archive 1. Have somewhat of an editorial policy, but acknowledge that they aren't paid professionals. czar ♔ 21:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Gaming Nexus has been around for a long time. It seems they used to be bigger in the industry, but they are now less recognized. I found articles that discuss their reporting, but most of the stuff is from circa 2004: Engadget, Videogamer.com, Joystiq, GamesIndustry.biz, Wired, IGN, IGN2, Joystiq 2 3, Kotaku 2. I think I'm going to go with unreliable here, and what pushed me over is this: when searching, I found that at least one of the staff writers, Mike Mahardy, takes his reviews for Gaming Nexus and copies and pastes them as user reviews over on GameInformer. See the bottom of this page with a review by "The Gamer of the People", which is a copy/paste of his Gaming Nexus review from here. It doesn't look good. Here's some others. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Steel Media: 148Apps and App Spy

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would appreciate some feedback on the Metacritic links above if anyone has a chance. Here are a two more with Steel Media, used in Metacritic for indie mobile video games. We've approved their Pocket Gamer, but I'd like opinions on where 148Apps and App Spy stand.

czar ♔ 18:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I've used "148 Apps" to save articles at AFD, for what it's worth. Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Legends of Localization, Polygon

Latest comment: 9 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

I feel that these websites should be marked as situational and reliable respectively. Legends of Localization is a website written by a Japanese-to-English translator who works in the industry on translation - as such, he should be reliable for facts related to translation and localization. As for Polygon, while it has a few authors who I find to be rather trashy and harmful (Arthur Gies, Ben Kuchera), it appears to have a fair number of reliable authors. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Polygon has already been recognized on this talk page here (also here and a few other places in the archives). I think it's safe to assume it's an RS and it should probably be added to the list. -Thibbs (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Clyde Mandelin (the person behind Legends of Localization) has loads of citations in the RSes. So yeah - Legends of Localization looks good for authoritative translations. Maybe localization in general too. -Thibbs (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I was under the impression that Polygon was settled. Haven't looked into LoL's reputation czar ♔ 03:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't aware, as the WP:VG/RS page wasn't updated. As for LoL's reputation, the author has worked in the industry on professional game localization with Capcom, and worked on the Mother 3 fan translation. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Looking back through the archives I find that objection to Polygon as an RS have been rare or nonexistent. There were a few objections to describing it as "established" when it was discussed for addition to the VGreviews infobox, although ultimately these didn't prove a bar to its addition. Other than that the only thing I can come up with is this article talkpage discussion where users critique Polygon for demonstrating "jumbled ideology" and "yellow journalism". Are there other objections that have been raised anywhere? -Thibbs (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
What's the "trashy and harmful" part of Ben Kuchera? He's got a rather respectable line of work from Ars Tech behind him to support him as as a strong source. I've also never seen anything about Gies either. --MASEM (t) 04:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I once looked into this and I found the most vitriol at NeoGAF and similar sites. Their Internet reputation accreted over time. czar ♔ 04:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I've seen Twitter exchanges with Kuchera - and especially Gies - that got really ugly and insulting. While they were not always the aggressors, they sometimes were, where they perhaps let the jerks get to them, but that doesn't excuse snapping at people who are making really civil statements at them. I'm not trying to suggest that they should not be used as a source, I was just making an off-handed comment about how I don't really like them much as people. :P - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 04:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I do know Kuchera is outspoken but that doesn't say anything towards reliability, unless they're building their opinion on completely wrong facts. (I believe he lamented to the point of bitterness when Comixology stripped ios-platform payments from its app and called it a terrible horrible thing, but that's being outspoken in opinion, not factually wrong). --MASEM (t) 05:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Kind of late to the party here, but yeah, while I don't always agree with Polygon's articles/writing, I do believe they meet Wikipedia's definition of a RS... Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Wait, so is Polygon reliable or not? Cause somebody used it for Lucario, and I want to know if this is considered fit for the article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Current consensus is that it is reliable. Some editors don't personally like it, but it checks all of our necessary boxes for Wikipedia criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I like the source; I just made an off-handed comment that I personally disliked some of its reliable authors. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, New Age Retro Hippie, that wasn't meant to be be an a backhanded comments towards you. I just mean in general. (And at GAF) Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Niche Gamer

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Indie games are more often covered by indie websites rather than the more mainstream websites. At least not initially anyway.

I am working on the Elysian Shadows page and before I integrate the following references I wanted someone to endorse them. I think they are reliable.

http://nichegamer.net/2014/06/elysian-shadows-interview-building-the-next-generation-2d-rpg/ --Cube b3 (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable: no indication of editorial oversight or professional journalism experience. czar ♔ 06:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
If being a "true gamer" and "starting his own website a year ago" are his main accreditations, then I'm going to have to agree. Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Sega-16

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I was going through the platform specific references and I was surprised that www.sega-16.com was not there as a reference for Sega Genesis/MegaDrive?--Cube b3 (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Not familiar with the site. Why are you surprised? It appears to be a blog-like Wordpress site.. What makes it reliable? Яehevkor ✉ 08:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Have you gone through the site? Books have been published that have used Sega-16 as a reference. IGN quotes them, they have interviewed more SEGA staff from the 90s than any other professional institution. They were the first to interview former presidents like Michael Katz and Tom Kalinske. If you look on there article you will see that the website is already being used as a reference.
It is not just another blog, look at the contents.
Anybody who knows the history of Sega Mega Drive knows of Sega-16.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Content alone is not really how a source is judged reliable. Having read the original discussion there could be a case for it being a situational source, but not a completely reliable one. Hopefully someone who is more familiar with the subject will chime in. Яehevkor ✉ 09:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
There was a recent conversation about this at Talk:Sega_Genesis#Sega-16.com (@TheTimesAreAChanging, Red Phoenix, and 70.49.80.26). Redirecting them here czar ♔ 22:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I've already given my opinion there, so it's not worth fully reciprocating again. It's important to recognize that Ken Horowitz is an established video game journalist who has been published in magazines, and in turn Sega-16 has been cited by Retro Gamer. That's what makes it a reliable source. However, sometimes his sources cited indicate some patchiness with facts, but not in all cases, so there should be a selectivity in using it and caution taken to ensure any facts are reliable. Red Phoenix let's talk... 01:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, see here. Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it really can be upgraded to a situational source at this point. With the amount of reliable sources pointing to it, and Ken's history, it's noteworthy and very useful.--SexyKick 05:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Altered Gamer guides any good?

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

At the very least, it's not a wiki like what IGN's guides have turned into. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

✗ All articles, reviews and guides are written by gamers like you. Topics are set up by game, genre and platform. [2]—not quite the editorial control that screams reliability. Prima has some decent online guides, depending on what you're looking for czar ♔ 22:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Should it go on the checklist now or once this is archived? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
We usually wait so other people can weigh in and so as to post the archived link without having to update, but I doubt you'd run into opposition if you added it now czar ♔ 11:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Rev3Games

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Find video game sources: "Rev3Games" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk · LinkSearch · CrossWiki · LinkTo

Pretty certain on this one's reliability, but it hasn't been listed yet. Owned by Discovery Digital Networks. About page reveals qualified executive team. Up until April this year, Adam Sessler (of RS G4 and X-Play) featured in much of the site's video-based content. CR4ZE (t • c) 10:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sega Saturn Magazine

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Find video game sources: "Sega Saturn Magazine" – news · books · scholar · images – VGRS · WPVG Talk I just added a sourced summary of the Sega Saturn Magazine review to the "Reception" section of Discworld (video game), and was reverted by User:Justin.Parallax, who said the review was not notable. So I went to check the list of sources in this article, and found that Sega Saturn Magazine is thus far not listed as either reliable of unreliable. So, I'm hereby proposing it be added to the list of reliable sources, under the "Platform-specific" subsection, natch. What else can I say... it's a professionally published, print magazine with a full editorial staff and ran for almost five years... frankly, I would have thought its reliability was obvious!--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - For all the reasons you listed above. Professionally published print magazine are almost always considered to be reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 01:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Print mag from veritable media company. Archive.org collection czar ♔ 01:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per above raised reasons. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, since support seems to be unanimous, I'll go ahead and add it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Ouya Central TV

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This is the official promotional website for all upcoming projects Ouya related. www.ouyacentral.tv

Please have a look.--Cube b3 (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If that's the official site then it falls under WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY. Be cautious when you use it that you're following these policies. -Thibbs (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. I'm not seeing any indication that the site is any sort of official channel. Moreover, I'm seeing no sign of editorial vetting. czar ♔ 23:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I can find no indication that this is an official site, the actual official site, Ouya.tv, never seems to make reference to it. What made you think it was official? Яehevkor ✉ 09:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Translations

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

What would be involved in the possibility of vetting GlitterBerri and Yomuka! as reliable sources? I guess some other Japanese translators would have to check several of their works? Is there an issue with copyright on an unauthorized translation? Our citation templates don't seem to hardly accommodate translations, so I'm trying to do this: {{cite web | url=http://originaljapanese | language=Japanese | others=[http://yomuka.wordpress.com/englishversion Translation by Yomuka] ...

I have no experience with vetting RSes. Will these particular sites just be situational sources? Is there any video game translation site which is regarded as a RS? Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 01:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Translation is generally regarded as 1:1 conversion of a non-English source that makes claims into English. So the process of converting the original claim isn't regarded as having much impact on the reliability of the original claim. In other words if you are translating a non-RS then the translation is non-RS. If you're translating an RS or SPS then the translation is generally regarded as an RS or SPS. If you're just paraphrasing a non-English RS/SPS then you don't need any source apart from the original (see WP:NONENG#Citing non-English sources). If you're using a direct quote from a translation then an RS is preferred, but not required (see WP:NONENG#Quoting non-English sources). At present, for better or worse, the translation efforts of we as editors are not considered Original Research (see WP:TRANSCRIPTION). So it's not terribly important, but for what it's worth I'd support GlitterBerri as a reliable translator if you are looking to quote her work. She's been cited extensively by numerous RSes in connection to her English translation of The Legend of Zelda: Hyrule Historia. -Thibbs (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@Thibbs: Thank you for the very detailed response, which I have re-read about four times and will continue to do. I suggest that someone should add GlitterBerri to the list, huh? What does it take to achieve that? I don't know anything about Yomuka!'s reputation, but what would it take to add that? Would some Wikipedian Japanese translators need to verify that the 1:1 accuracy of several of their translations, to determine that the site is competent at translation and has no secret agendas or whatever?
As for citations of translations, am I doing it correctly, as shown above? I would have added trans_title, but I can't read Japanese to identify the title, and the title itself wasn't directly translated for me anyway.
And finally, do we have any official documentation on translations? It seems that we only have this, so that article needs to have a Translations section which includes that note plus your verbiage above. Right? If that's correct, then I can do that. Thank you very much again. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
For RSes generally we are looking for a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. There are a number of signs that we look for: citation by other established RSes, published policies and guidelines, credentials of the authors, awards and accolades, longevity of publication and citation, etc. None of these are completely dispositive, but they are all factors in determining reliability. Sources are usually added to "the list" when they've been discussed pretty extensively. So in this case I'd wait for others to weigh in before adding anything to the list. Verification of a translation's 1:1 accuracy is not required, but verifiability generally is (as under WP:V). So you should link the original source if possible. And definitely seek outside verification of the translation if you are aware of or suspect that there may be problems of fidelity or neutrality. Be prepared to seek 3rd party review also if another editor challenges the translation.
Your use of the citation templates seems fine to me. To be honest I often forgo templates when I have a complicated citation and just create one free-handed. Apart from a little bit in WP:VG/MOS, WP:VG doesn't have much on translation specifically. We just follow Wikipedia's general rules. I linked some of the rules above in the last post and you can also see WP:MOS#Foreign-language quotations and WP:Translation for further documentation. -Thibbs (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

GamePolitics

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Doesn't look like a consensus has ever been settled on for GP. I saw in Archive 2 that Masem brought up the site but no one replied. In archive 8 [3] we had some replies but it seems to have faded out. -- ferret (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Eh, so it's associated with the ECA, but I can't see anything on who is actually writing the main page posts. Also can't find an editorial policy—doesn't bode well. I'd say unreliable unless someone finds more explicit assurance of fact-checking reliability. czar ♔ 16:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

TwoDashStash

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This is an indie game website. It is well designed and all. In addition to a well produced website. They have a strong following on Facebook over 11,000 followers. For more info: http://twodashstash.com/about/--Cube b3 (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Your about page link isn't working. Also, the same three questions posed above. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - The about page (had to view the main URL and then find it myself for some reason) lists nothing of staff credentials, editorial policy, etc. Additionally it is powered by a volunteer team of writers as seen in the links at the bottom of the page. --Teancum (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. No editorial polices, no list of editors. Prominent "write for us" link. The "contact us" link on their own website doesn't even work. Woodroar (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Unrelliable - per my/Teancum/Woodroar's concerns above. Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Kill Screen and (The) Absolute

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Looking to write about a Flash game called Loved. Other articles from reliable sources that deal primarly about the game exist, so it should be notable even without the sites' articles in question ([4] and [5]), but I think it would benefit from their inclusion if they're reliable. 23W 00:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's my "draft", BTW: User:23W/Draft:Loved (video game). 23W 00:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to say that KillScreen is approved by the music Wikipedia community, but I couldn't find any formal discussions on it like WP:ALBUMS or anything, so it may just be that I've observed it being used in the past... Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I figured that Kill Screen looked more reliable than (The) Absolute (author seemed to have experience in reliable sources, too), so I used the review in the completed article. 23W 20:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Demonstrating unreliability

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Assuming I'd consider one of the listed as reliable sources unreliable due to shoddy fact checking as evident in demonstrable (and sometimes in addition obvious) factual errors, what would be generally considered a sufficient demonstration of that claim to take it off the list? Derboo (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources aren't judged unreliable based on individual errors; if they were, every source in existence would be considered unreliable. Everyone makes mistakes. To be judged unreliable on those terms, a source would need a reputation for poor fact checking. See WP: QUESTIONABLE.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Surely not based on individual errors - but maybe on dozens, hundreds? The "reputation" clause seems impotent for WikiProject Video games, as "reliable sources" don't seem to have a habit of reviewing video game websites, at all? (Certainly not on the issue of factual reliability.) Derboo (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It's sounds like you've got a source in mind? It may be easier to answer with an example. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Right now I'm not confident to state any concrete claims publicly, as I'm only going from a tiny set of examples I have available now, my undocumented impressions from when I read on the site in the distant past and a few forum posts from around the web that seem to share the sentiment. So this is mostly a "what if" question, to see if there's any point in investigating this further. Derboo (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's any hard and fast number of errors, say, which constitute a criterion for not considering something reliable. You'd have to post what you have and make your case, and see what the consensus is. bridies (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I'd do too, the same way we go about deeming them reliable. State your case here, and see what the consensus dictates. Post something at the main WPVG if you need more feedback. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It's true there isn't a lot of history of WP:VG reviewing the previously determined RSes, but that's because the issue very rarely comes up. To answer your question generally, Derboo, I think you'd need to start a thread on the topic of the source and present evidence that it is unreliable. You might consider reviewing the past discussions leading to its designation as reliable and either addressing why the previous evidence for reliability is faulty or present new evidence demonstrating unreliability. Key here is that these sources are considered reliable as by consensus, but consensus can change and facts supporting reliability can change. So the determination of a source as an RS is not immutable, but the onus is on the party seeking to change consensus. And that requires evidence and persuasion. -Thibbs (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
A bit late to this but if we don't know what the source is or why you believe it's no longer reliable there is nothing that can be done.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Shenmue Dojo

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

This is the biggest Shenmue Website on the internet. It is endorsed by Sega. www.shenmuedojo.net

They have a small staff, and is certainly not for profit but they have done a great job in compiling all the knowledge on the Shenmue games and games that feature characters from Shenmue like Sonic & Sega All Stars Racing. They have also done good amount of research on there own such as conducting interviews with the cast and crew or hack the game and fun stuff like that.--Cube b3 (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you not picking up on how these conversations go? Every time we ask you the same questions. Do they have dedicated staff? Editorial policy/oversight? Journalists with credentials? Or is it just a bunch of random people who started up a fansite, with no real qualifications other than liking something and growing up in this blogging era? Sergecross73 msg me 10:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Unreliable for the same reasons listed in previous nominations: No editorial policy, no about page, etc. Additionally I see nowhere that lists it as "endorsed by SEGA", nor a way to verify that. On the chopping block with the rest. --Teancum (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Turns out Sega of Europe has shut down their blog. I still found the link though: Web Archive would help http://blogs.sega.com/europe/2010/07/05/shenmue-dojo-relaunches/ here is a reference that they did infact endorse it https://www.facebook.com/Sega/posts/136028793087816 _ Post by Cube_b3 from a public computer --72.177.237.33 (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Sega posting a link to it one time does not make it reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 03:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100710160155/http://blogs.sega.com/europe/2010/07/05/shenmue-dojo-relaunches/

You think Sega would endorse a website that had inaccurate information on their most expensive game? They also endorsed the website fairly early. In the last few years Sega has started reaching out to fan sites like Addicts, Bits and Nerds but this was before any of that. I think Shenmue Dojo was the 2nd website Sega endorsed. The first being Sonic Stadium.
An "endorsement" like this is a long way from making a fansite a reliable source reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Fansites are still user generated content and will always run afoul of the verifiability policy. Яehevkor ✉ 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
And we don't even really know that it's an "endorsement". For all we know, it may have been "Hey, it's free marketing that shows our product off in a positive manner. Let's post it on out Facebook!" Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
You are expected to know better because this is not advertising anything. In 2010, Shenmue had successfully been dormant for 8 years. No new game or cameo had been made at that time therefore it wasn't selling anything. Further more, a Facebook post and a detailed blog post are 2 separate things.--Cube b3 (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
They have 2 short paragraphs that essentially say "Hey guys, like Shenmue? Here's a fansite!" That doesn't make a source reliable. It's not like Sega went in and fact checked it or something. (And that's right about the time they started tossing Ryo into those Sonic Kart racing games, FYI.) Sergecross73 msg me 11:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Another point I just wanted to quickly bring up is that endorsements like this represent only one factor in determining reliability and not a particularly significant one. So yes, an "official" endorsement is a good thing to bring up in a discussion over reliability, but in general reliability is determined by a whole suite of factors that heavily emphasize the credentials of the writers and the site's peer-review and editorial policies. Also the interviews with cast and crew that you mentioned are probably usable as SPSes even if the site as a whole is not considered reliable. -Thibbs (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sonic Stadium

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Former president Simon Jeffery reached out to them to address fans now that is huge. How often do you see company reaching out to a fan site to reach their fans?--Cube b3 (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Sonic Stadium and Shenmue Dojo are the only 2 Sega game specific websites that the company has formally endorsed.

Unreliable - Your definition of endorsed and Wikipedia's are very different. Major companies and individuals do interviews, post linkbacks, etc with unreliable websites all the time. As we've repeated several times, it's not about fame. It's about their editorial policies, their reputation for accuracy and fact checking, and whether they have a staff that's considered reliable itself. Shout outs and interviews won't matter if those aren't in place. It's just the way it works. The only exception would be a YouTube interview where the person being interviewed can clearly be identified as a famous individual or representative for a company. --Teancum (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - I'm familiar with the website, I read it. But it's just another fansite with no policy or authority on the subject other than being a "fan". Please look into how we define reliable on Wikipedia, and pay attention to the feedback you're getting in these discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 11:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Unreliable: Looks to me that it's more of a blog ("Posted on August 8, 2014 by Hero of Legend" is generally a sure sign of that) with no oversight. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

mental_floss

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

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

A general trivia magazine/website that has assorted video game-related articles, such as How 13 Classic Video Games Got Their Names and The Largest Video Game Collection on Earth Sells for $750,000. The About page talks about the various sections of the magazine, mentioning repeatedly that it's full of facts, and the website is basically an extension of the magazine. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's reliable from all the praise and accolades its received. 23W 20:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
And it's a hard copy published magazine, another good sign. Sergecross73 msg me 23:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks reliable as given, it being a print source with a third party publisher. It's not primarily a video game source though? So I'm not sure we actually need it listed here any more than mainstream newspapers, other technology magazines etc. bridies (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Yup, agreed. It's useable, but not added to the list because it's not really a video game article. (Much like how The New York Times would be usable, but not on the list. Sergecross73 msg me 10:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay then. Thanks for backing up that it's reliable! (On a side note, is there some mega-list for RS's that's not related to any project?) Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
There's no master list I know of on Wikipedia, but I'm sure you could find some on the internet (e.g. online academic or public library resources) that would serve the same purpose quite adequately. On Wikipedia the general idea is that each use of a source must be evaluated on its individual merits regarding reliability. No source is ever given a blanket stamp of reliability, so the idea of a list of RSes really bothers some editors. I've encountered some irritation with WP:VG/RS in connection to this for example from WP:RS/N (the RS board for the rest of Wikipedia), but I think that's mainly due to misunderstanding the purpose of the list here at VG/RS. The list we maintain here is intended as a general guide for locating reliable sources. The items on the list represent sources that are usually reliable and that can generally be relied upon to help establish notability and for further research on VG topics. But the list is not the final word by any means. The reliability of any individual article can be called into question at any time and simply being listed at VG/RS is no guarantee that the individual cite is reliable. -Thibbs (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sites with direct interviews from developers

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I normally write about games that don't get as much press. Recently, I've been writing about Abyss Odyssey, and the developer went on a YouTube interview [6] and talked about the history of the game in a way that I haven't seen in any reliable sources with a heavy emphasis on the history of the development early on. Is there any way that I can cite Retro Requium's YouTube interview of the developer talking even though the website's "About us" page ([7]) obviously shows that it's not an RS? Nomader (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this is done a lot and treated more like a primary source. It tends to be fine at least until you get to FAC, where it probably won't be. Also, if it's a video interview, that maybe more robust than a transcript on a site we don't really trust. Maybe. bridies (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with bridies. If a primary source is giving interviews with a site that's not an RS or, even worse, a site that's actually determined to be unreliable, then think the interview must be treated as a self-published source (see WP:SPS). As such it can only be used as a source on itself and only until such time as someone challenges it with cause. As bridies rightly points out, a video depicting the person actually saying the words he's alleged to would likely stand up to stiffer scrutiny. The other thing to keep in mind is that the interview would probably not be usable in a BLP for reasons outlined in WP:PRIMARY. -Thibbs (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

These sources ([8], [9]) must be removed/replaced site-wide as a reference point for sales numbers. They have proven to be a hit or miss and Blake doesn't state where he got those figures from. I'm sure User:Red Phoenix, User:SexyKick, and User:Indrian can elaborate. « Ryūkotsusei » 04:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

DroidGamers

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Looks like a well produced website and does more then just post news. Apparently they organize competitions and covers apps in addition to games. This would be a platform specific website for Ouya as well.--Cube b3 (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Any editorial policies? History for fact checking? Industry qualifications by any of their staff? Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Usually Android developers share a link on their Facebook page when DG covers them. That's how I found them. You may have to ask them for more info. They seem fairly popular with almost 15k followers on Twitter. I know now you will say that popularity =/= reliability and I know that, I'm just sharing all I know.--Cube b3 (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

ReadRetro

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

www.readretro.com https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/socalmike/retro-the-multi-format-throw-back-video-game-magaz

Magazine + Website. Every writer is a veteran journalist.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Just in the interest of full disclosure Chris Powell of Sega Nerds is a writer here and he is my editor in chief at Sega Nerds...--Cube b3 (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why you linked to their old Kickstarter page... Here's the link to the magazine's actual site: [10] Seems reliable enough from what I've seen. Anyone else have thoughts on it?--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be much information about the staff, editors etc. Also looks self-published. bridies (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. Nothing about author or editor backgrounds or credentials. Nothing about editorial policies. Funded via Kickstarter, which means no guidance/management/support from a parent network. Started publishing January 2014 and bi-monthly, so they're probably on issue #4, not the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that we require. Their website is also a mess, essentially a template with plenty of "put content here" sidebars and columns, again not a great sign regarding accuracy. Woodroar (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Tend to say not reliable also. Stuff like Kickstarter or website hiccups are not deal breakers in themselves, but together with the main point of not having a publisher, make it look like a fanzine. Certain authors could be fine per SPS, but again there's no info on this apparently. bridies (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Did any of you even visit the Kickstarter page?

Each writers credentials and background is clearly listed on KS. Their website interface doesn't have anything to do with quality of writing. Just to do some research I googled the first writer on their list of writer. The KS page lists quite a few wbesites he wrote for. I googled him on IGN and 1up and it indeed checks out. Before passing judgement I recommend an Admin to read the KS page and then verify it via Google or simply buy the magazine and read it.--Cube b3 (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Twin Galaxies

Latest comment: 9 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

Greetings, friends. I am flummoxed by the fact that Twin Galaxies is absent from the list of reliable sources. I searched the forms above, and found no record of even a discussion about it. As the linked article says, they are basically like the Guinness Book of video games. Their primary purpose for existing is to set the standard of being a reliable source. After a hiatus, their web site is all back online and stuff. Can we get them listed? Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 07:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think twin galaxies would be fine for an official source when it comes to score attack, and some other things. I do not think it would be fine to accept TG for speedruns records. TG has really weird rules when it comes to speed running and that is why they have not been in the picture of the speed running community for years. (One of the weird rules used to be, you are not to mock ball in super metroid)NathanWubs (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Huh, didn't realize it had gone active again. I agree that Twin Galaxies is reliable for official high scores and I'd say that even for speedrun records it would be fine as long as it's attributed and any weird rules potentially explained in prose for context. -Thibbs (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Well its just also that their speed run records mostly are old as well, or so much slower then sda, or srl records and stuff. But I do not think that it will be a problem in general and could just be looked at case by case basis if it comes up. But I think the site will work well especially when it comes to arcade articles. Only thing we do not know how the site will go now that it has a different ownership and such. NathanWubs (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@NathanWubs, Thibbs, and Sergecross73: So far it sounds like we're approving it as a situational source, huh? Once it's listed, it should be noted that a person should seek a newer record at SDA, unless they're explicitly going for a historical record. There's quite a value in the Wayback Machine's archive of the history of record-setting. What's the procedure for adding it? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 06:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
For context, this is about Donkey Kong (video game), a few of whose sources are currently in question as part of FA sweeps. Tezero (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
On what grounds is it being challenged? Or are we just "confirming" it? Seems like the source that is providing official information to the Guinness Book of World Records would be reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 04:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
None, the grounds are groundless. So I guess we're just confirming it. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 13:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Small correction. It used to. They lost that privilege when they started to ask money for submissions.The site might get it back in the future, but we have to wait and see. SDA would indeed be mostly the place to check. There are some other sites out there, that might have more relevant info sometimes.(Like http://www.zeldaspeedruns.com/ for zelda speed run records). I was going to suggest SRL, but the problem with it is the following. Cosmo I think 1 or 2 years ago said he was going make a special board that would display current world records. That sadly never got off the ground. . Yeah, this post was just made so that it could be confirmed that its a reliable source. NathanWubs (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that as long as they didn't lose their connection to Guinness due errors, it'd still be reliable then, especially for their Guinness era. Smuckola - it's usually just added to the list if there looks like there is a consensus for it. It's commonly maintained by Thibbs - but anyone can do it if they want. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree that TG is fine for reporting things like high scores, somewhat neutral on speed runs due to issues about. But also keep in mind - outside of articles about score attacks and speed runs (and games specifically known for these, like the NES SMB) and some selected game bios, this type of information would be very hard to find its way into most VG-related articles; just because xXxGamer420xXx can complete Mass Effect 3 in 1.25hr with noclipping enable as reported by Twin Galaxies or Kotaku or even Game Informer (for example) doesn't mean we should include that. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, good point. Not sure why I didn't think of that before, but yeah, Speed-run stuff doesn't usually make it into articles anyways... Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I agree. I can't really imagine this being used in accordance with WP:DUE outside of WP:ARCADE and maybe WP:RETRO. I think we have consensus here. Feel free to add Twin Galaxies to the list, Smuckola. -Thibbs (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course speedruns will almost never come up. Sorry for maybe putting to much emphasis on it. It's just one of the areas that I do have quite some extensive knowledge in. Also yes the data that they provides to the Guinness era was mostly correct and up to date. So it all can be used. NathanWubs (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Thibbs, Masem, and NathanWubs:You guys are indeed delightfully astonishingly knowledgeable on this. I have added Twin Galaxies as a situational source, while attempting to capture as caveats, the nuance and suave dispensed by my esteemed colleagues here. This is my first new entry here, and it was a pleasure to collaborate as well as an honor to service the history of the genre. That will serve to be so much more convenient and accurate for future editors. This includes people who are new to TG, new to these policies, new to situational sourcing, etc; it's tough enough to navigate a situational idea without any domain-specific touchstones. In my immediate case, it's been used on Donkey Kong (video game) to indicate the history of score attacks for that game.[11] TG did write the book on the subject, even if we're required to throw out or rewrite half of it. Please verify that it is sufficiently tasty. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 13:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Donkey Kong is indeed a topic where high scores would be relevant and I would feel entirely comfortable citing TG in this context. The way it is cited in the article is not necessarily he best, though, because the basic claim is made by donkeykongblog and only one part of the claim is backed up by TG. "Say where you got it" attribution is important, but usually blogs aren't considered reliable. I'd try to at least track down Eminem's original tweet for verification purposed if possible and cite that as well. -Thibbs (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

RedBull Games

Latest comment: 9 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

What do you guys think? They have been doing great work and I feel like making a Wikipedia page for them.--Cube b3 (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think their writing is top notch and the content is all reliable cause I always see developers sharing on their blog/website/facebook that they have been covered on RedBull however it appears their websites vary by the country for example Senile Team, Pier Solar etc were only covered by Red Bull UK

http://www.redbull.co.uk/cs/Satellite/en_UK/Article/Time-Team--Meet-the-Gamers-Keeping-Retro-Consoles-021243330672345 --Cube b3 (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Page not found? bridies (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the two trailing dashes ("--") are intended as part of Cube b3's signature. The URL resolves if you delete those. -Thibbs (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I know notability is the criteria but I made this post for getting them on the list of approved references for the page, I can just create a section within the actual RedBull page until they are notable enough.--Cube b3 (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I got confused by what you said in your original post: "I feel like making a Wikipedia page for them". -Thibbs (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's reliable but again, it's a massive general culture magazine; I'm not sure we need it on the video game sources list. That said there is a fair amount of retro stuff, it seems, so maybe it would be useful to point people there. bridies (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Just wanna point out that Sonic: After the Sequel, a Featured Article that I did a Source Review on, uses RedBull citations. As well I believe its pretty notable and reliable. GamerPro64 00:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

RedBull

I have been exploring the website as a whole and they are really taking things to the next level. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwN_o_fi7xE

This is not even from their gaming category, though it is categorized there as well. This is the ultimate original researched feature, it is truly exceptional I can't wait for the series to start! Japanese legends like Yuzo Koshiro really lack good sources in English and they are personally interviewing them in a feature that looks excellently produced. Let's Fast track this process. I don't think we should add RedBull Games, we should add RedBull altogether! This does not need to be further analyzed, I see no reason to question their reliability or notability. I have been following RedBull for years and anyone who has read their work they have experienced exceptional coverage of the gaming industry with original research often overlooked by gaming sites like IGN and Kotaku.--Cube b3 (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, we really only add video game-centric websites to the list. Otherwise there'd be an endless list of random but useable sources on the list. The New York Times or Time (magazine) are understood to be useable, but we don't bother putting them on the list. But there doesn't seem to be any opposition to RedBull on a whole, so I imagine it'd be "RedBull Games" to the list, but it would be assumed that RedBull General would be just fine too. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Well RedBull Games (www.games.redbull.com) is a dedicated video game-centric website. So if their is no further discussion please go ahead and add it to the list of reliable websites.--Cube b3 (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I don't see any significant feelings against it. Tezero (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree too, but why was it put under an "indie" subsection. They don't cover exclusively indie games, do they? Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
How can you engage in a discussion without even evaluating a website? Yes, as far as I know they are primarily dedicated to the Retro, Indie, Smart Phones. and web games. Their coverage is very different from console or pc gamer websites.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
My entire efforts at Wikipedia since June has been to bring about more attention to Indie and Retro.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Why would you put it under one subsection, "Indie", when you openly say it covers 4 different things? Not to mention it clearly covers More modern games. I'm just saying "Indie" as a section doesn't make sense. Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hold up. Has anyone mentioned an editorial policy, track record of staff/contributors, citations by other outlets? Worth posting for posterity at the very least. I'm finding some Red Bull Games references to be to a game development arm of the company and not the editorial side. I do see it cited a few times [12][13], etc. and Wordsworth appears to have been around for a while (IGN, etc.) This was only a brief search, though czar ♔ 13:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Serge: They have a strong focus on indie games. All new games on Retro consoles are indie. Major chunk of notable smart phone games are indie. You are right though that it is not 100% dedicated to indie but we need to have an indie source and all indie games I know off are covered. They have even covered indie gaming books like Dreamcast Worlds or Service Games.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sega Nerds

Latest comment: 9 years ago44 comments9 people in discussion

This one has to be reliable. It is a dedicated Sega Website. They have recently interviewed members from Relic Entertainment.

They have also interviewed Sonic the Hedgehog co-creator Naoto Oshima:

In addition to designers they have also interviewed executives such as Al Nielson and Tom Kalinske

Additionally the editor in chief of the website is a professional journalist whose credits include Joystiq, ReadRetro (Print Magazine) and Airman Magazine.

I do feel this website should qualify.--Cube b3 (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

✗ We're not going by our guts when we say something is reliable. There is criteria on the front page and I suggest that you read it. http://www.seganerds.com/about/ : ''In truth, we don’t consider ourselves video game journalists or anything silly like that. We’re just gamers like you who have played SEGA games all our lives and really enjoy writing about them." This site does not appear to have any editorial integrity and should not be used as the factual basis for encyclopedia articles. czar ♔ 20:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Please do me a favor and give me the bullet points, I went on the main page and I couldn't see an exclusion criteria. Also while I have your attention, please evaluate Sega-16 as well.--Cube b3 (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I contacted Chris and he told me the About page is out of date. He will update it soon. He also gave me this link to share

http://www.seganerds.com/editorial-policy/--Cube b3 (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Most relevant is Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Fansites. A site that doesn't keep its About page up doesn't sound so good to me. Even if they were to change it now, does it mean they've been operating under those principles. Also we're interested in fact-checking as editorial policy, not their policy in writing op-ed editorials. czar ♔ 22:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
After reading that link I feel the website qualifies. Why don't you have a look at the sites content? The about us page was likely out of date because the website is a not for profit independent project and the writers their were more interested in doing what they enjoy rather that right open-ed. However when I contacted them, they fleshed out their history and further explained their method of operation.

EuroGamer, Joystiq, Kotaku, Nintendo Life, Polygon and VG247 have all used SN as a reliable reference. Here are some examples:

Now the question is if already approved websites can us SN as a reliable secondary source, why can't Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube b3 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with four tildes. Of the links you posted, the Nintendo Life doesn't mention the site in the article, and the Eurogamer, Polygon, and VG247 all refer to the exact same Pier Solar HD Kickstarter announcement that happened to be posted on Sega Nerds. Whether or not SN is included is not up to me but to consensus. I say the editorial policy is lacking right now, though getting mentions such as the above that show that other RS find their reporting reliable is the direction to go. Do you have any affiliation with the source? czar ♔ 22:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I apologize I usually sign my posts. Yes, I am a writer at Sega Nerds, started earlier this year. The Kickstarter updates are usually for backers only. So in this context permission needs to be taken from WaterMelon to share it. Once WaterMelon gave SN consent it was shared. Other journalists who are regular visitors of our site saw it and proceeded to post the news on their websites.

Please note that my writing on SN is not a job. It is just a hobby just like contributing to Wikipedia only difference is at SN I can post original content. All the work on the website is done with passion and integrity. I would not have volunteered to right on the site or make a case for it over here otherwise. I have been a Wikipedian since 2006 and have always been contributing on Sega related stuff anyways.

I can show you a lot more references or you could simply visit Joystiq or anyone of the aforementioned sites, and you will see they have a long history of using us as a reference. The reason why most of the news posts are relating to Pier Solar is because it is really hot news as of late and I did not look at the content I just wanted to show variation between publishers and simply found the quickest ones I could find.

Here are some more from Joystiq:

As for consensus, so far it is only you who has given me an X, so I can only try to sway you to a positive.--Cube b3 (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Unreliable - just a fansite, no "about" page. Per Czars arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 01:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross73 Sorry love, but you need to visit a website before passing judgement.

Hooowwzzaaat?--Cube b3 (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I retract the comment about there being "no about page", and revise it to "doesn't have a very good about page". Its all just documenting going from "Dreamcast fansites" to "Sega Fansites" and baseless boasting claims of being "the number one Sega resource". Nothing that addresses what Wikipedia uses to figure out what makes a source reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 23:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. I read a few reviews and the writing is generally amateurish. The "Policy on Fact Checking and Corrections" essentially says "we ask Sega for comment about rumors, and we'll publish a retraction if we're wrong". This source does not inspire confidence. Woodroar (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Unreliable per Woodroar's rationale. The site's been around a long time, and it's been sourced by a few reliable sources. But in the end it comes down to the site's reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Also be sure to relay any potential conflicts of interest as you appear to be a writer for the site. I fall in the same boat and so let everyone know that (at the time) I was the Managing Editor for a site. --Teancum (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
@Sergecross the claims have to verified by Alexa.com and we have. As far as I know (and I should given that I am a Sega writer) we have 3 main stream Sega fan sites, Sega Addicts, Sega Bits and Sega Nerds and last I checked Sega Nerds was ahead of all of them.
@Teancum, I did start writing for them around December 2013.
@Woodrar we have a category for rumors. As of 2013 SN has increasingly been focused on posting original content. Back in the day they used to post everything Sega. You know, stuff that Kotaku or any other website would post but now that we have 2 other Sega fan sites, Nerds is focusing on directly contacting or interviewing the developers. I believe last month we had Roger Craig Smith on the podpocast and before that we had Greg Johnson. Me personally, I write Dreamcast news and it is always done after speaking directly with the developers.--Cube b3 (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Alexa is popularity, not quality. Popularity does not make a source reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 10:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Exactly I was talking about your comments on Nerds being the most popular Sega fan site. Even as far as quality is concerned SN is way ahead of others given that the editor in chief is an accredited journalist who writes for mainstream magazines and websites. I have already shared his portfolio.... so I don't think I should reiterate that.
You can go ahead and read the content on the website, the attention to detail is evident in every post. You are welcomed to compare them to the same news post covered by IGN, you will find we have done a much better job but that's not saying much cause that website is as shady as Fox news but somehow it is on the list. But then again, I assume Fox news is also a reliable reference right?--Cube b3 (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd say that full-text interviews could be usable on Wikipedia under WP:SPS, but they would have to clearly represent a single interview session. In other words I think it would be OK to cite a back and forth interview like this: "Interviewer: What's your favorite color? // Kojima: Black // Interviewer: And why is that? // Kojima: Because I like licorice." But it would not be OK to cite this: "We at XYZ Blog spoke to Kojima who confirmed that his favorite color was black." And of course as we can see from WP:SPS, there must be "no reasonable doubt" as to the authenticity of the interview. So if such an interview is challenged in good faith with reasons, then it would probably have to go. -Thibbs (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Well thanks to technology most interviews are being conducted on Google hang out so if Kojima were to be physically present then that concern has already been addressed. right?--Cube b3 (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Not quite. Google Hangout sessions fail WP:V because they are live events. The question is not whether Sega Nerds can rely on the identification of the interviewee. The question is whether a Wikipedia reader can rely on the presentation of the interview by Sega Nerds. An unedited (or minimally edited) full-text interview is probably usable in most circumstances as an SPS, but that's not true for an article that is merely based on a privately conducted interview that readers have no access to. -Thibbs (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It is a publicly conducted interview. We have fixed programming. Sunday 12PM CT. A tweet is sent out before the show goes live. Listeners tune in and we have segments where we take in questions from the audience. It is also structured and scripted like any other live show, we have a pre-interview prep with the developers via email and we have a production meeting before going live. Greg Johnson exclusively announced on our podcast that he has started developing another TJ&E game.
Take another example Console Wars is an extremely popular book and has received significant coverage from the Kotakus and IGNs however we are the only ones who had the developer explain the entire pre-production process of the book. --Cube b3 (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
So, again, it's a question of verifiability. The reliability of an SPS interview (i.e. an interview in a non-RS source) depends in large part on the degree of its completeness. A full text interview, a full audio interview, or a full video interview is usually sufficient to source a claim provided that the interview isn't used in a BLP or challenged in good faith. What is not OK is to say that a non-RS article can be treated as an SPS on the topic of the interviewee simply because it is based on an alleged interview conducted by the staff. The interview itself (in text, audio, or audio-visual format) is required to satisfy WP:V. A publicly conducted live interview on its own is really questionable. If no transcript of the video or no audio files of the podcast are readily available then it is likely to be extremely difficult for Wikipedia readers to verify after the live event has taken place. -Thibbs (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for expounding. The important note I need to make here is that we are not a self published source. Me or any other writer do not have the autonomy to self publish. We are a team of approximately a dozen writers with 2 accredited editors who approve/edit before they are published. As already mentioned our editor in chief Chris is an established American journalist. Graham also has a decent track record in England. I am also an accredited journalist with my work published in my native countries national news papers and magazines.--Cube b3 (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
In the case of an interview with a non-RS source, it's more like the interviewee is self-publishing. There are hundreds of non-RS blogs that would be glad to interview any of the big figures in the video game industry and it's up to the interviewee to decide who he gives his interview to and what he says. In that sense the interviewee can be seen to be self-publishing by selecting who publishes his words and what they say. It's not a perfect analogy, but it makes sense if you think about the underlying consideration of reliability. The interviewee is considered to be reliable on the topic of himself. The RS status of the interviewer is irrelevant in such a situation. As we can see from WP:PRIMARY, however, an interview like this must be used with caution and it if its legitimacy is challenged then it will most likely have to be axed. -Thibbs (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve the editorial policy

Let's look at it this way now. What is lacking in our editorial policy?--Cube b3 (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that this is the place to ask for that. Problems with your own site and journalism should be handled by your own people. NathanWubs (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Seconded. And you, a writer for the website, really shouldn't be the one advocating for, or implementing, its use on Wikipedia. It's a conflict of interest. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Serge we have already discussed this at length. It is very hard to progress with you cause you keep going in circles. As far as I can see I've read the criteria and SegaNerds matches it. We are all accredited professionals who have written for the main stream websites that you regard so highly. Additionally we have been quoted by dozens of mainstream websites as well as print sources. Staff members have also published books... It is seriously like going in circles with you. --Cube b3 (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Technically, conflicts of interest don't mean his arguments should be rejected offhand, only that we should keep an eye out for bias in favor of his associated work. (As for the site itself, I don't have enough information or experience to have an opinion. I've written plenty of Sonic the Hedgehog GAs and FAs without it, but mainly from after the early '90s.) Tezero (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Right, and you'll note that wasn't a reason cited in the "unreliable" !votes either. But can't you see it as a little shifty to come on here and ask "Hey guys, how can I rewrite the policies on the website I write for so that you guys will start using it?" That's kind of making policies for the wrong motivations, isn't it? It's not really a testament to the website of its just written as something to satiate others. Sergecross73 msg me 03:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Czar is the only one who has voted and I have never stated that I have never stated I have the ability to edit the policy that is the EiC's job. It is shifty that you engage in discussions without evaluating websites. I think the editorial policy is great and main stream media quoting SN is enough to prove notability and reliability!--Cube b3 (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
What are you saying? Clearly above, Czar, Woodroar, Teancum and I all opposed it. It's directly above, plain as day. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Cube b3, I think the concern comes from your suggestion in the title of this subthread that the editorial policy could be improved. The assumption underlying WP:VG/RS's analysis of 3rd party sources is that their self-reported editorial policies are accurate. Editorial policies meeting WP:RS represent prima facie evidence of reliability. If the suggestion is that the published editorial policies will be tweaked by staff to match Wikipedia's requirements, then the concern is that the tweaks might be entirely self-serving and designed more to get the source included in Wikipedia by hook or by crook than that they represent accurate policies. Reliable sources are those that enjoy a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and any reputation a source bears couldn't possibly be based on material written under policies that had just recently changed. The reputation would be based on material written under the old policies. -Thibbs (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Good point Thibbs. This is why I have gone ahead and started the reevaluation subsection. I think SN updated their editorial policy before I asked for ways to improve it. Also evaluating the sites content in proper detail will showcase whether they follow it or not.
@ Serge: I was going by the X tick. You are right people have voted against it. My bad.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Reevaluate the editorial policy

I pledged for SegaNerds all the way back in June. I read the notability guide lines and saw the website had an exception track record. The EiC is an accredited journalist who has an excellent track record in the industry as well as beyond the industry. Czar did mention some concerns about the policy however they have been addressed months ago. It is September now.

Let's move things along as Wikipedia desperately needs a reliable Sega source. http://www.seganerds.com/editorial-policy/ --Cube b3 (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop trying to force your website through. It was wholly rejected above. Please, stop pestering the community with your arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 02:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that though I am unaware of the history with the issue, I reverted it just now based on this statement of controversy, and because the contribution was sufficiently amazingly poorly formatted to break the page. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 03:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, actually, his additions to the list were actually about redbull games. If you look below, you'll see that that one does have consensus for inclusion. That being said, I don't mind your reversion because he added it in an awkward place with formatting errors. Sergecross73 msg me 03:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Being an entry level writer and being an owner of a site are 2 separate things. By your logic Wikipedia should be my site as well.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily, for this argument. As we're long-time Wikipedia editors, it's reasonable to conclude that we'd be inclined to be biased when mentioning Wikipedia on SegaNerds. Tezero (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you please expand on what you just said, i'm not following.--Cube b3 (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying that the distinction in presumed bias between site owners and writers isn't significant here. You have the potential to be biased in favor of SegaNerds just like we do for Wikipedia. Tezero (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
But I was a Wikipedian 7 years before I became a writer there. I haven't even been writing there for a year. I have an 8 year history that attests to my commitment towards positively contributing towards Wikipedia, there is no way anything I do can be more significant then that. I became a Wikipedian while I was still in school.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I know, but we don't care how biased someone is in favor of Wikipedia on Wikipedia - not the case for external sites. I joined Wikipedia when I was in seventh grade, and I'm a sophomore in college now, but I still have the potential to be biased about topics I'm directly affiliated with, such as a game a few of my friends and I are developing - if by some miracle that ever becomes notable enough for an article, I'll be allowed to edit it, but my changes will be subject to major scrutiny. Tezero (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

After consensus forms for or against something on WP, the standard is to wait (usually six months to a year at a minimum for non-urgent content concerns) before bringing it up again. And if it is brought up again, there should be new evidence to justify rehashing the discussion. I suggest following this procedure before bringing up the site again czar ♔ 05:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

N-Sider as a situational source, Part 2

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi guys. I feel a little bad about this, because I don't know jack about this source and because it's been covered in these archives. But it was covered here 3.5 years ago by an apparently nonexistent user. Somehow. (?!) So I'm wondering if the issue bears reexamination. Specifically, I'm really wanting to be able to use this article. It is one of a kind in my research of the history of Nintendo's online strategies; it's very thorough, with lots of quotes. But was it made up? lol. Whether anyone wants to reevaluate the whole site as a source, or just this one article in the timeline of the source's history, that'd be great. Was this article written at a time when N-Sider was good or was there such a time or what? Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries. It's good to ask if you're uncertain. Unfortunately I tend to agree with Prime Blue. I have previously had occasion to question the validity of N-Sider's claims for staffing and credits for Satellaview hardware and software. And in reviewing the article you've linked I can see a number of concerning errors in their coverage of the Satellaview which they strangely call the "Satellaview-X (BS)". For example they have confused the 4PM-7PM SoundLink slot for a download period and they seem to incorrectly believe that there were only four buildings in the menu town. These are pretty basic errors. I only looked in depth at the Satellaview material, but it sends up red flags for me... -Thibbs (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Thibbs:Wow. Why would anyone go to such astounding efforts to make such junk?! :( Even if it sells! I mean this is ridiculously in-depth, specific, and impassioned ... imploring the reader to a greater level of accuracy amongst junk! It's antithetical. I guess this article is completely inadmissible as even a situational source, and serves only as inspiration for further research. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 06:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
If anyone's still wondering, Prime Blue changed usernames at some point, and the second one was blocked. Tezero (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, much of their information is correct, but the whole thing strikes me as a solid effort by someone who had very limited sources, a plausible imagination, and little in the way of peer review. This really isn't atypical for English language coverage of topics like the Satellaview. Reliable information on this kind of topic can be hard to find and Western sources frequently extrapolate/speculate. Even some nominal RSes have been guilty of this. -Thibbs (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The Mary Sue

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

It doesn't appear that we've discussed the reliability of The Mary Sue, which is currently being used in 66 articles across Wikipedia, including Zoe Quinn. While not specifically about gaming, it has a rather thorough gaming section and there is a lot of crossover. They have an About Us page with founder—apparently Nightline co-anchor and Abrams Media-owner Dan Abrams—and editor information. Their editors and contributors have been published in books and magazines, spoken at conventions, etc. They have Advertising and Jobs pages like I would expect to see from a media outlet, and a professional Comment Policy and User Agreement. And they have a physical address, which is always good for an online site. They've been mentioned by a school of journalism and USA Today, plus our custom Google search for "themarysue.com" gave me 930,000 results, obviously including some duplicates and unusable pages but it's clear that our reliable sources consider them reliable as well. Opinions? Woodroar (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah at first blush it looks good to me. They seem to enjoy a decent reputation and are cited by Wired, PCMag, Time, etc. It does appear to be a blog, however, and we usually list reliable blogs as situational at best in deference to WP:BLOGS. I'm not sure it could be called a newsblog. -Thibbs (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
There are a few longer original pieces with news, some interviews, etc. that we could use in articles. And, of course, pieces by otherwise reliable authors per WP:BLOGS. That being said, even though I'd argue for reliability, there is a lot of shorter reblogged content from other sources that we wouldn't want to use. Perhaps something like "situational, original content is reliable"? Woodroar (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I would argue for reliability. They produce news articles as well as opinion, but make the distinction between the two pretty clear, which I think is significant. They also write from a different perspective to most 'hardcore' gaming sites, so considering them reliable makes it easier for editors to cover a topic from a variety of angles. Euchrid (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Well the ramifications as far as ease of coverage of topics isn't really a valid consideration for determining reliability. I mean given how the source is referenced in other RSes and given the bona fides of the staff it does seem reliable, but WP:BLOGS doesn't offer much in the way of exceptions. WP:NEWSBLOG covers situations where a preexisting news or magazine source (like New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.) hosts and oversees a blog. The only way we could consider this a newsblog would be if we somehow claimed that it fell under the oversight of Nightline via Dan Abrams. That seems like a real stretch to me. On the other hand we have greenlighted blogs from IGN, Kotaku, VG247, PlayStation Blog, and Rock Paper Shotgun in the past so I'm not sure. I'd say it's pretty clearly at least "Situational" based on the individual reliability of each author so Woodroar's "original content is reliable" restriction seems reasonable. And I'm not really opposed to calling it reliable if it can be made to conform to WP:BLOGS. This may even entail updating WP:BLOGS which I feel doesn't really take into account modern developments of the professionally edited MAB. Anyone else have any opinions? -Thibbs (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think we're moving towards a consensus here but I'm still interested in opinions. Woodroar (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_9&oldid=1080291274"