Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

WikiProject iconVideo games Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:


Shortcut
  • WT:VGRS

This talk page is for discussing the reliability of sources for use in video game articles. If you are wondering if a video game source is reliable enough to use on Wikipedia, this is the place to ask.

When posting a new topic, please add a link to the topic on the Video Game Sources Checklist after the entry for the site. If an entry for the site does not exist, create one for it and include the link to the topic afterward. Also, begin each topic by adding {{subst:find video game sources|...site name...|linksearch=...site URL...}} in order to provide other users with some easily accessible links to check up on the source.

Click here to start a new discussion thread


GMR Magazine

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

GMR is a Ziff Davis US magazine that provided computer and console game reviews from 2003 to 2005. The magazine had an editorial board and the magazines were closely linked to online content on the 1Up Network website, a reliable source under WP:VG/S. Given the publisher, plenty of the contributors turn up in other reliable sources, such as Greg Orlando, Che Chou and Ryan Scott. The only thing that is unusual is that the magazines were sold in Electronics Boutique. But it's a Ziff Davis publication and the review scores suggest this had no more of an impact on editorial independence than compared to other magazine reviews. You can find all the issues on the Internet Archive.

Aftermath again

Revisiting this discussion (previous 1 previous 2). I've been consistently impressed with the caliber of writing here, both in editorial (e.g. [1] [2])and in reported journalism work (e.g. [3], [4]). I especially like that there are some sickos on staff that cover older/retro topics in great detail (e.g. [5], [6]). We've already talked about the contributors' (owners) pedigree, so I'm comfortable going with reliable. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with calling them reliable. Compared to more mainstream sites, I feel more comfortable with their work than, say, IGN, which has its fair share of churnalism and listicles. When sites are lowering standards of quality, it's important to keep around a site that's embracing quality reporting and content. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel they're reliable per past discussions and their quality of work.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Situational (changing to Unreliable due to concerns over WP:SELFPUB given ownership situation) - Probably repeating myself, given the writers involved are former recent Kotaku (which has had a very choppy history when it comes to editorial standards) and looking at Aftermath's output so far it still feels very much in that Kotaku vein of being more personality-driven than the journalistic merits itself. Therefore while I wouldn't label the site as "unreliable" across the board I wouldn't feel comfortable giving it a similar "reliable" one either.
Comment - IIRC a concern someone had previously was there wasn't a public policy on editorial standards, has this been resolved? Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was Cukie and she contacted them directly to clarify. They have industry standard editorial protocols. Are there particular incidents of journalistic 'malpractice' you can point to for the writers involved? AFAIK all of them left Kotaku before the AI article stuff. As for the personality-driven vs journalistic merit stuff, I think their reported work is of high quality and the personality-driven stuff falls under WP:RSOPINION. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if any of them were there at the exact time of the AI stuff, but pretty much all of them were there for most of the G/O Media era that's most come under scrutiny in terms of just general output being unreliable/situational. And going by RSOPINION, given the type of outlet this is, still feels like it'd result in a situational designation. I think maybe it's best to start with situational and then down the line once they've had time to become established it's reviewed given it's only March. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of "malpractice" or rather general behaviour, I'd say that's covered in general by discussions about Kotaku, though Luke Plunkett's recent history comes to mind, such as last year where they responded to Nintendo blacklisting by posting "kill markings" with the Imperial Japanese Flag. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I don't know that I would agree at all with the sentiment of them being attached to the worst of Kotaku's era. They weren't brought in with G/O, they left because of G/O, so it can't be tied to them. Secondly, having bad takes isn't alien for people tied to reliable sources. I feel that, if a bad action by an editor at IGN wouldn't impugn IGN as a source, that shouldn't be used to argue against the reliability of a new source. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't brought in with G/O, they left because of G/O, so it can't be tied to them.
If people raised issues with the journalistic quality of the outlet during the G/O Media era which they worked at for some years then that is tied to them as well (if not all to do with them), given they're the writers of said output people questioned. And I don't think your allegory about IGN really works in the way you think it does. Here the issue is that if an employee at an outlet (with a somewhat dodgy reputation) leaves and starts their own one as a part-owner can we really just decide very soon after it's established that they're reliable now?
tl;dr, basically I think this is a case of too soon and that at best we should consider it situational given their previous recent ties to other outlets of questionable reliability and then revisit the issue in another six months given this is the third discussion on the site in as many months. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cukie. You're reversing effect and cause. G/O management caused the issues through unreasonable article quotas and SEO policies; this is well documented. Frankly, it's tantamount to career sabotage. Also I feel like you're painting Kotaku in too broad a brush. Their journalism bonafides have always been high, even during their supposed questionable eras. Many of the best shoeleather reporters in the industry got their start or big break at Kotaku including Totilo, Schreier, and D'Anastasio. As our own advice notes, News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable. The situational element only comes in for tossed off geeky/bloggy/joke-y posts and for possible AI-generated articles since 2023.
And I hope it doesn't have to be said but disliking a person or disagreeing with a person's opinions does not make them a bad journalist. Bad people can still be highly skilled journalists (not that I'm suggesting Aftermath staff are bad people), and reliability of a source depends fully on the latter and not at all on the former. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find these arguments extremely uncompelling. In what way would the lowering of quality be all on them? For that to be true, you would need to demonstrate that the lowering of quality happened prior to its purchase by G/O, and that doesn't seem to be something people agree with. A comparably strange argument would be to say that, if Kotaku went down for a month, that reflects poorly on the writers rather than the server host. That you argued this may be "all" to do with them is something so utterly confusing that I don't even remotely understand how you can argue that point with a straight face.
As far as the reputation of an individual author among a group, as Axem notes, that's honestly a completely tangential argument to make. The moral character of a journalist does not inherently impact their ability to do journalism. I do not believe that Wikipedians would argue that some writer for NY Times is unreliable if they committed a serious crime that's not related to the things they write about, so why is a stupid and awful take relevant to Luke Plunkett's ability to do journalism? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Axem Titanium "News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable. The situational element only comes in for tossed off geeky/bloggy/joke-y posts.", but that's the point. From what I've seen of Aftermath so far it's that exact same mix of everything so I really don't see why that same situationality suddenly doesn't apply.
Many of the best shoeleather reporters in the industry got their start or big break at Kotaku including Totilo, Schreier, and D'Anastasio. All of whom stayed as reporters at outlets, and didn't become effectively self-published.
And I hope it doesn't have to be said but disliking a person or disagreeing with a person's opinions does not make them a bad journalist. Bad people can still be highly skilled journalists (not that I'm suggesting Aftermath staff are bad people), and reliability of a source depends fully on the latter and not at all on the former.
It's somewhat different though when they go from "they were a journalist under someone else's payroll" to being an owner of the business, in which case their behaviour does reflect on it because it effectively becomes a form of self-publishing (which is a whole other minefield).
Many of the best shoeleather reporters in the industry got their start or big break at Kotaku including Totilo, Schreier, and D'Anastasio.
But as how one bad reporter doesn't make everyone bad, some being exceptional doesn't make all exceptional. Also all those names listed (until December) after Kotaku stayed as reporters and joined outlets of repute, they didn't start a self-published operation.
--------
@Cukie Gherkin I think you've gotten the wrong end of the stick, by "(if not all to do with them)" I mean as in it's not entirely to do with them, but likewise you can't entirely blame bad management when unless there's evidence otherwise the editorial decision-making in regards to coverage and output was still independent of ownership. If there were questions on the quality of what writers were putting out then that is partially on the staff involved.
The moral character of a journalist does not inherently impact their ability to do journalism. I do not believe that Wikipedians would argue that some writer for NY Times is unreliable if they committed a serious crime that's not related to the things they write about, so why is a stupid and awful take relevant to Luke Plunkett's ability to do journalism?
As said above, it changes because Luke Plunkett is a part-owner of the site. He isn't simply some staff writer at a major publication that can be held to account by an editorial board. He is effectively self-publishing. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just talking out of both sides of your mouth, making the argument from every angle to see what sticks. They were being paid by G/O media to put out shitty unreliable work, which makes them unreliable, but now they're not being paid so now they're unreliable. What?? Self-publishing is more relevant in the fringe/conspiracy theory world. Was the New York Times "self-published" when it first started out? The editorial board of Aftermath is the other owners who edit and fact check each others' work. This is a reputation-based business and I've yet to see an tangible example of journalistic malpractice that might impact reputation. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were being paid by G/O media to put out shitty unreliable work, which makes them unreliable, but now they're not being paid so now they're unreliable. What??
Didn't say that. Did say that they previously worked at outlets which had a questionable reputation for its output and they are now self-publishing which means they're in control of their own output without any editorial oversight. They are separate causes for concern.
Self-publishing is more relevant in the fringe/conspiracy theory world.
No it's not, the policy clearly applies to any publication, with the only consideration of potential reliability being Subject-Matter Experts. And I seriously doubt that applies to games journalists/bloggers.
Was the New York Times "self-published" when it first started out?
That's quite literally a mainstay of my argument. NYT is considered reliable because it's got a body of journalistic merit and standards going back nearly two centuries. Big difference to a self-published blog/site that started a few months ago.
The editorial board of Aftermath is the other owners who edit and fact check each others' work.
Well not only can I not find that anywhere on their site, or anything to demonstrate in writing how their site operates in terms of editorial standards, but that still means it's self-published and covered under the self-published policy ("personal or group blogs") Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mean this as a comment on Cukie's personal character/trustworthiness, but I do raise an eyebrow at a source not stating their editorial policy and us relying on an editor's personal correspondence of it instead.` Hackerman67 (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cukie did contact them (and I thank Cukie for being proactive), but unless there's something I missed, industry standard protocols were not confirmed.
The response was "Yep! Every piece we run is edited. Riley mostly handles that, but we're a pretty small team, so for some pieces another one of us will do it".
While at best that means they have an unstated editorial policy and meet industry standards, at worst it means they have someone edit it for spelling and grammar. The source text doesn't confirm either way. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the thing, when we are examining a dip in quality, we can point to a timeline. It happened when G/O purchased Kotaku. If the quality of the writers was partly the issue, why was it only recognized after G/O bought them? Why is it that Kotaku getting even worse happened when the staff from before G/O largely left? We can't prove G/O is responsible, but if it's not G/O that's to blame, it leaves many unanswered questions why the staff was better before them, and why the site worsened after the staff left. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's really not the case at all is it. Let's actually look at the current listing of Kotaku for a minute, which says this:
News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance (such as [13]). Articles published before 2010 had comparatively weaker editorial standards, while articles published from 2023 onward should generally be avoided due to content farming concerns and unmarked AI-written content. It should be noted that this is not a definitive cut-off—editorial deterioration is gradual, and editors have noted instances of low-quality reporting in preceding years—so articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
So breaking that down for a moment:
1 - News reporting at G/O Media era was considered reliable for three years, so the idea it simply "happened when G/O purchased Kotaku" isn't true.
2 - The article used to emphasis the unreliability of certain styles of posting quite literally uses Luke Plunkett from 2012 as an example. So clearly he's been viewed by editors here as a problem for at least a decade.
3 - It specifically points out that the "editorial deterioration is gradual", presumably because looking back at previous discussions no one could actually agree when the site "got bad". Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But no one is arguing that Kotaku has never had issues, the point is that the period before they were bought was seen as good enough to upgrade them, and then G/O represented a gradual decline rather than an immediate one, with the staff leaving almost immediately seeing a sharp drop in quality. Also, again, Luke's bad takes don't matter for this unless they can be shown to affect his journalism. I do not think that Luke Plunkett made a geeky blog because he has a bad take, for instance. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of his "bad takes" is literally still used to highlight concerns about Kotaku's reliability years prior to G/O Media existing. You can't discount that when talking about the reliability of a site he's part owner of and self-publishing under. And again, read the actual description, it doesn't state when the "gradual decline" began, only that its decline happened at some point prior to 2023 (because as shown in prior linked discussions about Aftermath, the issue about them being former Kotaku writers and therefore how to discuss reliability was brought up). Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We actually can look at the discussions to identify when the decline seemed to happen. In this discussion, a number of Kotaku's editors left the site due to 2019 Deadspin layoffs. The fact that it took two years for such a discussion to happen suggests to me that the notion that G/O's management wasn't to blame a strange one, considering the staff during the period most people agree was Kotaku's most reliable saw a significant migration from the site explicitly because of what G/O did to Deadspin. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even in that discussion though, the first reply debunks it:
"Also for further context, Totilo only left back in February 2021, well after the Deadspin controversy in late 2019, with Patricia Hernandez officially taking over in late June 2021. So Kotaku had an interim EiC (Riley Macleod) in between Totilo's departure and Hernandez's return, who also left just before she was announced as EiC" (source for evidence)
So they didn't leave because of Deadspin in 2019, instead they stuck around for multiple years after. It's even notable that all but one of the Aftermath Founders was there at the point Totilo left in 2021, so if you're considering that G/O Media's purchase marks the degrading of their reliability, well then these founders were putting out that poor content for some years (Luke Plunkett was the last to leave in July 2023).
Just from my own anecdotal experience, as someone who's read Kotaku (at differing levels) since probably around 2009, I've seen people decry that site as "not what it once was" even before a certain lawsuit took place. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable per Axem. Sergecross73 msg me 22:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable website is clearly high quality, and many of its writers have notable credentials. Skyshiftertalk 23:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Situational. Speculation about the writers' history aside, their actual current site's editorial policies give me pause.
Hackerman67 (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what's giving you question? No offense, but as of writing this, you're about 80 edits into your editing career. I know that 80 edits into my time on Wikipedia, I had no idea how Wikipedia assessed sources yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to reply for Hackerman67, but as it's been a couple days, I imagine it refers to their statement:
"I do raise an eyebrow at a source not stating their editorial policy and us relying on an editor's personal correspondence of it instead" DarkeruTomoe (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable. I see no issues with their content. Woodroar (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable based on what I see so far. If any issues come up, we can always revisit this discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence, but leaning reliable Wait and see. Their work has so far been great, but the lack of published editorial policy/standards is enough to make me a bit cautious about giving them a blanket reliable classification right now. If they actually articulate them and put them up on the site for us to vet, I'd have no issues classifying them as reliable. JOEBRO64 13:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Situational (Edit: Now leaning unreliable considering the lack of Conflict of Interest notice on their recent posts about the game journalist industry and that most of their recent posts big posts involved it or were Kotaku style posts like 'I’ve Had The Same PC Speakers For 20 Years, Almost My Entire Adult Life') / Wait and See - at least six months before bringing it up again
- It's still quite new, there's no posted editorial policy (and I don't believe the minimal response to Cutie's email was satisfactory in place of that), and while the staff do seem accomplished and the work I've seen seems good at face value, the majority of them were still working at Kotaku during their weaker years (most left during 2020 - 2021 and people were questioning it long before the AI stuff). It has also been mentioned that the co-owner was one of the earliest posted examples of weaker articles.
I'm also a little wary because of articles like this one about Gamurs and the state of the industry, which are very interesting (and in this case was published by the co-owner) but are very likely subject to bias. Bias of course is expected, but including things like an anonymous Indeed review of the company as an example and the potential to misrepresent the situation and present it as fact are concerns.
Edit: I'd also note articles like this one make me wary of their ethics. It's reporting negatively about Kotaku, without adding a disclaimer mentioning their previous association with and decision to leave it (and most likely association with friends/colleagues working there), unlike for example slate's previous article on Kotaku which clearly states what they describe as a conflict of interest (Follow up Edit: For context, the article when originally posted as shown via WayBack Machine didn't include any mention of their CoI. It was later edited to mention Riley's involvement, but no-one else's at the site including the co-author Gita who also worked there). DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIASED covers this. All sources are biased and sources are not required to follow NPOV. The deciding factor for reliability is the reputation and caliber of work, not lack of bias. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does which is why I said it's expected. It's the concerns over the reputation/caliber that are higher when it comes to these sort of things, which is why I highlighted using an anonymous Indeed review as an example to build a narrative, which seems even worse than using an embedded tweet. something that sources are often called out for.
Edit: To clarify, my concern is that this is a piece of work where there is a clear bias and this is where less than reliable reporting is most likely to show through potentially not adhering to journalist processes in favor of making their point - not that the bias itself is an issue. But if they present information where sources such as an anonymous review posted online is supporting evidence to drive a point that they're clearly in favor of presenting, then can we trust their anonymous sources are all vetted? That they've interviewed a wide selection of people and not just their friends in the industry who they know are unhappy? Cascading on from that, is their process for other articles up to spec?
At this point, we've not seen much evidence of how this outlet operates (not helped by it's lack of editorial policy). As a new outlet, it doesn't *have* much of a a reputation, much less one for reliability.
DarkeruTomoe (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that journalists can't report on other journalists? If not them, then who is allowed to report on problems in journalism?
If you're concerned about the use of anonymous sources in general, check source (journalism) for more information about why we as a society allow professional journalists to report news based on undisclosed sources, and by extension, why news outlets that use undisclosed sources are still considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. It's part of the social contract that we agree to when we empower journalists to investigate. Without protection of anonymous sources, there would be no such thing as whistleblowing. If you assume little enough faith, no journalist is reliable because there's a chance they could be making anything up at any time. But that's not a workable state of affairs. Instead, we trust news organizations to responsibly report the news, based on anonymous sources when applicable, and that trust is given according to their reputation for good work.
For this anonymous "source" in particular, it's just a publicly posted review on Indeed that anyone can go look at and verify. They didn't track down who posted the review and it's actually not referred to in the text of the article; it's just flavor. It's a completely different thing from protecting an anonymous source in the journalistic sense and the presence of the quote in that article doesn't reflect on the website's integrity about using anonymous sources in general. They're not related.
And while the website might not have much of a reputation yet, the people certainly do. All/most of their posts are still up at other sites. You can look at them yourself to decide if they meet your standards for reliable journalism. They certainly meet mine. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and see I agree with the comments above in that vein. They simply do not have the length of time I'd want before evaluating the sum of their coverage. As mentioned, Kotaku suffers from a gradual erosion of quality, and these writers aren't necessarily responsible for that but they're not free and clear, either. I agree with Darkeru that failing to note a conflict of interest in your reporting is a major red flag (The Washington Post, for example, always mentions their ownership when they report on the company. Is it sometimes hilarious how out of left field it is in their reporting? Yes. But it's better to be safe than sorry and appearances matter. Obviously games journalism is a steaming pile of dreck compared to the wider sphere, but I don't think this is too high a hurdle when evaluating a new publication.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    100% agree. I think people here are focusing a little too much on the fact that the writers once worked for a source we considered reliable, when the site is still extremely new and there are thus some fairly obvious deficiencies (specifically, not publishing their editorial policy for us to vet, just saying "oh we have one don't worry" because someone emailed them, and failing to disclose a COI). It's definitely a "sit back and see how it plays out" situation for me. JOEBRO64 19:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think a broader point is that while good journalists are a tremendous assets, the role of editorial is hugely important in making a publication. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable. The reputation of the founders and owners does matter; beyond that, coverage of them and WP:USEBYOTHERS generally points to reliability, eg. [7][8][9][10][11] --Aquillion (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles about the dissolution of Kotaku and the founding of another publication cannot be used as an example of USEBYOTHERS. That's just covering news. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd think some of those linked articles would be a weak example of WP:USEBYOTHERS since some are reporting news about Kotaku / the establishment of Aftermath, not citing it for facts / establishing that it believes it's reliable.
    The others are citing the article about the Editor in Chief leaving which is better, but it'd be nice to see a more varied case of WP:USEBYOTHERS as that's one article which Aftermath is in rather a unique position to report upon, as detectors from Kotaku and former coworkers (and presumably in a friendly relationship) with the person being reported upon.
    As mentioned above as well, the initial lack of noting any conflict of interest or bias as compared to articles like slates on the source article isn't great either. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't the recognition that they missed a COI disclosure and made an update an indication of trustworthiness, rather than a knock against it? An unreliable news org would simply ignore it or try to sweep it under the rug. Nobody's perfect and a humility about and recognition of honest mistakes is better than arrogance. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at those articles and they're just news about staff leaving Kotaku and starting another website. Those don't fall under WP:USEBYOTHERS. They're not citing the source for their reporting, they're just reporting that a new website's been started. JOEBRO64 10:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The GI.biz, VGC, and Daily Beast articles are based on Aftermath's reporting (i.e. "according to Aftermath"), which qualifies as USEBYOTHERS. The other two sources (Verge and Game Developer) are about Aftermath's founding itself, which appears to be mistake to include them. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CG Magazine

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

So this was declared unreliable back in 2014 [12], but in a discussion that, in my eyes, didn't stand a WP:SNOW of a chance due to being heavily promoted by an editor affiliated with the site. I'd like to give this a second run, as I think it's a reasonable source.

  • Cross-references: Gry Online [13], Gamespot [14], Washington Post [15], PCGamesN [16] Destructoid [17] [18], judge for the Game Critics Awards, whatever that's worth [19].
  • Quickfail issues from last time: they appear to have tightened up their editorial policy, no longer accepting user content, and made a proper page of their staff.
  • To my knowledge, it's not being spammed anymore, which appeared to be a problem last time. ~ A412 talk! 20:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Situational. This seems to be a perfectly fine source that meets the standards. However, I'm going with situational here based on the fact it was previously marked unreliable, even if that was determined by a flawed discussion. Flaws in their past editorial policy still possibly existed. I'm unsure if a cutoff date can be determined for what's good or what's bad, but their content output today seems fine and I'd have no issues citing it. λ NegativeMP1 17:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning reliable especially for review content as a print magazine with editorial policies and board no different to small-time review outlets under WP:VG/S. An Internet Archive sleuth suggests that it is correct CGM only had a review policy in 2014, but an editorial policy followed by the end of the year and an ethics policy in 2021. I think it is somewhat premature to say that it should be situational given the 2014 discussion, which heavily leaned on the explicit absence of these policies and relative immaturity of the publication, and was sort of doomed by the involvement of the editor in the discussion which derailed the policy discussion. However, I will admit a glaring issue is that the editorial team don't have fairly self-contained experience: this has been lead editor Brendan Frye's project for a decade and the only other team member with known experience is Jordan Biordi who wrote for Comic Book Resources for a few months and did video editing for Valnet. Limited journalistic experience isn't totally unheard of for a smaller publication, but it still raises how much oversight there is. That said, particularly for reviews, it strikes me as agreeable to consider use of this content and is not in the same category as unreliable blogs.
    ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaku - Firm Up Unreliability post-2023 given last couple of days

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

Wish to propose we firmly move post-2023 content from Kotaku to unreliable following this week's discloure of a complete shift away from news reporting to being a "guide" content mill.[20] Currently the site's content from 2023 onwards is described with "while articles published from 2023 onward should generally be avoided due to content farming concerns and unmarked AI-written content" but given this has gone from theoretical concerns to known policy I believe the slightly vague language is no longer suitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambling Rambler (talk • contribs)

  • Oppose - it's too soon, the comment of one staff on future plans shouldn't change things. It hasn't even happened yet. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Even if these plans were enacted upon, moving it to completely unreliable would eliminate usage of the source as a whole, even when it was actually decent. We've already marked post-2023 Kotaku as unreliable, and I'm unsure how the words that get that message across are "vague". λ NegativeMP1 16:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, what I mean is that it should be firmer that post-2023 is explicitly unreliable. At present the wording is "generally be avoided" which is more situational language than I think is appropriate. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You also explicitly said "move Kotaku to unreliable". That seems to suggest more than just tweaking the wording, but actually moving it to a different section/classification. I remain opposed either way, but surely you can see the confusion here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's my bad. I'll edit the text. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just because the management wants to push more on guides, that speaks nothing if the reliability of their news reporting is affected. We will have to judge. --Masem (t) 16:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the Fence / Additional Information I've seen this floating around today which is a Kotaku Staff Writer disclosing that they were being told to "aggregate" (seemingly plagiarise) content by management which gives me additional concern. Original link here but the account went private. Previous discussions on Kotaku have always been contentious as is with people doubting the reliability for almost a decade now. I do think it's too soon if we're just basing on this one issue, but I also think we should keep an eye on it and revisit. That said, I was of the opinion that it should've been stronger wording when downgraded before and I've already seen people using post-2023 Kotaku as long as the individual is happy with the article being accurate... which is difficult to know when it comes to some of the more subjective stuff --DarkeruTomoe (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some of our most reliable sources print game guides, and that's why we have have WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. If Kotaku completely exited journalism, that would be a different discussion. But I understand this as running more clickable content to make money, which is just an unfortunate reality for most websites these days. We can just exclude this type of content without excluding the site entirely. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I feel like Kotaku has always been the new journalism of games journalism. Sometimes they run joke articles or flat-out shitposting, sure. But their news coverage, and particularly their coverage of insider leaks, has generally been excellent—and that's despite all of the ownership changes and corporate pressure. Maybe they'll keep the news desk alive. Or maybe they'll turn into a content mill. It's just too early to tell. Woodroar (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Even in the face of hostile management, there are still good reporters working at the site and we should use our real human eyes/brains to determine which articles are usable and which are game guide/AI/whatever. This is the platonic ideal of 'situational'. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kakuchopurei

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

Kakuchopurei is a Southeast Asian video game website that started in 2017. According to its "About Us" section, its coverage ranges from the latest video game news to the realm of pop culture, providing exclusive interviews and YouTube videos on its channel. In addition, it runs a merchandise shop and an eSports event called Liga Esports Antara Parlimen.

I bring this up because I found a Wikipedia article citing its news, whose contents contradict its self-proclaimed reputation. The article Gyaru mentions when Sega was condemned for featuring blackface in the anime based on Hatsune Miku: Colorful Stage! and cites this Kakuchopurei article. The article itself is unnecessarily opinionated and sarcastic, beginning and ending with the author's personal complaint on the Western fanbase. There aren't many Wikipedia articles that cite this, but it still raises concern enough to ask about its reliability here.--Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm on teh fence about its reliability, I do kinda feel the reaction to the source feels a lot more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT than an actual complaint? The bigger problem as is seems to be their lack of editorial oversight on their "About Us" page than anything.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their about me page does suggest it's likely notable, with collaboration with a TV show, coverage indicating a high level of access to industry, and a significant amount of views. Reliability is another matter of course.
But I don't see anything wrong with the article itself. The writer obviously has a strong opinion on the topic, but so do authors from many reliable sources. An article being "unnecessarily opinionated and sarcastic" isn't a reason to rule a source as unreliable.
An editorial policy would be nice to see, but there are sources marked as reliable without one. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I'll admit having a connection to a television show sets it apart some, I don't think that alone is enough to get us hit to reliable. I can't find anything about editorial oversight or policy, writer credentials, anything to that nature. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, as said "Reliability is another matter". But connection to a TV show, interviews with industry, and so on are positive indicators.
In terms of credentials, I've only checked the one, but the founder used to be the Editor in Chief of IGN SEA, wrote for a magazine, and has other experience.
Probably worth keeping in mind that this is a Malaysian website too, so standards may differ to US ones. If nothing else, it'd be difficult to apply the 'dynastic view' that's often used here of 'X' worked at 'Y' reliable outlet. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning reliable. I'd like a little more here, but I think we should be looking for reliable non-western sources wherever we can. Staff credentials are here. A solid about us is here. A specific editorial policy is missing, but some stances are covered in the about us. -- ferret (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention that; what I was trying to say was the tone of article and the lack of mention in About Us about how editorials are done (as Kung Fu Man pointed out earlier) made me think this might be from community user-blogs, like some other sources like Destructoid are run. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at his profile, he's been writing a long time on there, so I doubt that's the situation at least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered too, with the "members" section they have, but I think it's more in a Patreon sort of way than user blogs (though it certainly has that unprofessional userblog/Redditor/Twitter monologue energy, for sure.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prima Games non-guide content

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


Is Prima Games reliable for non-guide content, in particular reviews? Previous discussion centered around their guides and gameplay content, but they also publish reviews. Are these reliable? ~ A412 talk! 19:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious why we'd want to use them. Are there examples of where Prima has reviewed a game others haven't? By default I'd prefer other sources to a game guide doing reviews. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they have an odd interesting mix of very popular stuff and relatively obscure stuff. Going back through some of their recent reviews:
  • [21] - Nothing else on Metacritic [22].
  • [23] - 4 on Metacritic [24], but only 2 reliable
  • [25] - A bunch on Metacritic [26], but only 2 reliable
The specific game that inspired this question was Potionomics, [27], which is on the thinner side for quantity of RS reviews. ~ A412 talk! 21:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable for reviews IMO - I'd be starting from a point of scepticism. It's part of the Gamurs Group which has recently had a lot of negative attention over management decisions/layoffs and looking at other sources within the group, there are a few marked reliable, but most are situational or worse, despite some reasonable policies in place.
More importantly, while I'd not say a guide site can't have a perfectly good review section, almost all of their recent reviews appear to be by writers who've written barely any reviews in their career - that's Priscilla Wells, Patrick Souza, Meg Bethany Koepp, and Brandon Morgan (Shaun Cichacki is an exception).
That said, Lucas White who wrote the Potionomics reviews at least is an experienced reviewer and also writes for GameCrate (situational) and ShackNews (reliable) as well as some less reputable outlets in the past. So I could see a case for using that specific review, even if the outlet itself isn't great. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of the issues specific to prior to 2021? If not, I think there's an argument for "reliable prior to 2021, after 2021 use your best judgment". - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gamurs Group didn't acquire Prima Games until Jan 2022, so the management side of the issues wouldn't apply until then.
Looking at some of their older reviews, some are still seemingly from reviewers without many reviews to their name such as Liana Ruppert and Nicholas Barth. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

eXputer.com

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

Is this site reliable for Interviews only? I'm asking because i want to start using it to a degree. example [28] The website itself is currently used in 17 articles according to search and wasn't discussed here yet. Timur9008 (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a bit mixed as a source at a quick look at least. As a note, it doesn't matter how many articles it's used in as that doesn't mean it should have been used as a source. For example, Nichegamer which is explicitly unreliable has been used almost 200 times.
- Their Editor-In-Chief hasn't worked anywhere notable.
- Others may be able to find more, but the only reliable site I can see linking to them is The Verge, which credits them as 'video game leaker', not the most confidence-inspiring title and it's more referring to the footage existing/being posted than using eXputer.com's article as a source for facts about the game.
- They don't appear to have a review code disclaimer checking out several of their articles which either implies they're not trusted enough to get them or they're not disclosing that they received them (I suspect the latter), both potential problems.
- Their editorial policy claims their writers are experts, but this appears to be a case of large team, with most of them seemingly very inexperienced writers.
- That it has an editorial policy at least is a positive
- It's on OpenCritic.
- They have quite a few interviews, showing they do have some level of trust and access to industry DarkeruTomoe (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MobyGames owned by Atari now

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

All discussions about MobyGames being reliable are over a decade old. On 8 March 2022, it was purchased by Atari SA. They have paid staff, it not just a fansite. Their list of games include the cover art and screenshots of the game, proving they exist, so should be considered a reliable site to for Wikipedia:Verifiability. Dream Focus 14:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remains a WP:USERG database site using user submissions. -- ferret (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the issue isn't that they lack paid staff, the issue is that the staff isn't the one curating the content. At most, you could argue, if Moby Games had a good editorial policy and staff and did articles, that it should be usable for that, but like Giant Bomb, the database itself isn't influenced by other areas of the site being staff-directed. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Gamefaqs is similar. There is technically staff "reviewing" submissions, but not like a professional editor acting in accordance to editorial policy, it's just people making sure USERG submissions are actually content and not gibberish, trolling, hate speech, etc. More or less the bare minimum any website that hosts user blogs. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My question isn't about notability, but verifiability. If there are screenshots and images of the cover of old videos games there, would that be enough to prove those games exist? Be good enough to use on the hundreds of Category:Video game lists by platform list articles in their reference columns, to simply confirm their existence. Dream Focus 17:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I sometimes, albeit rarely, use MobyGames as a ref, but only if I'm specifically pointing at the box art. Since MobyGames now has an impressive collection of uploaded box art. It's rare when I need to do this (a specific endorsement quote, gameplay mechanic, hardware requirement, etc.).
    Similar to using Discogs as a ref but only when linking to an image of liner notes, since that's another user-ran site. But otherwise, I don't see any other usability for MobyGames...FYI I use 'AV media notes' when doing this, but again it's kinda a last resort/oddly specific thing. Xanarki (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is talking about notability. It failing WP:USERG is not a notability argument, its a reliability argument. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides what Sergecross pointed out, as this page is concerned about vetting reliability.... MobyGames is a fantastic resource for finding other reliable sources, but using them to "prove" a game exists because they host the cover image (which is also user-generated) doesn't seem to serve a purpose. Any store could do that. Databases maintained by sites we do consider reliable can do that. If the goal is simply to prove a game exists, so that platform lists are more complete, than it feels like a NOTDATABASE issue, as well as simply mirroring MobyGames besides. -- ferret (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stores don't cover games that stopped being sold since before the internet existed. What reliable database sites have this information? Dream Focus 17:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some websites and books that provider comprehensive game lists for certain platforms, but they do not exist for every platform, and I would not trust MobyGames to verify such a list. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the value of verifying the existence of a game to make a list more complete, but at the same time, certain games lacking good sources to verify them shouldn't justify using subpar ones. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support removing MobyGames as a reliable source. I'm not sure it ever was in the first place. It's affiliated with a major publisher, and features mostly user generated content. Even the primary source (e.g.: the game credits or instruction manual) would be more reliable, in the absence of any other sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MobyGames is listed as unreliable. ~ A412 talk! 15:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. I guess I'll also say that we should stop linking to it at all. I don't see what value it really adds. Same thing with IDGB which is owned by Twitch / Amazon. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruliweb

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

Ruliweb is a South Korea-based website with a video gaming focus formed in 2000. The website has had official sponsorship with domestic video game companies for events, notably Rulicon livestreaming in 2022 with publishers like Sony, Bandai Namco and Blizzard.

Most of the posts on the frontpage are user-submitted contents, which are useless by WP:UGC. All following links are named "information board" or something similar, but are run like internet forums with no moderation process to filter its contents prior: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

There are some articles in Ruliweb written by official staff, but they have their own issues. The About Us page only discloses the fact that its current publisher is Park Byeong Uk (박병욱) and editor-in-chief is Lee Jang Won (이장원). Park is the founder of the website with no connection to journalism otherwise (if this interview with Donga is to be trusted). Lee's Linkedin page states he was in Entershot and Gameshot previously, but neither are particularly known for high standard journalism. About Us has no information on the website's editorial process.

Ruliweb's articles do not have info pages for individual journalists, making it difficult to tell who they are or how long they've worked there, and are generally poor at authorship practices. Take this review of Unicorn Overlord published in March 2024 for example. Confusingly, this post's author is credited as "(RULIWEB`Д')/" on its profile. The author's name comes up in the video game infobox, but only as their nickname "Graz'zy". It isn't until when you scroll all down (but before scrolling past user comments) that you can finally see the author is Kim Yeong Hun (김영훈). This is one of the better ones. The review of Dragon's Dogma 2 only credits the author as "Mustang" and does not disclose who the person actually is.

Despite the website's connections to gaming industry, its general reliance on user-generated contents and dubious transparency of articles suggest its interest lies in sponsored contents, which would also disqualify it by WP:SPONSORED. I suggest this website be flagged unreliable. There aren't a lot of Wikipedia articles citing Ruliweb but I thought it was necessary to bring it up because, due to being a non-English source, it might be hard to realize the website is not trustworthy.--Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen it be used, but generally agree with your assessments here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel we lack, currently, any good Korean sources (correct me if I'm wrong here). So if we can ascertain it's an actual article published by the staff and not user-generated content, it should be situational...albeit sparingly. Case in point I've noticed they've done interviews on Genshin Impact material, and I cited them prior where they did an interview with Shift Up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That Park Place

Find video game sources: "That Park Place" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo Seeing this pop up in my google news sources as of late, and honestly nothing about this site looks reliable. Their editor in chief is Bounding Into Comics' former editor in chief to boot, which also raises some red flags for me given that site's history. Seems open and shut, but bringing it up for discussion to be safe. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable per above reasoning. Clearly more interested in culture war flamebait than accurate reporting. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems obvious to call this unreliable. Just adding my name here for the sake of consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Wind

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

I haven't seen anyone open a discussion on Second Wind yet, so here's some general thoughts/notes:

Independent outlet made up of former Escapist employees. They primarily cover gaming, film, and television mostly doing reviews and opinion pieces. They post videos on YouTube, and written columns on Patreon. Most of the written columns are paywalled which is annoying for us editors, but of course doesn't disqualify them per WP:PAYWALL. They are unfortunately lacking a proper "about us" page, they just have this short blurb. EIC Nick Calandra seems to be pretty responsive to people on Twitter so you could probably get in touch with him if you want more details on their editorial policies.

They have 10ish fulltime employees. Some key people are: Editor-in-Chief is Nick Calandra who was Escapist EIC from 2019-2023. He has a bachelor’s degree in Multimedia Journalism and worked at a few different smaller outlets prior to The Escapist. Darren Mooney appears to be a notable film critic and published author. Marty Sliva formerly worked at 1UP and IGN, both of which are reliable gaming sources. And of course Yahtzee Croshaw is still around; previous discussions of the Escapist have indicated that his reviews are fine to use.

One thing to note is The Escapist is listed as a situational source but has gone through multiple eras of management/ownership. The last discussion on The Escapist was in 2017 while Calandra and his team (who would go on to become Second Wind) started in 2019. So other than Yahtzee who was there the whole time, past evaluations of The Escapist aren't really applicable to the current Second Wind team.

Personally, I think they seem fine. I've been following their content and haven't noticed anything objectionable. CurlyWi (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I personally enjoy their content but in terms of Wikipedia policy it feels like an immediate fail under their content being predominantly Youtube-based and their "outlet" being self-published. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Counter-Strike

With Counter-Strike being one of the leading eSports games, I find it surprisingly difficult to get reliable sources that are in WP:VGRS. And that is for the best players in the world, the Counter-Strike Major trophy holders. Imagine struggling to find links for Cristiano Ronaldo that match WP:VGRS.

There have been various discussions that HLTV won't be included in this list. While it's a pity considering that is the main reporting source for Counter-Strike scores, it's understandable. Can we add at least some sites that are actually used for Counter-Strike news reporting? I suppose the same situation is with Valorant and VLR.gg but that's a different topic.

A few that could be added: 1. https://www.esports.net/ 2. https://www.oneesports.gg/ 3. https://press.pglesports.com/

Overall, I just want to raise the obvious issue that the sites currently in WP:VGRS are not covering the top game esports news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latviawikiman (talk • contribs) 05:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at One Esports while source searching for Genshin Impact-related articles. From what I've looked at it seems fine, it's owned by the same group that owns ONE Championship. No opinion on the other two, but ONE has a defined editorial team and seems to publish decent enough content to where I could consider it to be reliable. λ NegativeMP1 05:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sportacentrs.com (non-English source)

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

SportaCentrs.com (LV Wikipedia) is a Latvian (non-English) media that publishes information about sports and also eSports.

The site was launched in 2002 and they have a professional team of journalists about sports and esports: https://parmums.sportacentrs.com/redakcija.html

Adventure Game Hotspot

Hey. Can anyone add this new site since 2022 to the main page? It's similar to Adventure Gamers. One co founder was former editor at Adventure Gamers..They also have a small policies page. Check it.

https://adventuregamehotspot.com/about

Also, can someone amend notes for wargamer dot com slightly to indicate it's more focused on tabletop matters since former site's design's closure in early 2021 or so? Before it used to show lots more digital/PC wargaming news. These are almost supplanted by PCGamesN (which is under same network company, Network N).

ObiKKa (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this small Advertising info page, I also noticed that the current GameWatcher website used to be Strategy Informer.
https://www.gamewatcher.com/pages/advertising
I see that the old Strategy Informer (name closed down last decade or few years ago, I think) is under the situational sources list on main page.
GameWatcher needs to be added to the page, perhaps next to Strategy Informer. Content seems medium good. One writer overwhelmingly writes articles there. Multi people do write reviews. It's focused on PC gaming.
No editorial process page I could find, just a simple staff roster page (though, many other writers are not mentioned there).
Scrolling down homepage is rather difficult (similar to PCGamesN & wargamer dot com) as older articles keep popping up. There's no additional info links at bottom row of website like usual in most other news sites. Just a menu at top corner or row.
ObiKKa (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modojo

Find video game sources: "Modojo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo Haven't seen this source discussed yet, so I might as well bring it here. They're a website that covers mobile games (and occasionally review them too). They're listed on Metacritic. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 23:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TrademarkedTWOrantula The domain seems to be inoperable. It appears that they operate under Shacknews now, which is already reliable, as of 2017 (https://www.shacknews.com/article/101818/modojo--shacknews-new-phone-who-dis) -- ferret (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhh, thanks! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 23:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources&oldid=1219472131"