www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MilkyDefer (talk | contribs) at 13:39, 29 May 2023 (→‎A short essay on Chinese sources: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:
See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard


Shortcut

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


Inverse

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

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

Leaning unreliable. The examples I gave three years ago of their rampant churnalism/"articles about nothing" only seem worse with three years passing. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dug a little deeper into their gaming-specific output. It looks like they break their articles down by: news, game recs, interviews, reviews, "game theory", guides, retrospectives, opinions, and "oral history" (which I would say is really similar to retrospectives).
I'd say we could maybe list this under situation. Like, I lean toward listing their interviews, reviews, and opinions under reliable. But their news stuff is hit-or-miss, especially recently as you point out so if we listed Inverse under situational, we could note that pre-2020 is all clear, but post-2020 should be treated with caution or not used since I do see your point about churnalism. The more opinionated stuff though I think could still be used, just needs to be pointed out as an opinion when used in articles. And I think the interviews could be useful for articles, don't really see an issue with them to be honest. The linked example from above looks like it'd offer value over on the Paranormasight: The Seven Mysteries of Honjo page. Or this could work for Redfall. I'd assume their game rec stuff could be bundled into their opinion content.
I don't know what to really do with the theory stuff though, that sort of thing seems like it could border on fancruft.
After typing that I also noticed they tag some articles as simply "Gaming", "Tech" or "Feature" and at least those examples I found doesn't seem off. I guess overall I'd say situational with a soft lean toward reliable.
Soulbust (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is your rationale for it being a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense? Most of your comment is just talking about what content they cover or musing about how it could be used if we allowed it. But I'm not really seeing your argument on how it meets our standards exactly. Sergecross73 msg me 11:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, I haven't really offered my leans one or the other. I like to kinda just trust the community here and use sources deemed reliable. But decided to state my opinion this time, and then decided to give some more context on the source bc I thought that could be useful. I guess, in my opinion the source's opinionated articles hold up to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Same for their even some post-2020 news ones.
I looked at some of the past discussions I started up here: 1, 2, 3, 4 to kinda see what makes some people think sources are reliable and unreliable. Even looking at some other discussions I haven't started, I notice a recurring concept is if a source's about page or related things offer a sense of legitimacy to the source. I would say Inverse has a masthead with a considerably long list of their whole staff/team and it looks like they at least have a legit concern for their editorial quality based on that. Their about us links to a subpage on bdg.com (or Bustle Digital Group) which owns Bustle. A 2019 RfC on Bustle resulted in "There is consensus that the reliability of Bustle is unclear and that its reliability should be decided on an instance by instance basis." Bustle is appropriately yellow-listed over at perennial sources. So I figure that it might make sense for Inverse to have the same or a similar label.
I also just personally think their new/more contemporary stuff is fine. Like this review on Minecraft Legends from just yesterday doesn't raise any red flags or alarm bells for me, at least from a skim of it. I think treating Inverse as situational or case-by-case like how Bustle is also makes sense, including for their news stuff. Because like I feel most people would probably be cool with this news post perhaps? Soulbust (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Situational source Looking over their reviews, they seem eminently reliable and I would have no qualms using them as a gauge of notability. I would classify everything else as situational with overly fancrufty articles or video game rumors to be avoided. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually the cruft/churnalism sites are the ones we don't factor in to notability though. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no real evidence that being reviewed on Inverse does not indicate something is notable. I would probably limit its usage in proving notability to a full standard review of the game though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that even mean? What sort of evidence could even exist for such a claim? Sergecross73 msg me 23:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why you are asking me to provide hard evidence when your claim that they are unreliable is an article that was clearly marked as "unsubstantiated" and possibly "a wild guess". While it turned out to be false, it didn't give me the impression they were reporting lies as fact, so I have no clue how that can be used to justify their unreliability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm asking you to clarify your own words. You said "There is no real evidence that being reviewed on Inverse does not indicate something is notable". What would a valid counterpoint be to such a claim? Are you saying there's no evidence of churnalism? Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Paging through their reviews section, I see an eclectic combination of AAA games, AA games and interesting indie titles with no evidence that they are reviewing spam. Their games seem meticulously picked - do I agree with every single one of their reviews, obviously not, but they appear to be well thought out and not just focusing on the biggest games of the year, with the chance to actually benefit the coverage of lesser known titles once in a while. I don't see evidence they are reviewing un-notable spam games or putting no effort into the reviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Review spam" isn't really a problem with these sorts of churnalism websites, it's more their "news about nothing" spam they churn out when there's no new developments. The sort of stuff of stuff linked in the original discussions, like the "Here's why we think Tears of the Kingdom is coming out in 2020" because they read an anonymous 4chan post about it, or the "Here's one insane theory about Tears of the Kingdom" headline and its just some fabrication of "What if Link travels to the moon" or whatever. It's this sort of crap that has no place in Wikipedia articles, and doesn't help establish notability in the slightest. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why my opinion is that it should only be limited to reviews, a situational source. Any news from them should be considered unreliable. Is it a "we have to ignore all their output if their news is inaccurate" situation? I was under the impression sources could be seen as trustworthy for some of their output. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a look at it before, and since it doesn't list sources for some of the stuff it repeats sometimes, I lean Unreliable, perhaps amendable to Situational if their reviews seem okay. I wouldn't want to trust their interviews/news stories. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My view on their reviews is that they clearly "know what they're talking about" and offer legitimate insight into the game and its mechanics, with nothing appearing to be false or misstated. All in all, I cannot find proof to not take them seriously. We've had worse with regards to Kotaku, which is still considered reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say situational based on WP:RSP's stance on its sister site Bustle. From my experience, their exclusive interviews tend to be excellent, while their reviews don't have any red flags. However, I'd definitely avoid the churnalism/rumor-type articles and would use better sources like IGN or GameSpot for basic news. JOEBRO64 21:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah honestly, their reviews and interviews don't have any issues imo and would be valuable sources to use. Their straight up news sources should be treated with caution/assessed on a case-by-case basis. For example, these are the two most recent articles on Inverse tagged as news (I excluded an article between these two since it was originally written in 2020 but received a further update). That first one seems a little "churnalism"-esque, since it's basing info off fan theories/Reddit posts. But the latter one about Warzone really doesn't have anything off about it, hence why a case-by-case assessment should be the approach for their news posts. Soulbust (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be marked situational, with reviews and interviews being okay, but most news should be avoided. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PC Leisure (UK magazine, 1990-1991)

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

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

I don't know realistically how helpful that would be, as "1 year in the UK" isn't going to have all that many instances of use, but generally any print magazines from the 1990s meet our standards for reliability simply because of the work involved in setting such a publication up. It was very different than nowadays where just about anyone can buy a domain name and have a couple random writers contribute. Sergecross73 msg me 20:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say it is probably reliable, considering that they had to go through a lot of effort. Although, I'm not sure how many reviews they'll have for you to cite. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible re-examination of Eventhubs.com?

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

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

Bloody Disgusting

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

We need to have a real discussion on whether Bloody Disgusting is reliable and either add it as a reliable or unreliable source. They are commonly cited as reviewers for horror video games and I've seen them crop up numerous times. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • From my experience, I'd class them as Situational. For genre news that isn't repeated elsewhere, and for interviews related to it, they seem sound. I wouldn't feel comfortable using them for reviews or standard news that's been reported elsewhere. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're currently considered reliable by WikiProject Film (WP:FILM/R). I haven't done much looking into the site myself, but the film project tends to have similar standards for sources as WPVG, so I don't see much reason to treat them differently here. JOEBRO64 21:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do a search of "according to bloody disgusting" in the custom Google search and you'll see a wide swathe of reliable sources consider them reliable, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Took some digging, because I knew it had been discussed before, but could not remember where. It was at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#Horror (which Joebro has since found) that lists it as reliable. And while it's not listed at WP:RSMUSIC, I found an old discussion where we generally seemed to agree it was good enough to use in a music GAN. I think I've used it without issue in my music-related article writing too. (Though I haven't seen it come up much in video game related articles much. Maybe it'd be more helpful in Resident Evil or Dying Light type articles though?) Sergecross73 msg me 03:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add it to reliable for now based on the evidence. If someone comes up with a reason to doubt them, I'm open to changing it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaku

is kotaku a reliable source? Blitzfan51 (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blitzfan51: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Reliable sources. – Pbrks (t • c) 20:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking for it to be reassessed? GamerPro64 02:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's pretty new...so I think he's just honestly asking... Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was just asking. Thanks for the link to the reliable sources. Blitzfan51 (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused why Kotaku is listed as reliable when it literally says "some of their output should never be used". That's the definition of situational. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It actually does not say that, either literally or figuratively; all it says is "Editors are cautioned" with regard to certain material. Also, my understanding of situational was not that all content appearing in sources listed as reliable is accurate without exception (if that were the case, we couldn't honestly list any sources as reliable) but that situational sources are generally unreliable yet contain some content which can be cited in certain contexts. Martin IIIa (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a period where we were trying to move away from the term situational, because if you split enough hairs, everything is situational. IGN has a USERG wiki we don't use, GameSpot's database uses Gamefaqs data, countless websites used to have user blogs, etc. Sadly, it feels like we're moving in the opposite direction, and trying to rationalize a situation for all of these random churnalism/clickbait outlets. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kotaku does at times produce satirical articles (eg [1]). Hopefully, it should be obvious under normal RS policy why those can't be used, but Kotaku does have a slightly larger proportion of these compared to, say, Eurogamer or Gamespot. Its just a caution. Masem (t) 14:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Gorilla

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

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

Well, I'd say let's start by you saying why you think they might be reliable. Too often people are coming to this page to ask and not present a view. Do you have anything to suggest they *are* reliable? -- ferret (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's more so the the fact that they've already been cited on Wikipedia as ProClockers, prior to when they were acquired, so I just want to go over and see if they could be used as a source for other articles, or see if they aren't a suitable outlet to use for citations on Wikipedia. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable sources are cited all the time, and subsequently removed once someone takes note. Having been cited by a random editor is not a hallmark of being reliable. -- ferret (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah so I want to straighten it out if they are reliable or not - and if they aren't, then I want to remove them from the pages they're currently cited on. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's just one of those crappy infotainment blogs built purely for ad revenue. The founder claims that Gaming Gorilla is one of several "infotainment blogs" he has founded.[2] The others are about self-development and workout routines.[3] The founder and other writers do not have any professional credentials. Apparently we should trust their content because their two gaming article writers "have spent over 20 years playing video games".[4] Most of their articles are top 10 lists or game guide content. TarkusABtalk/contrib 15:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, then I say mark it unreliable and get rid any citations they or ProClockers have on Wikipedia. Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on. We should evaluate ProClockers separately. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Although, I'm leaning towards unreliable for them as well, considering that they operate off of social media. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-fi.ru

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

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

Complex rediscussed

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

Complex is now a subsidiary of Buzzfeed as of 2021, a site that laid off their news staff to make AI articles their mainstay going forward. It should be treated the same as Buzzfeed itself, see WP:BUZZFEED. I think a demotion to situational source is in order, if not unreliable. Stuff like this does not give me much confidence, it just seems copy pasted from a press release. That said, I'm not sure it should have been reliable to begin with, much of what comes up when "video game" is searched are pure listicles written with a goofy, nerdy tone. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought it was situational already, though maybe I'm confusing it with the fact that it's routinely discounted for other reasons, like not offering significant coverage or noteworthy commentary? ("Luigi was ranked 57th best Smash Bros character" type stuff.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the *very* few cases Complex is saying something they should be fine to cite for reception, but that's a thinner window. I don't see what's gained from wholesale saying it can't be used for such when editors should be encouraged to use their common sense on what counts as a tangible statement or not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Complex being part of BuzzFeed is irrelevant, we don't judge publications as unreliable just because they're owned by News Corp for instance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Wccftech

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

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

EssentiallySports

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

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

It's got a tagline that's "from the fan's perspective", a random selection of author bios on the front page doesn't have anyone with any claimed journalism credentials (the people on the editorial team do, at least), and I don't see it getting referenced by other reliable sources. I would say it looks plainly unreliable, with a blog-like setup. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hisses in displeasure at infinite scroll Every time I try to access links in the footer and it disappears as more page loads, over and over. Boosts that 350 stories a day are published, which I doubt, but if so, there is no way their listed team of editors (about 8-9) could cover that. Buried in the about us, after all the stats and in the news and everything else that screams "we once read a Wikipedia RS discussion, we have Owned by Full Spectrum Services LLP, EssentiallySports has an alumni network of over 1000 people. The staff page lists 96 writers. This page appears to literally and very deliberately check every box we normally look for to the point I feel it can't be coincidental. Not that that, in and of itself, is a disqualification. Just read through this FAQ though, and it's like someone read a discussion on this very page so addressed every point that commonly comes up. I hesitate to say unreliable, but I'm bothered by this approach. They have an Ethics Page, and Editorial Page, a Fact Checking Page, a Corrections page. Page after page describing how reliable they are in very overlapping terms. -- ferret (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick glance to the esport/gaming section itself. They publish over 20-25 stories a day in this section alone, which is a little niche sub-culture of their primary coverage of physical sports. That's a LOT of stories. This section is labelled and presented as "Esports" but is really general video game content farm. At the moment, the most recent story is "Think Golf Is Tough? Here Is How To Solve The Hardest Putting Puzzles In Zelda: Tears Of The Kingdom", a how-to article for the latest Zelda game. At the bottom of this is a "Let us know your thoughts in the comments". I like to check this to see what kind of engagement a site ACTUALLY gets. Standard Disqus system. There's no comments. None of the 11 articles posted May 19 have any comments or engagement, though of course that has little to do with WP:RS. Rohit Sejwal has written 22 articles in the past week that are Zelda how tos. This is super content mill. Side note, each article I view, my ad blocker blocks 20-30 ads. -- ferret (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs and Ferret: I did see that per WP:USEBYOTHERS they've been referenced in outlets such as Dot Esports, Sports Illustrated, Insider (culture) and ClutchPoints, albeit in basic name-drops where each outlet cited their information from. I actually did notice their fact-checking and ethics policy too, but they do publish a lot of material reminiscent of sites such as Sportskeeda and Game Rant. Kind of a close call, but I would argue situational at best. Some of their writers do seem to have journalistic experience according to their individual writer bios and the editorial page, but it's debatable how much of that experience really shows in their articles. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noisy Pixel

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


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

Positives:

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

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

Negatives:

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

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

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

Other:

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

I'd not list this as positive or negative, as while relevant experience at other outlets is a positive indicator, it's not a necessity. And many 'Reliable' sources at gaming websites have similar author bios where it focuses on their interest, rather than any expertise they may have.

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

I've used them as a source here and there without issue. They've been good for coverage in more niche or Japanese games, much like Siliconera and Gematsu. Sergecross73 msg me 20:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Noisy Pixels does not exist, I would have A LOT OF TROUBLE writing about visual novels. For example, I am desperately searching for a review for Atri: My Dear Moments. MilkyDefer 11:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I remember Nintendo of America quoting them in a media review trailer for Zelda: TotK. MilkyDefer 11:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


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

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

Yeah, if it's active, it should be listed as such. If it was situational before, it should default to that unless there's a new consensus that arises. Are they retaining the same name even though they don't go by Jim anymore? Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They go by several names. I think for a first name they prefer Stephanie, although if addressed in full prefer James Stephanie Sterling. Neuroxic (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am I out of the loop here - what temporary hiatus? All I see is Izno moved it to defunct Jan 2021 stating it hasn't had any videos since early 2020. But Sterling has been posting continuously in 2020 and beyond. I cannot find any mention anywhere of taking a break or stopping posting. When exactly was there a hiatus? —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 20:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, I don't particularly follow them, but also didn't question because it seems like I've heard less about the Jimquisition in recent years, so it felt plausible. Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Sterling stopped publishing written reviews on their website in 2017, but started up again in October 2022. I believe that's what this is about. TarkusABtalk/contrib 00:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. Based on the written reviews section of the website, it looks like there was a hiatus between the Marvel vs Capcom Infinite review in September 2017, and Disney Dreamlight Valley in October 2022. Sterling has been doing releasing written reviews pretty consistently since October 2022 however, so I think moving it back to situational is probably fine. Sideswipe9th (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Sterling stopped publishing written reviews for a bit, although during this time they till continued to post reviews in the form of YouTube videos on their channel. Sterling is now regularly posting written reviews again. Neuroxic (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we're just using the site for reviews, I don't see why it wouldn't be considered "generally reliable"? Reviews fall quite squarely within WP:RSOPINION. The main output of the website appears to be reviews and editorial (i.e. also reviews but for topics more general than a specific game) and my impression is that Sterling is a well-regarded critic in the industry so the website should be reliable on that basis. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the case though? Aren't there plenty of rambling rants and editorials too? I'm not a follower, but my understanding is that there was a lot of that sort of stuff too. Or am I confusing outlets? Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's why I'd say we should continue restricting The Jimquisition to only attributed commentary from Sterling themself. While Sterling is a professional journalist, The Jimquisition isn't a professional outlet—it's basically just their blog. There aren't any editorial processes, it's simply Sterling's commentary. I don't think there is really any use for it beyond citing Sterling's opinion where necessary. JOEBRO64 23:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say any source that we can't wholesale use is situational. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WIN.gg

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

A short essay on Chinese sources

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

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

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

Gamer News Network (GNN)

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

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

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

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

YYSTV

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

Introduction by GameBonfire (see below): [5]

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

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

GameBonfire and IGN China

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

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

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

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

Magazines in China

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

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

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

VGTime

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

Introduction by GameBonfire: [6]

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

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

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

Chuapp

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

Introduction by GameBonfire: [7]

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

Thank you

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources&oldid=1157567613"