Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Custom Google Search Engine for RSes

Find video game sources: [https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22ComicBook.com%22 "ComicBook.com"] – [https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22ComicBook.com%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 news] · [https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22ComicBook.com%22&tbs=bkt:s&tbm=bks newspapers] · [https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22ComicBook.com%22+-wikipedia books] · [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22ComicBook.com%22 scholar] · [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22ComicBook.com%22&acc=on&wc=on JSTOR] · [https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&tbs=sur:fmc&tbm=isch&q=%22ComicBook.com%22+-site:wikipedia.org+-site:wikimedia.org free images] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_English_newspaper_sources free news sources] · [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/search/?q=%22ComicBook.com%22 TWL] · [https://www.nytimes.com/search/%22ComicBook.com%22 NYT] · [https://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cx=007734830908295939403%3Agalkqgoksq0&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3AWikipedia%2520Reference%2520Search&q=%22ComicBook.com%22 WP reference] · [https://www.google.com/cse?cx=009782238053898643791%3A8naerdbd-oy&q=%22ComicBook.com%22 VG/RS] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22ComicBook.com%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject+Video+games%2FReference+library&fulltext=Search+reference+library&fulltext=Search VG/RL] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22ComicBook.com%22+prefix%3AWikipedia+talk%3AWikiProject+Video+games&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1 WPVG/Talk]{{int:dot-separator}}LinkSearch{{int:dot-separator}}[https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttps://comicbook.com/ LinkTo]

This has been discussed a couple times in the past, but there's been no real conclusion on whether it's reliable, situational or unreliable. If it's any help, they are owned by CBS Interactive, who also owns the obviously-reliable GameSpot. And going by their [https://comicbook.com/about/ about] page, they do have an editorial director. MoonJet (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:Reliable, but with the caveat of being cautious what you're citing from them for the purposes of notability. They are good for verification as a secondary source, but a lot of their articles are of the sort of "this cool thing exists". One should as always consider what the source is saying, and what the author is saying about a subject when citing it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:Honestly, from all I've seen, I don't think there is a substantial difference between the type of content published on ComicBook.com in comparison to the content published on most other sources we view as reliable. They meet all the boxes in my opinion, but with obvious discretion towards what the type of content you want to cite from them is, as Kung Fu Man said. But that's a stance that should be taken towards any content your citing. Even IGN and Polygon can publish worthless content at times. λ NegativeMP1 00:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:I believe there's a consensus that their articles don't count towards notability, given a lot of listicles and clickbait. I agree with you that their reliability has never been settled. I have personally used them, but always to round out the opinions/reception of an article, and never to support basic facts or establish basic notability. To me, that's "situational". Shooterwalker (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

:I'd say ComicBook is a pretty simple case of usable, but doesn't count towards notability and should be replaced with a stronger source if one exists. I wouldn't consider them a Valnet-level content mill, but they're far from what I'd call high-quality sourcing (though I'd say that of a lot of VG sites we consider usable) JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:Reliable, I think the source is good enough to cite gaming-related material. Kazama16 (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Situational as of now. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Find video game sources: [https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%2217173%22 "17173"] – [https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%2217173%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 news] · [https://www.google.com/search?&q=%2217173%22&tbs=bkt:s&tbm=bks newspapers] · [https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%2217173%22+-wikipedia books] · [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%2217173%22 scholar] · [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%2217173%22&acc=on&wc=on JSTOR] · [https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&tbs=sur:fmc&tbm=isch&q=%2217173%22+-site:wikipedia.org+-site:wikimedia.org free images] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_English_newspaper_sources free news sources] · [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/search/?q=%2217173%22 TWL] · [https://www.nytimes.com/search/%2217173%22 NYT] · [https://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cx=007734830908295939403%3Agalkqgoksq0&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3AWikipedia%2520Reference%2520Search&q=%2217173%22 WP reference] · [https://www.google.com/cse?cx=009782238053898643791%3A8naerdbd-oy&q=%2217173%22 VG/RS] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%2217173%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject+Video+games%2FReference+library&fulltext=Search+reference+library&fulltext=Search VG/RL] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%2217173%22+prefix%3AWikipedia+talk%3AWikiProject+Video+games&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1 WPVG/Talk]{{int:dot-separator}}LinkSearch{{int:dot-separator}}[https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.17173.com LinkTo]

This is a Chinese portal website founded in 2001 that comes up from time to time. It's currently owned by Sohu. [https://about.17173.com/ About Us] says it has had international partnership with things like E3, GDC, Game Connection, and MGC (this is referring to the cryptocurrency gaming platform, if my research is correct Edit - this is actually a gaming event named Mobile Games Forum). No infomation about its editorial team. Is this reliable? The amount of pop-up ads whenever I check on any of its news article makes me doubtful about this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiya Mulzomdao (talk • contribs) 11:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:If the presence of popups alone was a decider against a website being reliable, well to be frank we'd probably have a lot less sources overall to rely upon. As it stands I've cited them sparingly but they are useful in confirming the existence of more obscure/undiscussed mobile games and the content in them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

: I take the opposite perspective to KFM (and it is not related to ads). No editorial policy should be a major red flag to all editors (editorial process; COI disclosure; gifts policy; disclosure of products provided for free). No listed editorial team is pretty bad, too—no way to see the overall pedigree of their staff (meaning they probably rely on freelancers). What differentiates this from a high-traffic blog? In summary:

:* Inappropriate for biographies (no ethics policy).

:* Inappropriate for reception (no editorial policy).

:* Probably inappropriate for analysis, but possibly defensible depending on the journalist.

: At GAN, I would likely question any citations using this site; at FAC, I would ask for it to be removed. Thank you. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::I mean no offense, but let's not tap the "if this were at "if this were at FAC" card again, nobody likes that mindset. FAC's already strenuous enough without that tail trying to wag this dog.

::Now more on topic, if the site has international partnerships with E3, GDC and whatnot, and is owned by a major company like Sohu, that puts them above the "high-traffic blog" argument. And we have used such cases as arguments in favor of websites. While I definitely would say it should be more situational, I am curious how the Chinese wikiproject regards them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Generally unreliable. I always came across it when writing about Chinese video games before. It is obvious that 17173 is a low-quality source, but it has documented many Chinese games that have received little attention. So the most important question is the minimum level of notability you can accept, instead of G/FA. This is because most of them already have a high level of notability, and the refs from 17173 used in these articles can be replaced with higher-quality alternatives. Enwiki has stricter notability standards than zhwiki, so 17173 not only Filled with press releases, but also not very useful here unless you want to lower the notability standards. HoweyYuan (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::Situational Looking at the discussion on Chinese wikipedia, they seem to have come to the conclusion to make it situational: it does cover some subjects, but others raised concerns of it being a content farm for basically regurgitating some online news, though that argument didn't have the highest favor. It has been stated to not use it as a news source for Sohu in any way as it can be seen as a conflict of interest, which is obvious: [https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiProject_talk:%E7%94%B5%E5%AD%90%E6%B8%B8%E6%88%8F/2022%E5%B9%B4#17173%E7%B6%B2] [https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E5%8F%AF%E9%9D%A0%E6%9D%A5%E6%BA%90/%E5%B8%83%E5%91%8A%E6%9D%BF/%E5%AD%98%E6%A1%A3/2022%E5%B9%B45%E6%9C%88#17173%E7%BD%91%E6%98%AF%E5%90%A6%E6%98%AF%E5%86%85%E5%AE%B9%E5%86%9C%E5%9C%BA%EF%BC%9F]--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::: edit conflict "I mean no offense" is a striking way to respond to a sourcing discussion. Can we please address the topic at hand rather than my "mindset"?

::: The requirement for GA is that sources are "reliable". The requirement for FAC is that they are "high-quality reliable sources". In no way does highlighting the quality required by each process make the process more stressful: it prepares nominators for the lines of questioning they should expect and how to defend their inclusions.

::: Regarding the partnerships, a Chinese speaker confirmed my browser's translation of the About page. It reads that "game exhibitions such as E3 and GDC frequently choose to cooperate with 17173". That does not seem like an "international partnership"; it sounds like they provided them with press kits. The uncertainty is a bad sign. Neither 17173 or Sohu are mentioned on GDC's [https://gdconf.com/industry-media-partners media partners list]. The translation also says the site is "the preferred official media partner of MGF and Game Connection". Sadly can't work out what MGF is, but I assume that GC is Game Connection. If that is true, 17173 isn't mentioned on their [https://www.game-connection.com/our-partners-game-connection/ Media Partners page]. What is it about them that has increased your confidence in the source?

::: 17173's About page has some data on their lifetime page views (>3 bil). Sometimes blogs applying for press credentials at conferences are required to have a minimum number of pageviews (e.g., here are [https://www.game-connection.com/press-pass-2/ Game Connection's] requirements). I am not sure if this is related to why they have such statistics, but I will highlight it.

::: Personally, I would not use this for a Reception section, as you have previously done, because they do not provide basic editorial policies. How do they deal with retractions? Do they accept payment for reviews? How do they fact check? Do they disclose when they receive gifts? Would they disclose being provided $500 in-game currency while reviewing, say, a mobile game? We can't answer any of these basic questions. I respectfully disagree with your "situational" assessment. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 18:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::::When I say no offense, I mean that: I have issue with the concept of using FAC scaling as a guideline for a source as FAC is very demanding, and it's the second time in recent memory its come up (i.e. Automaton above). I don't feel it's a good argument to make and immediately taints a discussion with how FAC is already towards sources; people will just say "I guess we shouldn't use it" because they don't want to risk a fight at FAC when the gauntlet's already being thrown down, no?

::::Now looking over what I've written, to my knowledge, I've only used it in two articles: one for reception on Leifang which admittedly I could either try to replace or remove, or to confirm the existence of a character in games for Mai Shiranui to confirm games she appeared in. In the latter case these cases is often accompanied by screenshots and links to the publisher's website or media. In this regard I do feel it could be used as a situational source to help with verification and that was the point I was suggesting to use it for. As important as notability is, sometimes being able to confirm the existence of a thing let alone something in that thing can be just as difficult.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::::: I spent a decent chunk of time investigating 17173 and summarising what troubles me with it. I wish we were discussing those points, but I will explain my mindset.

::::: To ensure you know where I'm coming from – I'm reading your question as, "Do you want editors to reconsider including low-quality sources in articles because they may get dragged at FAC?" The answer to that is yes. It will cause more suffering to nominators to include low-quality sources because FAC requires high-quality sources and I believe 17173 fails to meet the threshold. I mentioned the lower GA threshold, too—because FAC is very demanding—but you only mention my FAC comment. As references, these quickly illuminate my position on the source's reliability: if I would contest it at FAC, it is not high quality. If I would contest it at GAR, it isn't reliable.

::::: If a publication doesn't indicate whether they accept bribes, I never, ever want a bushy-tailed editor to put themselves through defending it. That experience sucks: you feel like you lost something. In my case, back in 2021 for LoL, I almost withdrew over it. If 17173 was used in an FAC nomination, and the source reviewer only looked at my first comment above, they wouldn't write "ImaginesTigers thought 17173 was inappropriate for FAC". They'd ask why the nominator is including a publication with no editorial policy and the nominator will explain.

::::: I don't agree that my comment "taints" the discussion; I believe the source's low quality does and explained why. If an editor wants to use the source and nominate for assessment, that's their call. If I'm a reviewer and they don't agree with my feedback, we can talk it through. If we still disagree beyond that, I'd want others to weigh in to get some local consensus.

::::: From my POV, "Would this source survive article assessment?" is a useful reference when reviewing source reliability because article assessment is the main/only situation where it actually matters. Regarding your final comment, verifiability, not truth basically sums up my feelings about it. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I think "MGF" is referring to [https://www.biggamesmachine.com/portfolio/mobile-games-forum/ Mobile Games Forum]. 17173.com's calendar mentions something about "MGF Hong Kong" coming in April, and Mobile Games Forum has a branch in Hong Kong, [https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/arts-entertainment/article/1934644/mobile-games-forum-asia-comes-hong-kong-offering-chance opening in April]. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:Unreliable - No editorial policy, no staff pages, no bylines. I dug for a bit looking for any real information on all of this and found nothing. Huge amounts of churnalism content spam. Clicking through a few articles, I continuously reached the end to find "Source: Official company", i.e. press releases. There's also gems like this, which are absolutely unusable: [https://news.17173.com/content/03082025/000108155.shtml]. Or my favorite, "Source: Internet". Though not really a component of judging reliability, I also found it curious that despite the age of the site and it's purported readership, there were zero comments or engagement on any of the articles I clicked through. That the native speakers at CN Wiki only give it a situational suggests that EN wiki should stay away. We are not going to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. -- ferret (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:Generally unreliable except articles by reputable authors. There may be some reputable journalists posting articles on it, but let's do it case by case. SuperGrey (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:I was burnt out by that time so I did not participate in that discussion at zhwiki. I would move heaven and earth to block the inclusion of this website to source list. 17173 has a forgotten history of being a major aggregate (or read, "pirate") site for early-age flash games. (Another such website is called "7k7k", mark my words.) It was only in recent years that it became a news outlet. I would also not believe in a website where nearly every article is written by "the web" with sources coming from "the internet". MilkyDefer 09:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::I have forwarded this discussion to Chinese Wikipedia (:zh:WikiProject talk:电子游戏#17173網), and asked them to join the discussion. SuperGrey (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:The following are quoted from Nostalgiacn on Chinese Wikipedia (translated by me). It might be helpful to understand more context:

:{{Talk quote block|1=The evaluation of this source has always been situational—especially since foreigners cannot read Chinese, making it difficult to discern the usefulness of the content from 17173. Some background is necessary: the gaming media landscape in mainland China differs from that in the United States. After the Gaming Console Ban was implemented, development was stymied. Later, Internet companies ventured into gaming—and since these companies also operated web portals (such as Sina, NetEase, Tencent, Sohu, etc.), they no longer had to heed the preferences of traditional gaming media. Ultimately, traditional gaming media could not compete and ceased publication; some outlets were absorbed, and as one commentator put it, “被包養了就不要談獨立人格” (Once you've been “sugar dadded” (financially supported), you can no longer talk about independent personality. [http://www.gamelook.com.cn/2011/12/61368/]). Therefore, for articles about their stakeholders, the related content is unusable.
17173 does have an editorial department—and a very large one, having once been considered top-tier domestically ([http://www.gamelook.com.cn/2012/11/101194/]). At its peak, 17173 employed 1,200 staff members; by 2017, this number had been reduced to 200 ([https://www.sohu.com/a/162051145_204824]), and in 2018, its various sections began recruiting a significant number of contract staff ([https://www.17173.com/zq/zj/zm/join-us.shtml]). In 2019, a content reorganization was undertaken, focusing on three areas: “streamlining the original news model,” “integrating new games into a ‘New Game Product Department’,” and “transforming the role of specialized sections from a product catalog–style experience to user operations.” In response to new media trends, a new column featuring anthropomorphized representations was launched, with figures such as 正經遊戲 (Serious Gaming) / X博士 (Dr. X) entering major platform media channels as KOLs ([https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/APR6BppfJx63Cls-JsG-DA]).
After 2019, the three major segments of 17173 were as follows. The first segment—so streamlined that featured articles were no longer produced—primarily involved reposting press releases ([https://news.17173.com/sh/index.shtml 產業新聞 (Industry News)]/[https://news.17173.com/sh/index.shtml 社會新聞 (Society News)]/[https://news.17173.com/dalu/ 國內新聞 (Domestic News)]/[https://news.17173.com/quanqiu/ 全球新聞 (Global News)]); original content in the [https://news.17173.com/ch/ 獨家策劃 (Exclusive Featured)] section was scarce, while some editors focused on managing new media such as 正經遊戲 (Serious Gaming) / X博士 (Dr. X). The second segment centered on producing content for the [https://newgame.17173.com/ 17173新網遊頻道 (17173 New Online Games Channel)], ensuring that this content was indeed crafted by editors. The third segment, concerning various game-special topic content under the banner of “user operations,” involved recruiting contract staff or even directly assigning operations to players ([https://www.17173.com/zq/zj/zm/join-us.shtml]). Numerous media channels and player-reposted articles appear to be the outcome of such collaborative operations.
Supplementary note: In 2016, the hiring standard was set at the level of a university undergraduate ([https://tl.17173.com/content/2016-11-02/20161102154905525.shtml]). For a gaming media outlet with a history of over 20 years, even if one were to question its editorial guidelines, according to :zh:WP:來源評級 (zhwiki Source Evaluation Guidelines), it would not be classified as unreliable. With an established editorial department, it starts from a semi-reliable basis. Although self-media and press releases are present, they can be distinguished by the “來源：” (Source:) at the end of articles or the “作者” (Author) pinned at the top. Furthermore, for truly advertisement-free, purely original content—more in line with the preferences of Chinese audiences—the “17173 WeChat public account” is likely the best choice.|source=Nostalgiacn (original comment)}} SuperGrey (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::There are some caveats.

::* First, "the hiring standard was set at the level of UG". This essentially means that the person has a Bachelor's degree. However, there is no limit on the field of study. They do require a two-year experience of editor experience, though.

::* Their best contents are hosted on WeChat, a renowned walled garden. That is analogous to IGN publishing their best contents on Twitter/X not their websites. This is a norm in China but I doubt people here can accept that.

::MilkyDefer 15:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Find video game sources: [https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22Thinky+Games%22 "Thinky Games"] – [https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Thinky+Games%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 news] · [https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Thinky+Games%22&tbs=bkt:s&tbm=bks newspapers] · [https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Thinky+Games%22+-wikipedia books] · [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Thinky+Games%22 scholar] · [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22Thinky+Games%22&acc=on&wc=on JSTOR] · [https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&tbs=sur:fmc&tbm=isch&q=%22Thinky+Games%22+-site:wikipedia.org+-site:wikimedia.org free images] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_English_newspaper_sources free news sources] · [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/search/?q=%22Thinky+Games%22 TWL] · [https://www.nytimes.com/search/%22Thinky+Games%22 NYT] · [https://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cx=007734830908295939403%3Agalkqgoksq0&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3AWikipedia%2520Reference%2520Search&q=%22Thinky+Games%22 WP reference] · [https://www.google.com/cse?cx=009782238053898643791%3A8naerdbd-oy&q=%22Thinky+Games%22 VG/RS] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Thinky+Games%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject+Video+games%2FReference+library&fulltext=Search+reference+library&fulltext=Search VG/RL] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22Thinky+Games%22+prefix%3AWikipedia+talk%3AWikiProject+Video+games&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1 WPVG/Talk]{{int:dot-separator}}LinkSearch{{int:dot-separator}}[https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttps://thinkygames.com LinkTo]

Hey yall. I'm not experienced at all on these RSN type of noticeboards, so here goes. Thinky Games seems to specialize in puzzle games (the games that are really thinky :) ) and has an editorial staff according to their about page [https://thinkygames.com/about/]; one of their staff members have worked on a lot of other RSs for videogame articles too ([https://www.gamesradar.com/author/rachel-watts/], [https://www.pcgamesn.com/author/rachel-watts], [https://www.pcgamer.com/author/rachel-watts/], [https://www.eurogamer.net/authors/rachel-watts]) and was written an actual goodbye article from RPS when they left [https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/its-time-to-say-goodbye-to-the-immaculate-vibes-of-reviews-editor-rachel-watts]. Thinky Games is funded by the non-profit "Carina" [https://www.carina.fund]. The editorial policy states they'll have disclaimers regarding this funding and conflict of interests with their authors. The same policy states they're also willing to redact mistakes in their articles when notified. [https://thinkygames.com/editorial-policy/]

Here's a few of their articles yall can look at: [https://thinkygames.com/features/your-house-impressions/], [https://thinkygames.com/features/diacritic-impressions/], [https://thinkygames.com/features/vextorial-preview/], [https://thinkygames.com/news/march-dlc-for-the-discovery-exploration-platformer-leap-year-is-out-today/], [https://thinkygames.com/news/kaizen-a-factory-story-is-a-new-automation-game-from-the-developers-behind-beloved-zachtronics-titles/]

What do you guys think?

Not too related, but I managed to find this which was pretty interesting. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:I like this website, but I wouldn't call it reliable by the Wikipedia sourcing definition of the word. I think the editorial they put out is actually pretty good, but the problem is the genre they write about is extremely niche, so there's not much WP:USEBYOTHERS, which I would consider the cornerstone of "a reputation for accuracy". (I found [https://www.vice.com/en/article/i-have-found-a-home-for-my-love-of-puzzle-games-thinky-games-is-made-for-puzzle-sickos-like-me/ one reference] on Vice, but that was all I found) Also, it's not conclusive, but that they messaged an anonymous Wikipedia editor (me) about writing for them doesn't inspire confidence on the credentials of their writers. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Find video game sources: [https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22...Uppercut%21...%22 "...Uppercut!..."] – [https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22...Uppercut%21...%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 news] · [https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22...Uppercut%21...%22&tbs=bkt:s&tbm=bks newspapers] · [https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22...Uppercut%21...%22+-wikipedia books] · [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22...Uppercut%21...%22 scholar] · [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22...Uppercut%21...%22&acc=on&wc=on JSTOR] · [https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&tbs=sur:fmc&tbm=isch&q=%22...Uppercut%21...%22+-site:wikipedia.org+-site:wikimedia.org free images] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_English_newspaper_sources free news sources] · [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/search/?q=%22...Uppercut%21...%22 TWL] · [https://www.nytimes.com/search/%22...Uppercut%21...%22 NYT] · [https://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cx=007734830908295939403%3Agalkqgoksq0&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3AWikipedia%2520Reference%2520Search&q=%22...Uppercut%21...%22 WP reference] · [https://www.google.com/cse?cx=009782238053898643791%3A8naerdbd-oy&q=%22...Uppercut%21...%22 VG/RS] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22...Uppercut%21...%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject+Video+games%2FReference+library&fulltext=Search+reference+library&fulltext=Search VG/RL] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22...Uppercut%21...%22+prefix%3AWikipedia+talk%3AWikiProject+Video+games&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1 WPVG/Talk]{{int:dot-separator}}LinkSearch{{int:dot-separator}}[https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A...uppercutcrit.com... LinkTo]

I move that Uppercut! should be considered a reliable source for Video game Journalism for the following reasons

1. Uppercut has [https://uppercutcrit.com/about/ an editorial team with multiple individuals.]

2. Contributors to Uppercut have also contributed to several reliable sources, demonstrating a pool of reliable writers. ( For example, [https://muckrack.com/phoenix-simms Phoneix Simms] for Paste Magazine and [https://www.jesselizabethreed.com/essays-articles/ Jess Reed] for Nintendo Life, PC Gamer, VG247, and The Escapist.)

3. It's founder and EIC [https://muckrack.com/tygaliz-rowe Ty Galiz-Rowe has multiple bylines for reliable sources] such as Ars Technica, GameSpot, TechRadar, VGC247 and more.)

:Glancing at their coverage, I wouldn't say I'm that impressed. The style is very bloggy, and when you're publishing [https://uppercutcrit.com/pokemon-black-and-white-truth-vs-ideals-and-the-future-of-a-franchise-a-saturn-return-story/ astrological readings of video games], I'd say you're pretty far out of the mainstream. It also seems defunct? Nothing I can see posted more recently than a year ago. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, it sounds like it started off as a personal blog and then expanded into a multi-person thing? The "editorial team" has experience at reliable sources, but it looks more like sparingly used on-call contributor type stuff. Not a super strong argument for use.

::For what it's worth, their main interest in the source appears to be in adding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Legends%3A_Arceus&diff=1282816967&oldid=1281139455 this extensive editorial] to the Pokemon Legends Arceus. While I'm not opposed to a mention with proper sourcing, I've been arguing that it's largely WP:UNDUE, as it hasn't particularly been a common reaction from publications on the game. It's...a pretty innocuous game... Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Research shows Uppercut! has been cited on site once before.

:::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Pizza,_Great_Pizza#cite_ref-1A0 TheMist84 (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, because I know we've discussed this one recently, but at the same time, we still don't have a consensus, and they have updated things, so I figured no harm in opening it up again.

See: https://aftermath.site/aftermath-editorial-values-policies

Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Considering the pedigree of the staff and the breadth of the editorial policy, I feel confident in supporting it as a reliable source. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. I supported them before, with the belief that, with their credentials they had, that this is how they were likely operating. I support them even more now that they've spelled it out. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:I support adding them to our list of reliable sources. Their stated commitment to honesty can be read as a commitment to fact-checking and editorial review. I feel confident enough in their statement and their experience, especially compared to other sources that are using AI and other cheap tricks to boost views. If this ever becomes a source of controversy we can revisit it. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Support making a reliable source. The staff are long-term editors with established credentials, and I'm not seeing any problems with the articles they have posted. Masem (t) 02:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:I also support adding them as a reliable source. I was already leaning towards adding them, but the explicit editorial policy definitely helps. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thumbs up from me, too. Woodroar (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support - the staff are industry mainstays & the independent website has a good editorial policy. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Reliable again. I started last discussion and my reasons for supporting are unchanged. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Reliable. I've used them myself in articles several times now and see no issue with their reporting nor with the quality of any of their opinion pieces. Their editorial policy is sound and the writers themselves are known quantities from their work elsewhere. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:It is extremely apparent to me that from this discussions and previous ones about Aftermath that it is a reliable source by a landslide. I'll be adding to the list shortly. λ NegativeMP1 02:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::I second that notion, I don't see a reason to delay it further.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Added to the list under General gaming per WP:AVALANCHE. λ NegativeMP1 03:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Find video game sources: [https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22Tech4Gamers%22 "Tech4Gamers"] – [https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Tech4Gamers%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 news] · [https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Tech4Gamers%22&tbs=bkt:s&tbm=bks newspapers] · [https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Tech4Gamers%22+-wikipedia books] · [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Tech4Gamers%22 scholar] · [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22Tech4Gamers%22&acc=on&wc=on JSTOR] · [https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&tbs=sur:fmc&tbm=isch&q=%22Tech4Gamers%22+-site:wikipedia.org+-site:wikimedia.org free images] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_English_newspaper_sources free news sources] · [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/search/?q=%22Tech4Gamers%22 TWL] · [https://www.nytimes.com/search/%22Tech4Gamers%22 NYT] · [https://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cx=007734830908295939403%3Agalkqgoksq0&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3AWikipedia%2520Reference%2520Search&q=%22Tech4Gamers%22 WP reference] · [https://www.google.com/cse?cx=009782238053898643791%3A8naerdbd-oy&q=%22Tech4Gamers%22 VG/RS] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Tech4Gamers%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject+Video+games%2FReference+library&fulltext=Search+reference+library&fulltext=Search VG/RL] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22Tech4Gamers%22+prefix%3AWikipedia+talk%3AWikiProject+Video+games&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1 WPVG/Talk]{{int:dot-separator}}LinkSearch{{int:dot-separator}}[https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atech4gamers.com LinkTo]

Tech4Gamers is a publication dedicated to gaming and PC hardware, backed by a team of professionals with years of experience in the field. [https://muckrack.com/media-outlet/tech4gamers] Details about their staff members: [https://tech4gamers.com/tech4gamers-staff/] and editorial policy: [https://tech4gamers.com/editorial-guidelines/] Kazama16 (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

: I'm inclinded to believe this to be a reliable source. They appear to have a qualified team and are open and clear with their editorial policies. Additionally, they are supported by WP:USEBYOTHERS as they have been used by websites such as IGN as seen [https://www.ign.com/articles/sony-just-patented-a-playstation-controller-with-a-dedicated-rewind-button here]. Looking through the articles on their main page, the quality of the articles appear relatively on-par with other sources we deem reliable here. CaptainGalaxy 03:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Find video game sources: [https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22Arcade+Heroes%22 "Arcade Heroes"] – [https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Arcade+Heroes%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 news] · [https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Arcade+Heroes%22&tbs=bkt:s&tbm=bks newspapers] · [https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Arcade+Heroes%22+-wikipedia books] · [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Arcade+Heroes%22 scholar] · [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22Arcade+Heroes%22&acc=on&wc=on JSTOR] · [https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&tbs=sur:fmc&tbm=isch&q=%22Arcade+Heroes%22+-site:wikipedia.org+-site:wikimedia.org free images] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_English_newspaper_sources free news sources] · [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/search/?q=%22Arcade+Heroes%22 TWL] · [https://www.nytimes.com/search/%22Arcade+Heroes%22 NYT] · [https://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cx=007734830908295939403%3Agalkqgoksq0&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3AWikipedia%2520Reference%2520Search&q=%22Arcade+Heroes%22 WP reference] · [https://www.google.com/cse?cx=009782238053898643791%3A8naerdbd-oy&q=%22Arcade+Heroes%22 VG/RS] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Arcade+Heroes%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject+Video+games%2FReference+library&fulltext=Search+reference+library&fulltext=Search VG/RL] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22Arcade+Heroes%22+prefix%3AWikipedia+talk%3AWikiProject+Video+games&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1 WPVG/Talk]{{int:dot-separator}}LinkSearch{{int:dot-separator}}[https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttps://arcadeheroes.com LinkTo]

This is a single author website run by Adam Pratt. [https://arcadeheroes.com/about-arcade-heroes/ About Us] says this is an arcade game/pinball news source and has some disclosure about its contents (marking sponsored content if it's posted). He lists experience in several arcade-related jobs on [https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-pratt-1157a338/details/experience/ LinkedIn], and he's also a writer of books like [https://www.amazon.com/Arcade-Heroes-Pinball-Gaming-Almanac/dp/1723790540 Arcade & Pinball Gaming Almanac] although this seems to be self-published. Is this reliable? I found pages citing this source a lot. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

[https://kotaku.com/polygon-sold-vox-media-valnet-layoffs-digital-gaming-1851778655 Per Kotaku]. Nice to know the state of games journalism remains as healthy as ever. We'll need to update Polygon's place on the page at some point; as well as be careful how we use them for citations going forward. -- 15:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC) Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I wonder if WP:VG/S should do something like what WP:RSPSS does and write separate entries for sources by time period. I.e. we currently have Polygon, but we could have Polygon (-May 2025) and Polygon (May 2025-), so that they can go in separate sections. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::I did a basic update [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Video_games%2FSources&diff=1288278285&oldid=1288276702 splitting them] by date to flag the sale but left them together under reliable sources for the moment; I think the WP:RSPSS style of differentiating time periods is useful. Also, The Verge should probably get its own entry since it was coupled with the Vox-owned Polygon as reliable. What I said over at WT:VG is that it feels a bit like Kotaku where we don't know to what extent (or how fast) there will be editorial deterioration so case-by-case evaluation until there's been enough change for an outlet wide re-evaluation. Hopefully there will be good articles in the future but I'm assuming editors will have to weed out the crap that is Valnet's standard to find them. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::We shouldn't be moving it until we have a chance to assess post sale articles look like. And even if those are shit, we should have a line for pre sale Polygon as being just fine. (eg Polygon would appear twice on the page) Masem (t) 18:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Agreed. I mean, it looks dire, but we don't need make things future-proof already. This new iterations hasn't even put out anything that could even be reviewed yet, right? Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I get the vision behind wanting to wait, but most of their editorial team was fired. And we know what Valnet does to properties that it owns and how it treats its freelance writers that will likely replace them. Not even when Valnet bought out Hardcore Gamer do I think they fired most of their writers. I don't necessarily think it'd be jumping the gun too much to go ahead and apply the same general restrictions on other Valnet sources. Maybe not reclassify it entirely, but I think you get my point. λ NegativeMP1 22:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I get it, I do. I just don't think we can justify it yet. There is literally not any new output or editorial policy to review yet... Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree with NegativeMP1. Everyone is gone. No matter who starts posting again (and whenever that starts happening), it is simply not the same website. This isn't a Ship of Theseus situation. The writers are the website and the writers are gone. Any zombie version of the website that returns has to be evaluated anew regardless. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::: Oh I agree, it definitely needs re-evaluation. I'm just saying that there's no new output to review yet. All it'll take is one person to send me the first "Top 57 Mario characters as generated by Polygonbot" article and I'll probably be ready too. Sergecross73 msg me 03:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Then why do we list Hardcore Gamer only in the Valnet section, if it's assessed as reliable pre and post Valnet? Seems inconsistent to me. --Mika1h (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Actually CBR is a better example: reliable pre-Valnet, unreliable post-Valnet. So CBR should be listed twice? --Mika1h (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::In that case, I think splitting CBR based on time period (in the WP:RSPSS style) makes the most sense; it'll help differentiate when the source was most reliable and the discussions on each iteration of the outlet. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::My suggest would be to have one Valnet line with all the sites under it instead of separate lines, while all those that were good pre-valnet kept as individual lines with clear indication of the date that it was acquired and pointing to the Valnet line before. In other words, sites like CBR and Polygon would be listed twice but once for when they were a good site, and once as covered by the Valnet catchall. Masem (t) 14:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Mika1h}} I think Polygon should have two entries (Vox Media era & then the Valnet era). When you collapsed it into one entry under Valent, you also removed The Verge. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I added The Verge to the technology section. I assume it's a non-controversial site to add despite it not being discussed in length here. --Mika1h (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've been reading around and apparently Polygon's quality had been going down for years before the sale. Maybe instead of a hard "pre-Valnet" and "post-Valnet" listing, there would be an inbetween period that discusses this? Something like WP:ROLLINGSTONE which mentions the gradual decline in quality of its politics/culture coverage as opposed to there being a hard cutoff. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::May I also see what you've been reading about Polygon's quality declining? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Based on what exactly? I can't tell what you're alluding to. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Mostly speculation on Reddit so take it with a grain of salt. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::In that case, absolutely not. The brand getting sold and the entire staff getting fired makes for a much clearer point of delineation than "some randos thought it wasn't as good as it used to be". -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, I dunno why we're in such a hurry to make things worse. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah, we can't be going off of social media/Reddit chatter. Too much of that noise is just disgruntled fans upset their game of choice only got an 8.5 out of 10. Stuff that doesn't factor into classifications. They may just be referring to how they may have descended into the clickbait headline stuff - (Headline:You Won't Believe What Link is Wearing in this Preview Video Article: A red tunic.) But sadly the whole industry now seems to dabble in that to varying degrees these days... Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Polygon{{'s}} headlines for the past few years have been clickbait garbage but from my reading the actual articles themselves were more than fine. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::We always ignore headlines in judging reliable sources. Of course, a source that exclusively uses clickbait headlines is a good sign of trouble, but I don't think I'd judge polygon's average headlines like that. There are far worse but otherwise good RSes that engaging in "This stunning highly-rated game just hit this milestone"-type crap. Masem (t) 17:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::that was my entire point JOEBRO⁶⁴ 17:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.polygon.com/opinion/597869/gta-6-trailer-2-lucia-gta-5-comparison - First article I've read from them since the change. Written by one of the few not laid off, I believe, and reads much like their prior work. I'm not saying everything's alright, just saying first spot-checked source is fine so far. Sergecross73 msg me 01:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:https://www.polygon.com/opinion/597835/gta-6-trailer-no-kissing Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Find video game sources: [https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22MoeGamer%22 "MoeGamer"] – [https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22MoeGamer%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 news] · [https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22MoeGamer%22&tbs=bkt:s&tbm=bks newspapers] · [https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22MoeGamer%22+-wikipedia books] · [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22MoeGamer%22 scholar] · [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22MoeGamer%22&acc=on&wc=on JSTOR] · [https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&tbs=sur:fmc&tbm=isch&q=%22MoeGamer%22+-site:wikipedia.org+-site:wikimedia.org free images] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_English_newspaper_sources free news sources] · [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/search/?q=%22MoeGamer%22 TWL] · [https://www.nytimes.com/search/%22MoeGamer%22 NYT] · [https://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cx=007734830908295939403%3Agalkqgoksq0&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3AWikipedia%2520Reference%2520Search&q=%22MoeGamer%22 WP reference] · [https://www.google.com/cse?cx=009782238053898643791%3A8naerdbd-oy&q=%22MoeGamer%22 VG/RS] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22MoeGamer%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject+Video+games%2FReference+library&fulltext=Search+reference+library&fulltext=Search VG/RL] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22MoeGamer%22+prefix%3AWikipedia+talk%3AWikiProject+Video+games&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1 WPVG/Talk]{{int:dot-separator}}LinkSearch{{int:dot-separator}}[https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amoegamer.net LinkTo]

Ran across this source recently, and after doing some digging found there was a discussion here in the past. While I gather despite the author's excessive pedigree, he is basically a self-published source. However at the same time I'd like to suggest that with those credentials, he could be a viable source for his editorial opinion on certain subjects to help establish notability (i.e. he's written pretty extensively on a lot of fictional characters, and even some in the vtubing field). I think this could be a good source for helping establish WP:THREE and veering a bit more away from the usual Valnet drivel. Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Situationally reliable. Considering [https://moegamer.net/about-pete/ the author's pedigree] and his coverage of topics often overlooked by mainstream English-language sources, I think this site should qualify as an WP:EXPERTSPS. No judgment as yet as to whether it should be considered as contributing to demonstrating notability, but it should absolutely be permissible to flesh out articles on topics that have had their notability already soundly established by other sources. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::After further discussion below, I'm inclined to reinforce my opinion that MoeGamer is only situationally usable for articles on topics that are already proven to be notable, and should not count towards notability. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Reliable. I feel comfortable that this author is a trustworthy source, as he has significant credentials with a large number of reliable sources. This suggests to me that he does not have issues with factual accuracy issues or other problems. Now, it's not the greatest source in the world since it is a SME instead of a site with an editorial department, but I think there can be gradients of notable versus non-notable. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Situational at best. He was fired from USgamer and burned a lot of bridges on the way out. I recall he had a lot of unkind things to say when USgamer was shutting down, but he appears to have deleted his Twitter and it wasn't archived. He hasn't had an industry job since 2014. I find that the results of the previous discussion still hold true: it's essentially a self-published blog/Wordpress site. I don't see a lot of WP:USEBYOTHERS to elevate it above consideration at that level. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's one sided of course but some of his comments on USGamer are in this article: https://moegamer.net/2024/03/22/the-enshittification-of-the-video-games-press/ DarkeruTomoe (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::Unreliable per DarkeruTomoe's findings below and at here. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

: Comment: I can't find ethics policy but I see a request for game codes in the sidebar: {{tq|Review copies of games are gratefully accepted! Get in touch if you'd like to submit your title for consideration.}} There's some alarming points raised by other participants – i.e., fired by his last employer and no industry role in 9 years – that make it challenging for me to agree with a Situational vote. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Did some digging and I can't find a confirmation on why he was let go, however VG247 still lists him as a contributor and he was writing for them [https://www.vg247.com/authors/pete-davison up until 2021] (of note, VG247 inherited USGamer's content, so if there was particularly significant bad blood it would be strange for them to bring him back on). He has also worked at [https://ricedigital.co.uk/author/pete/ RiceDigital as an editor], a website we had discussed here not too long ago as situational depending on the author's credentials. So has remained in the industry at least in the last few years.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::: It's a bit rough to see that the 2021 contribution was a guide for a little-known title rather than actual journalism, but makes me feel a bit better. Still have concerns about the editorial policy but I don't know this reporter so wanted to comment rather than vote. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The VG247 articles attributed to Davison post-2014 appear to be miscategorized/mislabeled articles from the USgamer migration. For example, the [https://www.vg247.com/saints-row-iv-review Saints Row IV review] is actually by Mike Williams, [https://web.archive.org/web/20130817071506/http://www.usgamer.net/articles/saints-row-iv-review originally posted on August 15, 2013]. The [https://www.vg247.com/steinsgate-complete-walkthrough-get-all-the-endings-and-achievements Steins;Gate guide] is misdated; the guide was originally published on [https://web.archive.org/web/20140427021958/http://www.usgamer.net/articles/steinsgate-complete-walkthrough-get-all-the-endings-and-achievements April 24, 2014]. [https://www.vg247.com/why-xbox-failed-in-japan Why the Xbox Failed in Japan] is actually by Wesley Yin-Poole, published [https://web.archive.org/web/20121215211325/http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-12-13-why-xbox-failed-in-japan on Eurogamer on December 14, 2012]. I did a few more spot checks and they're all either misattributed to him or have the wrong date entered. He does not actually appear to have done any work for VG247. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@ImaginesTigers @Kung Fu Man @Cukie Gherkin since you all appear to be taking his VG247 contributor page at face value in the discussion below. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Him requesting game codes isn't of much concern to me; that seems pretty normal for independent games writers trying to get eyeballs on their work. I would have to see some direct confirmation of his specific grievance with USGamer and the reasons why they dropped him to consider downgrading my vote. Even if it's true, I'd probably only change my vote to situationally useful only for opinions with the additional stipulation that he doesn't count for notability, unless the exact details of the situation appear to egregiously disqualify him. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Requesting game codes is fine. Having that on the page while not indicating if they accept money in exchange for reviews? Not fine. That's why I'm hesitant to agree with "Situational" for notability. In general, I have concerns about any publication without editorial or ethics guidelines. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't think the question of bias by journalists for a game they got for free or a company they're looking to appease is at all unusual in this industry. Perhaps the most notable games journalist, Jeff Gerstmann, was fired for giving a bad review during a period where GameSpot's notability was never put into question. I don't think that advertising that you accept review codes or whatever such thing is indicative of anything worse than standard industry practice. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::: Do they print retractions for errors? Do they have editorial oversight to avoid plagiarism? If I email this outlet and offer them £10k to review my game, will they do it? You cannot answer any of these questions because the publication does not give them. To repeat: "I accept game codes" is not the problem. Not having an answer to "Do you accept bribes?" can signify a problem. It's a blog with no editorial oversight. He's barely written 3 articles in 5 years and one was a guide, which is not an SME. You responded to a comment I didn't write. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::While I could get that, I do think at the same time if someone is this involved in the industry one would assume their reputation would not be something they'd want to discard so willingly. I understand being wary of a source (and yes I get I'm going to look at said source more favorably given I'm suggesting it), but surely you can understand that can come across as an excessive level of scrutiny...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I agree, it's a weird hypothetical based on nothing, in opposition to cause to believe there's no ethical concerns. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: Editor 1: "This guy was fired from his last role and has not had a perm role in years" Editor 2: "To support notability, it'd make me feel better if they had an ethics policy, like saying they don't accept pay-for-reviews" Editor 3: "Weird hypotheticals based on nothing" — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::: You posted ~4 reviews and 1 guide published over a 5-year period. Of all the articles listed at the bio Cukie Gherkin linked, none were published beyond 2020. When you posted these, I said it made me feel a little better. It didn't make me feel much better because Axel said he was fired from last journalist role. All I did was ask follow-up questions about editorial policy. If that's read as excessive scrutiny, I don't know what to tell you. I won't opine any further on this; what a disheartening chain. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't believe anything I said there requires that sort of reaction. I simply pointed out it felt weird to assume the worst of a writer that has worked for this many outlets (one of the most recent in an editorial capacity) and has a reputation to preserve, let alone the valid concerns Axem brought up seemed dispelled by his continued work on VG247 after USGamer's downfall.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I'm really confused, because it honestly feels like you're fighting shadows right now. I'm responding to your points and having a disagreement with what you are saying, that's the only thing happening. As far as the weird hypothetical goes, the hypothetical I referred to was that he may take money to give positive review scores, not concerns about him in general. There's simply no evidence that's something he ever did in his career, and no evidence that the reason he was fired had anything to do with that. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The articles and guides from post-2014 are all misattributed or misdated. See my comment above. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: Following [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources&diff=prev&oldid=1288678076 this comment from Axel], Unreliable. The subject has published 4 articles in 6 years and has not held a journalism role since fired from USgamer. The barrier to be an "SME" is not that high, but this does not meet it. The publication's lack of editorial standards or policies makes this a blog of no pedigree. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::While I'm sceptical of the source myself, I can't think of many sources including those accepted as reliable here who directly state "We don't accept bribes or money for reviews". DarkeruTomoe (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Situationally reliable - Only because Pete Davison not only worked on USgamer and Rice Digital, but he also worked on magazines dedicated to Atari platforms decades ago, giving MoeGamer a bit of a leg to stand on. (P.S. The Atari magazine was Page 6/New Atari User. He also worked for PC Zone and Official Nintendo Magazine). Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Situational - Whilst I am incline to agree with Axem, I do believe that the experience and history on display here as mentioned by Roberth above qualifies this source as usable for this WikiProject. CaptainGalaxy 03:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Same as The Jimquisition, in the vein of WP:RSOPINION: fine for attributed opinions, shouldn't be cited for facts or used to demonstrate notability. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 21:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• {{ping|TheJoebro64}} Why wouldn't it be able to count for notability? Like it Valnet it's because they often take an "anything goes" approach or churnalism. And with Sterling...well a lot of it is stuff interwoven with her own opinion and stuff she's presenting as facts. But couldn't this constitute sigcov for a potential WP:THREE if it's covering individual items?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Most of the site seems to be opinionated blogging and it's a one-man operation with seemingly no editorial oversight, which gives me pause. Davison's credentials are decent, so I don't think it should be marked as blanket unreliable, but I think it'd set a bad precedent to declare the personal blog of a writer who hasn't done major RS writing in several years on the same level as stuff like VGC and Time Extension—especially considering that he apparently left his last major position at an RS under questionable circumstances. Not to mention that people will complain that we don't consider Sterling's drivel fully reliable. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 02:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Unreliable

:While the author has some history in the area, it's essentially his personal website with no editorial oversight or policies.

:I'm also sceptical on the ethics side due to his role at Rice Digital in positively covering PQube games (PQube's Head of Publishing is the founder of Rice Digital). This was discussed before.

:I can't find any significant UseByOthers of the website.

:He has some good work, especially the articles on Atelier which are linked on their Wikipedia pages, but alongside the concerns above I'm not seeing many arguments to say it's reliable other than he used to write for places considered reliable long ago and even then he seemingly got fired from one of them. These days he writes manuals and stuff for Evercade if his Youtube channel's about is up to date. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::This is absolutely disqualifying. Changed my stance above. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I have two points to address about this page.

1. Collider is a Valnet property. For this reason, I propose listing that property in the Valnet table on the project page.
2. As I have been working on improving the quality of an anime-related article (Ochaco Uraraka), It was implied that under no circumstance can we cite any Valnet source in WP:FAC. I have wondered if we should add a sentence in the Valnet section saying not to use sources from any Valnet property for featured articles or featured article candidates, similar to how we avoid using them in WP:BLP.

Z. Patterson (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Collider wasn't always a Valnet source, it was acquired by the company in November 2020. There seemed to be some consensus at the film WikiProject that it was usable prior to that point. I dunno what the specific disputed article disputed in the Ochaco GAR was, but if it was before November 2020, I'd say it's not cause for any concern.

:Additionally, I at no point heard of any consensus that Valnet sources were completely unusable, nor that they were barred from featured articles. I think the general consensus has been that Valnet sources can occasionally be useful for basic facts that do not rise to the level of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, opinions of writers, and other non-contentious use cases, but that articles should not be entirely based on them. I'd say, though, that if you have a higher quality alternative source, it's probably preferable to use that instead. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{replyto|SilviaASH}} That was what I inferred when I talked to @Boneless Pizza! and @Piotrus, when a question about notability was brought up with Piotrus. At the time we had this discussion, the article had many Valnet sources, but over time, I replaced them per the discussion in User talk:Piotrus/Archive 70#Ochaco Uraraka and in Talk:Ochaco Uraraka. However, from what Boneless Pizza! said in both pages and what I did in response to the statements, it sounded like under no circumstance could we use these sources in featured article candidates. That is why I raised this proposal to edit the Valnet section of this project page. Z. Patterson (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I personally wouldn't say "under no circumstance", gotta leave room for WP:IAR cases, but they should certainly be avoided as much as is possible. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I recently was able to use Valnet sources for Raichu at its FAC by illustrating the author credentials and the fact they were being cited for their respective author's opinions, with very little objection.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Will also note there's cases where Valnet does pick up exclusive interviews that may be useful to cite as PRIMARY sources, though again that's case by case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:I apologized that I let the author removed all Valnet because most of the Valnet sources at Manga are garbo. Though if the author wants to use Valnet, it should be only these [https://collider.com/my-hero-academia-underutilized-character/] [https://www.comicbookrevolution.com/himiko-toga-sacrifice-saves-ochaco-uraraka-in-my-hero-academia-chapter-395/] or possibly others but only if the sources really talked about the character mainly, and not passing mentions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Comic Book Revolution is a Valnet source? I haven't heard of it before and it isn't listed in the table on our sources page. I know Comic Book Resources is, but that's a different site that happens to have the same acronym. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Whatever the case, yeah, assuming Comic Book Revolution is reliable, both of those look like perfectly fine SIGCOV. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{replyto|SilviaASH}} No, Comic Book Revolution is not a Valnet property. You are correct in that it is not Valnet. Z. Patterson (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes it is not valnet, apologize for the confusion. Anyway, it's just the sources about Manga from Valnet kinda sucks. You should be fine I guess to use them as long as they were talking about Ochada mainly. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:My understanding of Valnet is that you shouldn't rely on them, especially for the purposes of an FA, but can be used in unique circumstances, such as developer interviews or specific expert opinions, or for basic fact verification. It's very case by case.

:I would support listing Collider since it does cover some VG related subjects at times, with the same stipulations as some other sources. It's outright unreliable and has some decent output sometimes for the same reasons listed above, but it's definitely not a top quality source either. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see why Valnet has such a low reputation. It's not a great source, but I never saw its outlets publish hoaxes or fake news or such. It's pretty much a modern version of a syndicated blog, but frankly, so are many other outlets we consider reliable. I don't think they publish any REDFLAG EXCEPTIONAL claims. Shrug. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::To be frank I agree, and I particularly dislike that we as a project are routinely shutting off an entire swath of sources. I get if it's something like "you'll never believe what these redditors think!" or churnalism like that, but there are also opinion articles and interviews that get caught in the "doesn't count because it's Valnet" crossfire. Opinion editorial pieces in particular are growing fewer and far between on other websites overall outside of reviews, and character discussions are pretty much zilch these days. I'm not saying swing the door open, but certainly people can understand the frustration.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I've said this before, but I continue to feel the VG space needs to move from its blanket assessments of sources and recognize that sources publish content at varying levels of editorial independence and involvement. Reddit reposts? Publisher announcement reposts? Don't use them. Listicles? It depends. Features? Interviews? Reviews? Use them freely. It's neither a novel nor VG journalism specific concept; traditional news organizations publish breaking news, routine news, and investigative journalism and we've long known how to distinguish them. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::More concretely, my issue is with using the distribution of a source's output between those categories to assess reliability. Ignore the stuff we shouldn't source articles from anyways and analyze a source's reputation when they're putting out real editorial. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Nowadays, if I were to use a Valnet source in an article, I would be cautious about citing it and replace it with a better source if possible. However, there are times where citing Valnet in an article can demonstrate WP:SIGCOV and have some degree of reliability, such as sources from Screen Rant. Reviews by human authors at Screen Rant and Hardcore Gamer, provided they have strong credentials and these two Valnet properties have a strong editorial policy (but it sounds like Hardcore Gamer has one) could add value to an article. Other than Screen Rant and Hardcore Gamer, I would be careful about citing Valnet sources and use best judgment. They cannot be used to demonstrate WP:N because of the quantity of content that Valnet outputs compared to other media organizations. WP:GNG dictates that multiple independent authors and organizations should contribute to the notability of a topic before having an article written about that topic. For the purposes of GNG, many Valnet sources in its different sites constitute a single source. Z. Patterson (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Even in the context of Screen Rant, if I know a better source is available, I would try to replace it. Z. Patterson (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I do feel TheGamer, from time to time, produces some really good articles, particularly those by their Editor in Chief.

:::::::Sometimes too Valnet "everything under the sun" approach can be useful too; a lot of times they're the one secondary source covering a subject for plot confirmation. An interesting bit with Minthara awhile back was I was able to reference how that character's design had changed during development simply because Game Rant had posted a guide for her Early Access version.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Well said. Case by case is best. Just like there are crappy articles (plot summary listicles, how-to guides etc.) on some other websites we consider reliable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Find video game sources: [https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22Ungeek%22 "Ungeek"] – [https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Ungeek%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 news] · [https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Ungeek%22&tbs=bkt:s&tbm=bks newspapers] · [https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Ungeek%22+-wikipedia books] · [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Ungeek%22 scholar] · [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22Ungeek%22&acc=on&wc=on JSTOR] · [https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&tbs=sur:fmc&tbm=isch&q=%22Ungeek%22+-site:wikipedia.org+-site:wikimedia.org free images] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_English_newspaper_sources free news sources] · [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/search/?q=%22Ungeek%22 TWL] · [https://www.nytimes.com/search/%22Ungeek%22 NYT] · [https://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cx=007734830908295939403%3Agalkqgoksq0&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3AWikipedia%2520Reference%2520Search&q=%22Ungeek%22 WP reference] · [https://www.google.com/cse?cx=009782238053898643791%3A8naerdbd-oy&q=%22Ungeek%22 VG/RS] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Ungeek%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject+Video+games%2FReference+library&fulltext=Search+reference+library&fulltext=Search VG/RL] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22Ungeek%22+prefix%3AWikipedia+talk%3AWikiProject+Video+games&title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1 WPVG/Talk]{{int:dot-separator}}LinkSearch{{int:dot-separator}}[https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttps://www.ungeek.ph/ LinkTo]

I found this website while looking for new sources to incorporate into Mobile Suit Gundam GQuuuuuuX and upon scrutinizing it further decided to bring the discussion here rather than to the Anime WikiProject page since video game coverage seems to be their bread and butter.

They appear to have some helpful industry connections and have published a few interviews ([https://www.ungeek.ph/2025/04/gquuuuuux-director-shares-how-evangelions-shinji-influenced-the-new-gundam-anime/], [https://www.ungeek.ph/2025/04/interview-xbox-asias-jun-shen-on-the-talented-developers-of-sea-and-the-regions-potential-as-a-games-hotspot/], [https://www.ungeek.ph/2025/01/interview-assassins-creed-shadows-level-design-director-and-associate-producer-on-building-on-legacy-and-what-to-expect/]) and their reviews ([https://www.ungeek.ph/2025/04/clair-obscur-expedition-33-review-painting-a-masterpiece/], [https://www.ungeek.ph/2025/05/the-elder-scrolls-iv-oblivion-remastered-review-pc-magical-despite-the-performance-issues/]) seem to be reasonably well written (or at least, not written by LLMs). However, they don't seem to have much of an editorial policy to speak of, with their [https://www.ungeek.ph/about-us/ about page] instead saying that they are {{tq|"the fastest-growing premier geek blog based in the Philippines"}} and have {{tq|"worked with various brands as well in helping them expand their reach"}}. Their chief editor, Rob Yatco, states that in his bio that he is a "Freelance Marketer and Strategist by Trade". His [https://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Vin/Yatco LinkedIn profile] backs this up, suggesting his previous experience is mostly in PR duties for various companies. Another editor, Nicolo Manaloto (who's apparently been interviewed about his work at the site [https://www.telummedia.com/public/news/telum-talks-to-nicolo-manaloto-editor-at-ungeek-ph/zov6z92d1g here]), is a staff writer at Epicstream (itself a site of unclear reliability), where [https://epicstream.com/author/nicolo-manaloto his bio] claims that he has been cited by Forbes (obviously doesn't count for much without knowing the context) and IGN.

Given all this, I think I'd personally lean situational and would only use them cautiously if there weren't a lot of other options, but wouldn't cite them for anything that could be contentious. I'd like to hear other opinions, though. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

[https://aftermath.site/gamurs-escapist-siliconera-destructoid-layoffs Layoffs and pivot to slop per Aftermath report]. [https://www.escapistmagazine.com/page/2/ Escapist] seems to be all guides now. Same with [https://www.destructoid.com/page/2/ Destructoid]. [https://www.siliconera.com/page/2/ Siliconera] still has content, but it looks like the All Jenni Lada show (I think she is a solid writer FWIW). [https://dotesports.com/page/2 Dot Esports] is guide city. [https://upcomer.com/ Upcomer] hasn't posted since September 2024. [https://primagames.com/page/2 Prima] is all guides, but I guess that makes sense for them??? A lot of similar names pop up across all the different sites, which jibes with the Aftermath report, {{xt|"Former staff also tell us that, despite laying off successive waves of writers throughout 2025, Gamurs has been actively trying to recruit writers from regions like India, the Philippines and the Balkans. Former staff speculated this could be because these workers can be paid less than writers from the US or United Kingdom."}} Anyway, I doubt anyone here has any illusions about citing any of this stuff as the vast majority of it is unusable on its face. Just posting for completeness' sake. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, I don't think Siliconera has gotten bad enough for a downgrade on status, but there definitely has been a drop in quality. I use them less simply because they publish less usable stuff. They used to cover so much about new game announcements and previews that were great for fleshing out articles. Now it's largely either filler junk like [https://www.siliconera.com/5-open-world-games-to-play-while-waiting-for-gta-vi/ this] or the more nerdy non-gaming stuff Kotaku pivoted to long ago. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not seeing a bottoming-out of Destructoid yet, as the Aftermath article states, it looks like they got some Dotesports editors, which while not the best, aren't necessary slop; they are still generating reviews and news about game updates. but that's one to keep on the list to watch. Masem (t) 16:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::I feel like with this steady decline we might consider writing a guide on what to avoid from sites when trying to establish notability for subjects, so people can look for the wheat in the chaff.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed, we should document and promote best practices. Some examples from other topic domains: :Category:Wikipedia reliable source guides. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)