Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Situationality

Find video game sources: [https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22...Dota2.ru...%22 "...Dota2.ru..."] – [https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22...Dota2.ru...%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 news] · [https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22...Dota2.ru...%22&tbs=bkt:s&tbm=bks newspapers] · [https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22...Dota2.ru...%22+-wikipedia books] · [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22...Dota2.ru...%22 scholar] · [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22...Dota2.ru...%22&acc=on&wc=on JSTOR] · [https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&tbs=sur:fmc&tbm=isch&q=%22...Dota2.ru...%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...Dota2.ru...%22 TWL] · [https://www.nytimes.com/search/%22...Dota2.ru...%22 NYT] · [https://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cx=007734830908295939403%3Agalkqgoksq0&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3AWikipedia%2520Reference%2520Search&q=%22...Dota2.ru...%22 WP reference] · [https://www.google.com/cse?cx=009782238053898643791%3A8naerdbd-oy&q=%22...Dota2.ru...%22 VG/RS] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22...Dota2.ru...%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...Dota2.ru...%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...https://dota2.ru/... LinkTo]

After editing the Dota Pro Circuit page and the comment from Dissident93, I would like to raise the question of the validity of [https://dota2.ru/ Dota2.ru] as a esports gaming source.

This site is an official media outlet with a license to operate in many post-Soviet countries (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and others). The largest Dota 2 media in the Russian-speaking space. This is not a fan site, news can only be written by the editorial staff, information about the editorial staff is available. They publish a large number of [https://dota2.ru/news/articles/ articles], reviews and [https://dota2.ru/news/interviews/ interviews] with esportsmen.

The editorial staff is recognized and cooperates as information partners of many esports tournament operators and coverage studios: [https://dota2.ru/news/27297-dota2-ru-stal-ekskluzivnym-informacionnym-partnerom-paragon-events-sotrudnicestvo-projdet-v-ramkah-dpc-ligi/ Paragon Events], FISSURE, [https://dota2.ru/news/45556-v-moskve-projdet-igrovaa-vystavka-red-ekspo-s-cempionatom-moskvy-po-dota-2-dota2-ru-informacionnyj-partner/ RED Expo]. The journalists receive official press accreditation at major esports tournaments on Dota 2, such as [https://dota2.ru/news/45605-dota2-ru-na-the-international-nas-zurnalist-priehal-na-final-turnira/ The International]/majors.

I'm not sure how important it is, but materials from the site are also referenced on [https://liquipedia.net/dota2/Main_Page Liquipedia] (the esports equivalent of wikipedia). Examples:

• https://liquipedia.net/dota2/The_International/2024
• https://liquipedia.net/dota2/BetBoom_Dacha/Belgrade/2024
• https://liquipedia.net/dota2/Team_Spirit
• https://liquipedia.net/dota2/DKLana

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DecadaProxy (talk • contribs)

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

I'm asking because of [https://www.thegamer.com/sonic-the-hedgehog-dr-eggman-robotnik-voice-actor-mike-pollock-slur-accusations/ this], which comes off as WP:BLP gossip to me. TheGamer also published [https://www.thegamer.com/eggman-voice-actor-mike-pollock-recast-from-kenny-and-the-defenders-of-cosmiria/ a similar article] months ago, which I used for the the subject's article until someone deleted it, questioning its importance. --❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 00:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:TheGamer always came off as a content mill to me and running articles based on tweets certainly doesn't help it's case.

:Interestingly in this case, someone saying they're the subject of the article commented on it giving his side of the story and thoughts on The Gamer's lack of research. Copied here:

:As the person at the center of this article, I want to provide some much-needed context. It's shocking that the author never reached out to me for comment. A fair and balanced investigative journalist would have done so.

:The article presents a one-sided view of a complex situation. It fails to mention the repeated harassment I've received from toxic fans, including accusations of being a "Zionist" – a term I embrace in its classic definition of support for Jewish self-determination in their ancestral homeland. This has been an ongoing issue for months, and this incident needs to be understood within that context.

:The article also omits my revised response to the initial complaint, focusing instead on a *deleted* tweet that was poorly worded and intended as sarcasm. My actual, considered response can be found by searching "itsamike 1889836132466303176"

:As you can see, I explicitly told the fan base *not* to harass the person. Conflating this incident with my support for Zionism, a legitimate political viewpoint, is a disingenuous attempt to further the narrative against me.

:I believe in open dialogue, but the constant harassment and misrepresentation need to stop. A fair and balanced report would have included my perspective, acknowledged the history of this issue, and accurately represented my views.

:I've also addressed this situation in more detail on X. Search for "itsamike 1890220163032809651"

:Backup: https://web.archive.org/web/20250214113105/https://www.thegamer.com/sonic-the-hedgehog-dr-eggman-robotnik-voice-actor-mike-pollock-slur-accusations/ DarkeruTomoe (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::I think that removing TheGamer as a situationally reliable source is a bridge too far unless there's a case to be made that this is a frequent issue. This also doesn't feel like an egregious case, and I believe that outside of routine game guide and slop (which can be found on most reliable game sources these days), TheGamer tends to create decent and mindful content. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:: I don't think there is any strong need to remove it as situationally reliable, but I feel quite strongly that a situationally reliable source shouldn't be used to support contentious biographical information about living persons. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I wholeheartedly agree. Honestly, any BLP-related articles by video game websites I believe we should always be cautious about. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::While TheGamer is currently listed as Situationally Reliable, the description makes it clear that it considers recent posts to be treated as 'Generally Reliable'. I don't think I'd go as far as removing it, but I don't think a BLP warning would be off, rather than the description implying everything 2020 onward is reliable. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't think a BLP warning would be unwarranted. I certainly wouldn't use TheGamer for anything remotely controversial about a person. Though I would suggest that we have a blanket Valnet BLP concern, because I believe none of the sources are strong enough as to be fully trusted for BLP-related articles. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Agreed. I'd support a BLP warning on any and all Valnet websites. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::+1. Definitely a word of warning is warranted. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with @ImaginesTigers here. If a source is going to have rather questionable processes on reporting about someone being accused of something controversial (in this case being Zionist/pro-Israel), we shouldn't use it for BLPs at all. We prefer the cream of the crop of sources for such articles, and TheGamer isn't at that level. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neos • talk • edits) 19:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:I have a long day ahead, but at some point in the coming hours I will try to draft a rewrite of the WP:VALNET section that includes a BLP notice per the consensus here. λ NegativeMP1 19:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:: I added "Articles from these sites should not be used to support biographical material on living persons". — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:While I've used TheGamer a lot in the past, I do consider them comparable to other Wikipedia:VALNET sites in that BLP info should be shied away from if it's coming from them. I'd only use it for BLP info if the author has reliable industry history and it's clear that they actually took into account proper BLP techniques, instead of just churning something out. For entertainment topics they're definitely a step above the usual VALNET though, so I feel their current reliability should be fine, with an added BLP notice. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah Valent sources are dogshit for BLP info, especially for contentious issues. I'd support a warning. I do think a more thorough reassessment of TheGamer might be warranted as we promoted them on the basis of an EiC who left like a month after we did so JOEBRO⁶⁴ 15:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:I basically agree with the situational assessment. They are not reliable for facts likely to be challenged, like WP:BLP. They are not reliable for proving that random spinoff articles are notable. They are reliable enough to be worth a mention from a reception standpoint. But be mindful about padding an article with six TheGamer listicles, when maybe a one or two sentence mention will do. That's the extent to which I've used them. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, I think we're all in agreement here. They can be used for gaming news, but shouldn't be used for things like BLPs or contentious claims. For Pokemon appearances, not touchy political/social issues. Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:::What is your take on their usage on esports-related BLPs though? I have found their articles, especially ones written by Ben Sledge, which also sometimes include interviews ([https://www.thegamer.com/algs-championship-2023-darkzero-interview/ example]) with subjects, to be useful on articles such as Zer0 and NiceWigg. Some other examples: [https://www.thegamer.com/apex-legends-global-series-algs-playoffs-in-review-aussies-emerge-victorious-as-competition-plagued-with-issues/ 1], [https://www.thegamer.com/tsm-imperial-hal-algs-championship-2023-interview/ 2]. In this context, nothing seems off about TheGamer to me. But wanted other editors' takes on it. Soulbust (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

{{od|:::}} Sorry to sort of restart this conversation, but I believe that in the near future I am going to convert WP:VALNET (which currently redirects to this page) into a Wikipedia essay regarding the opinions and stances of Valnet sourcing across the site, especially now that WP:RSP/VALNET exists (which is a completely separate thing) and some sort of centralization regarding Valnet sourcing may be necessary. This may be a bit unorthodox, but with how many times Valnet sourcing has been discussed at this talk page, WP:RSN, WT:FILM or WP:FILM/R, I think an essay of this sort that documents the overall sentiment and opinions towards Valnet sourcing is warranted. It might also help out as an introductory essay to new editors, as newcomers (like me at one point) typically skewed towards Valnet sourcing (as it was the most prevalent thing on Google) before I gathered a full comprehension of what a reliable source is. Think of something like WP:BFDI but for helping explain why we consider some sources unreliable. Note that our own list of judgements regarding Valnet sourcing would be retained in this event, as it is curated specifically towards video game while this hypothetical essay would attempt to cover all Valnet sourcing in general. Does anyone object to my idea? λ NegativeMP1 19:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:Sounds like a good idea to me. I say go right ahead and do it. You don't necessarily need to convert the WP:VALNET redirect though, I'd write the essay at a title like Wikipedia:Reliably of Valnet (or something to that effect), and then the issue of whether to retarget the shortcut redirect there or to some other project page can be discussed after others have seen and given feedback on your essay. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::I've finished the essay draft here. This is something that is definitely a bit unorthodox and not done before on the site (the only other instance I can think of an essay existing about why a single specific thing is WP:BFDI), so feedback and some approval would be appreciated. Edits or adjustments are also welcome, and the name could also be discussed. Courtesy pinging some of this discussion's participants who have been involved in other source discussions in the past for their two cents on this since this is the accumulation of years worth of source discussions: {{ping|Pokelego999}} {{ping|Sergecross73}} {{ping|Cukie Gherkin}} {{ping|TheJoebro64}} {{ping|DarkeruTomoe}}. λ NegativeMP1 04:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Outcyders: {{Find video game sources|Outcyders|linksearch=https://www.outcyders.net/}}
• The Otaku's Study: {{Find video game sources|The Otaku's Study|linksearch=https://www.otakustudy.com/}}

While searching for additional sources to add to the article "Hatsune Miku", specifically in regards to the section "{{section link|Hatsune Miku|Appearances in other media|nopage=y}}" where her appearances in the Just Dance series are claimed (but unsourced), I came across several articles covering such claims, hosted by several different sites. I've narrowed down the list to the two sites in question: Outcyders and The Otaku's Study.

Although I've mentioned further details in {{section link|wp:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|Outcyders and The Otaku's Study}}, in summary, Outcyders is hosted by a group of people with some level of expertise, but hasn't been updated since 2020, whereas The Otaku's Study is managed by a single person, therefore making it a WP:SPS. As per ActivelyDisinterested's advice on the RSN, I had posted here to further close in the consensus for both sites to whether or not be reliable and counts towards WP:GNG. Opinions, feedback, etc. are welcome in this discussion. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:For Outcyders it might help to expand on what points to a level of expertise. Their about me page is broken so that does not help. I couldn't find any use by others either that was relevant with most of the links pointing to them being from low quality sites like fan wikis, key resellers and spam sites.

:The Otaku's Study has some minimal usebyothers with a citation by [https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-modder-whos-finally-translating-dragon-quest-into-arabic/ Vice] (reliable) and [https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2012-08-18/hanabee-entertainment-announces-new-acquisitions-at-manifest-2012 Anime News Network] (seems to generally be considered reliable, but I'd not give it much weight as it hasn't always been great with sources, like running an article on a tweet by someone unrelated with a screenshot from a Discord server). With that and being an SPS with no proven expertise by the person, I'd not want to use it for evidencing facts. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::The Outcyders' "about us" page has been [https://web.archive.org/web/20200706055339/https://www.outcyders.net/about archived] on the Wayback Machine (with the latest working snapshot dating on 23 November 2021). Their hosts claimed that they are:

::{{quote|Not "bloggers". Not "content creators". Not head-up-our-own-backside enough to call ourselves "influencers". Outcyders is a website that revolves around games and everything that makes them great.}}

::The website's two primary editors both have some level of expertise, with one of them having won the "Best Journalist" at the 2018 Women in Games Awards. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Minor correction. She was nominated but didn't win - https://mcvuk.com/business-news/mcv-women-in-games-awards-2018-the-winners/

:::It still has significance but it's always good to be accurate. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Oops, thanks for correcting my colossal blunder. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Find video game sources: [https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22Pro+Game+Guides%22 "Pro Game Guides"] – [https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Pro+Game+Guides%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 news] · [https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Pro+Game+Guides%22&tbs=bkt:s&tbm=bks newspapers] · [https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Pro+Game+Guides%22+-wikipedia books] · [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Pro+Game+Guides%22 scholar] · [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22Pro+Game+Guides%22&acc=on&wc=on JSTOR] · [https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&tbs=sur:fmc&tbm=isch&q=%22Pro+Game+Guides%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=%22Pro+Game+Guides%22 TWL] · [https://www.nytimes.com/search/%22Pro+Game+Guides%22 NYT] · [https://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cx=007734830908295939403%3Agalkqgoksq0&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3AWikipedia%2520Reference%2520Search&q=%22Pro+Game+Guides%22 WP reference] · [https://www.google.com/cse?cx=009782238053898643791%3A8naerdbd-oy&q=%22Pro+Game+Guides%22 VG/RS] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Pro+Game+Guides%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject+Video+games%2FReference+library&fulltext=Search+reference+library&fulltext=Search VG/RL] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22Pro+Game+Guides%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%3Aprogameguides.com LinkTo]

A site that is cited in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch?target=progameguides.com a handful of articles], and also one that I have come across myself several times. To me, it seems like a pretty clear case of an unreliable source; very little legitimate writing, a heavy emphasis on churnalism about, well, game guides and "Codes for (roblox game here)", and their [https://progameguides.com/about-us/ about page] leaves a lot to be desired with no clear editorial policy in sight either. I will bring up that they are owned by Gamurs, which also owns Dot Esports and Destructoid and The Escapist, but those sources are already a mixed bag quality wise and I feel like there's a pretty big difference between the content PGG posts in comparison to them. For example, Destructoid has [https://www.destructoid.com/ethics/ an ethics page], while PGG has nothing of the sort. Again, I'm almost certain that this isn't a reliable source, but some input would be appreciated. λ NegativeMP1 19:19, 24 March 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)

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)

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

I searched the site, but couldn't find anything suggesting any credentials, not enough to list it as reliable or even situational at the very least. No editorial policy that I can find. Looking at the staff page, it seems as though it's more of a hobbyist page (respect to that, of course - love more people doing sites like this). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:I do see an editor-in-chief. It's circumstantial evidence of editorial review and fact-checking, but it doesn't show it for certain. I find myself advocating for these edge cases where the quality is good, just given the decline of journalism on so many other sites. But if this proves controversial, we could always just send the editor a message to ask his editorial policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

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

No editorial policy or staff list. Staff listings I can see boil down to simply that they like video games (kudos) - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:46, 8 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)

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)

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

I'm making a listing here as I am unsure on the consensus of Vooks.net. Vooks.net is an Australian website focused on covering news specifically around Nintendo, with an About Page seen [https://www.vooks.net/about/ here]. Previously there have been discussions about this website in 2013 and 2024 respectively, as well as a brief mention on WT:VGCHAR, however, I don't believe anything concrete was established back then and so I would like to settle this. CaptainGalaxy 16:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)