Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#TouchArcade

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=%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)

:Well, they pass WP:USEDBYOTHERS. But I don't know how well they pass other things we expect from an RS... λ NegativeMP1 16:00, 16 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)

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

This site is listed under "reliable sources" but it appears to be publishing unlabeled sponsored news: https://www.gamezebo.com/news/play-officially-licensed-anime-games-on-g123-with-no-registration-or-download-needed/

Note that very similar promotional articles were published on the same day in two other publications, both of which are listed as "friends" of Gamezebo at the bottom of the website: [https://www.droidgamers.com/news/play-licensed-anime-games-safely-for-free-with-no-downloads-on-g123/] [https://www.kongbakpao.com/we-try-out-f2p-gaming-hub-g123/]. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm honestly unsure what made people see it as a reliable source in the first place. The about page is really weak, there's no editorial policy, no staff page, and from a couple author profiles, I see either no biography or a lack of credentials. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm assuming they were reliable for a while but went downhill in the past few years. Gamezebo was acquired in 2016, although it's unclear at what point quality dropped. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It was last discussed in 2009. A lot can happen in 15 years. Apparently it was [https://www.gamesindustry.biz/iwin-to-acquire-website-gamezebo acquired by iWin] in 2016, a mobile/casual game developer. As this is the domain that Gamezebo specializes in, I feel safe in saying everything after the acquisition is owned media and unreliable. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I want to say maybe it could be usable before the iWin acquisition...but even looking at it's 2015 version there's next to nothing indicating editorial policy or anything?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I know I used Gamezebo in my early days on Wikipedia, but it doesn't look like I participated in the past discussions linked about it, so I can't recall my old reasons. It feels like I haven't used it in quite some time, maybe because they've been cranking out stuff like this in more recent years. Definitely support downgrading for the last decade since the acquisition at least. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Most of the stuff on this author's tagline is deeply promotional and probably an unlabeled advertisement. [https://www.gamezebo.com/news/complete-fast-paced-arithmetic-challenges-and-enter-global-leaderboards-in-mathon/], [https://www.gamezebo.com/news/become-a-crime-lord-behind-bars-in-prison-gang-wars/], [https://www.gamezebo.com/news/reclaim-your-mansion-by-collecting-monsters-using-potions-and-upgrading-weapons-in-broom-broom-in-the-room/], [https://www.gamezebo.com/news/getaway-is-an-intoxicating-mix-of-air-hockey-and-pong/].

::::::Browsing the Internet Archive history here, it looks like the old real content trailed off ~late 2018, and they just put out guides for a while. At some point in late 2022, at least by September, they launched a redesign and started putting out a lot of content. Their older stuff isn't bad. The new stuff is of remarkably low quality. If I were to use quality as an indicator of when editorial standards fell off the cliff, it's 2018. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Find video game sources: [https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22...%5B%5BPC+Data%5D%5D...%22 "...PC Data..."] – [https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22...%5B%5BPC+Data%5D%5D...%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 news] · [https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22...%5B%5BPC+Data%5D%5D...%22&tbs=bkt:s&tbm=bks newspapers] · [https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22...%5B%5BPC+Data%5D%5D...%22+-wikipedia books] · [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22...%5B%5BPC+Data%5D%5D...%22 scholar] · [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22...%5B%5BPC+Data%5D%5D...%22&acc=on&wc=on JSTOR] · [https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&tbs=sur:fmc&tbm=isch&q=%22...%5B%5BPC+Data%5D%5D...%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...%5B%5BPC+Data%5D%5D...%22 TWL] · [https://www.nytimes.com/search/%22...%5B%5BPC+Data%5D%5D...%22 NYT] · [https://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cx=007734830908295939403%3Agalkqgoksq0&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3AWikipedia%2520Reference%2520Search&q=%22...%5B%5BPC+Data%5D%5D...%22 WP reference] · [https://www.google.com/cse?cx=009782238053898643791%3A8naerdbd-oy&q=%22...%5B%5BPC+Data%5D%5D...%22 VG/RS] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22...%5B%5BPC+Data%5D%5D...%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...%5B%5BPC+Data%5D%5D...%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...www.pcdata.com ... LinkTo]

Although now defunct this source has been used many times throughout the years (I'm using it myself) so I'm surpised it hasn't been discussed here. I think it should be added reliable defunct sites. IGN [https://www.ign.com/articles/2001/03/01/pc-data-top-selling-console-games-021101-021701], Computer Games Magazine [https://web.archive.org/web/20021215101918/http://www.cdmag.com/az-pages/archive-16.html#P], etc have used this site before. Timur9008 (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

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

DualShockers was previously listed as unreliable but in 2022 was moved to situational. I wanted to revisit that assessment because a recent article of theirs includes a completely-fabricated quote.

The article: https://www.dualshockers.com/bungies-marathon-is-plastered-with-stolen-art-artist-says/ (archived, in case they remove it or edit it: https://web.archive.org/web/20250515233401/https://www.dualshockers.com/bungies-marathon-is-plastered-with-stolen-art-artist-says/)

Confirmation of fabrication: https://x.com/4nt1r34l/status/1923156749726433587

Forgive me if I'm not doing this the right way, I haven't participated in a discussion on this part of WP before, but as soon as I saw this pop up I felt obligated to come here and check how WP treated this as a source. If this still qualifies it as situational, I apologize for wasting time, but it seems pretty significant to completely fabricate a quote, even once, and I feel as though it should be re-listed as unreliable. SlyAceZeta (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Alright, I'm down with moving DualShockers to unreliable now...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Seconded. λ NegativeMP1 00:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Damn, that's shitty. Unreliable as all hell. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Checked out the author of the piece, and... hum. [https://www.dualshockers.com/author/anthony-kamau/] [https://muckrack.com/antony-kamau] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah it's not only looking like this guy doesn't exist, he's using multiple accounts on there and pretending to be separate people. If you reverse image search his profile pic from Dualshockers, it links to Anthony Ngugi on a site called TopSpeed that's similar to Dualshockers in layout...and who uses a stock image profile pic there now too.

:::[https://www.dualshockers.com/author/Antony-Ngugi/ Antony Ngugi] is also an 'author' on Dualshockers. This is weird.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeah I don't like how this is looking. Now I wonder if other Valnet sources are doing similar things... wouldn't exactly surprise me. λ NegativeMP1 15:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's possible but I wouldn't assume it outright. Talking with Cukie last night she noticed Dualshockers has very different hiring practices than, say, theGamer.

:::::An aside, DualShockers deleted the original article outright: no retraction or clarification given.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::No objection to downgrading. There wasn't even really the strongest support for situational in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I would have given them credit if they issued a correction, but downright removing the article when called out for factual inaccuracy is grounds for unreliable. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is disappointing. They should probably be moved to unreliable. If someone wanted to make the case for an exception for some older content, I am open to that discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::I could *possibly* see it in the case of editors we can actually confirm, but even with interview content I feel it could be questionable to cite them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The fact that they completely fabricated a quote in my opinion should make them completely unusable even for interviews. λ NegativeMP1 19:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Probably would keep some time frames within the "situational" area, particularly if it's a sort of opinion piece and not quoting anybody, and also particularly if an article's author has assessed as credible/reliable on an individual basis, but yes it is very disappointing to see a fake quote being used here. Soulbust (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The thing is this is the second time they've fabricated information, and we have no time frame for when things started going downhill or if perhaps they always were. The fact they clearly are behaving in an unethical manner and that two accounts on there are not real people (Ngugi to boot is not listed as a contributor, 'they' are a staff writer since 2023)...this is not the site you want to rely on for opinions even.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)