Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 34#Aftermath

Is this fansite for the Mega Man series reliable? Normally, the answer would be no, but this website has been referred to by other reliable sources for an unusual number of times:

• Destructoid: [https://www.destructoid.com/that-mega-man-pachinko-machine-actually-has-a-story/] [https://www.destructoid.com/you-can-watch-the-entire-campy-ruby-spears-mega-man-cartoon-on-youtube/] [https://www.destructoid.com/pretend-to-be-shocked-rockman-online-is-likely-cancelled/] [https://www.destructoid.com/new-mega-man-figure-line-once-again-has-vile-rocking-a-glass-of-whiskey/]
• Eurogamer: [https://www.eurogamer.net/is-capcom-hiding-clues-about-the-next-mega-man-x-game]
• Time Extension: [https://www.timeextension.com/news/2023/05/mega-man-series-producer-kazuhiro-tsuchiya-has-reportedly-departed-capcom]
• VentureBeat: [https://venturebeat.com/games/mega-man-movie-rumored-to-be-coming-to-netflix/]
• Video Games Chronicle: [https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/arikas-vice-president-has-shared-an-image-of-a-mysterious-mega-man-design/]
• Polygon: [https://www.polygon.com/2019/10/6/20901260/mega-man-universe-canceled-soundtrack-mega-man-legends], [https://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/9/16/3344030/mega-man-fans-told-to-keep-expectations-in-check-for-25th-anniversary]
• IGN: [https://www.ign.com/articles/2010/03/02/mega-man-10s-dlc-blown-wide-open]

The website has made several exclusive reports that were also cited by other sources, such as an [https://www.rockman-corner.com/2018/11/mega-man-11-post-launch-interview-with.html interview with Mega Man 11 Kazuhiro Tsuchiya] ([https://www.destructoid.com/mega-man-11-producer-explains-why-proto-man-and-bass-didnt-make-the-cut/ Destructoid]) and the [https://www.rockman-corner.com/2019/06/cancelled-mega-man-star-force-4-concept.html leak of the cancelled Mega Man Star Force 4] ([https://www.siliconera.com/cancelled-mega-man-star-force-4-concept-art-and-story-details-seemingly-leaked-online/ Siliconera], [https://www.destructoid.com/capcom-was-working-on-a-mega-man-star-force-4-at-one-point/ Destructoid]).

Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, this source would be reliable enough to be put on the reliable source list. And the editorial policy, it's really just the founder himself, Brian "Protodude" Austrin, who is an established figure as seen above and does the fact-checking generally professionally. I see no problem in directly citing this for Mega Man topics, although early articles (pre-2010) are not high quality and should be avoided. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:I can't think of a single franchise fansite like this that meets our criteria. For example, there's some seriously impressive Sonic or Mario ones...but they still are amateur enthusiast bloggers self-publishing onto the internet. I can't imagine this is different. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:What is the information on this site that is not already applied or unattainable from the sites you mentioned? Not saying this can't be used or not, but is it essential if other content already covers the material? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

::This. When an unreliable source is carried by other reliable sources, which we trust to apply fact checking and editorial control over, we just use them instead. We're using them to vet the information from a source we'd otherwise not consider reliable. The site is still a self-published fan blog. -- ferret (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

::There are Japan-exclusive official Mega Man media that rarely gets covered in English, which makes Rockman Corner necessary. Mobile i-mode games on List of Mega Man video games (and other similar pages) are almost completely unsourced and is unlikely to get sourced from major English media because they usually only cover things that get international release. For one example, Mega Man X (video game) article mentions an old mobile port, which currently only cites Japanese website that exists in archive. Using [https://www.rockman-corner.com/2024/09/rockman-x-i-mode-port-preserved.html this Rockman Corner feature] would makes it easier to describe what this port is.

::This website would be placed under lower priority than the other reliable sources, but it sometimes covers what other sources do not, with generally reliable quality, and citing it under limited condition seems like a net positive overall. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:::I understand your perspective, but there are Japanese reliable sources that can be used instead. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

::::This. We don't have to use English sources, we can use reliable Japanese sources. Desire for an English source of that information does not add urgency for us to declare an unreliable SPS as reliable just to fill the hole. -- ferret (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Basically what was said above. This site might be great for finding the material you are looking for, but if its pointing in the direction of where to find it, then by all means, lets take it from the source in question. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Japanese sources on the information are generally few and scarce, and frankly less reliable, mostly web portals with anonymous writers. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::@Emiya Mulzomdao That still doesn't add urgency to declare a self-published blog as reliable just to fill the hole. The actual answer is, if no reliable sources, English or Japanese, are covering a topic, then there is little due weight to include that information. -- ferret (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

[https://dashfight.com/ DashFight] mostly contains coverage about fighting games in general. Here's their [https://muckrack.com/media-outlet/dashfight additional information] on Muck Rack. Kazama16 (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:I can't find any information for the writers except being fighting game fans, and [https://dashfight.com/about-us About Us] is not helping. Its chief-in-editor is Elizbar Ramazashvili, and I couldn't find anything about him before DashFight. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:Unreliable. No editorial policy, site is primarily a commercial endeavor around fighting game events and tournaments, not journalism. The "Our Services" page doesn't once mention journalism and is about marketing and consulting for esports industry. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

https://goombastomp.com/

I dont see how it meets our standards for being a reliable source. Their [https://goombastomp.com/about-2/ About Us] page says almost nothing about editorial policy, procedure, credentialed writers, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 23:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

:I concur. I've seen them show up several times in my searches for things, but no indication that they're actually up to snuff as a reliable source.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

::I imagine it'd be difficult to research individual writers credentials either, given their set up. For example, [https://goombastomp.com/author/eugene/ this writer's page doesn't say anything besides a first name of "David"] (and the link itself puzzlingly enough says "Eugene" too now that I look at it - https://goombastomp.com/author/eugene/) Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

:Clearly unreliable; it has the same issues as all the other Nintendo news sites mostly written by fans/amateurs. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

:Unreliable. Surprised this wasn't listed there already. Nothing about them indicates reliability by any means. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Find video game sources: [https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22MSN+Gaming+Zone%22 "MSN Gaming Zone"] – [https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22MSN+Gaming+Zone%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 news] · [https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22MSN+Gaming+Zone%22&tbs=bkt:s&tbm=bks newspapers] · [https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22MSN+Gaming+Zone%22+-wikipedia books] · [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22MSN+Gaming+Zone%22 scholar] · [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22MSN+Gaming+Zone%22&acc=on&wc=on JSTOR] · [https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&tbs=sur:fmc&tbm=isch&q=%22MSN+Gaming+Zone%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=%22MSN+Gaming+Zone%22 TWL] · [https://www.nytimes.com/search/%22MSN+Gaming+Zone%22 NYT] · [https://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cx=007734830908295939403%3Agalkqgoksq0&cof=FORID%3A13%3BAH%3Aleft%3BCX%3AWikipedia%2520Reference%2520Search&q=%22MSN+Gaming+Zone%22 WP reference] · [https://www.google.com/cse?cx=009782238053898643791%3A8naerdbd-oy&q=%22MSN+Gaming+Zone%22 VG/RS] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22MSN+Gaming+Zone%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject+Video+games%2FReference+library&fulltext=Search+reference+library&fulltext=Search VG/RL] · [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22MSN+Gaming+Zone%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://web.archive.org/web/20010404222012/http://zone.msn.com LinkTo]

MSN Games is a casual gaming website. Before that, way before that, back in the halcyon days of the Internet, it was founded in [https://books.google.com/books?id=_zhlEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA105 1996] and soon came to be known as MSN Gaming Zone, which was much like Microsoft's own version of GameSpy of the day. There is unfortunately not much to find in [https://web.archive.org/web/20010330084857/http://www.zone.msn.com/blog.asp its list] of games that would be useful for Wikipedia, and attempting to search the homepage and the index beyond 2001 on the Internet Archive returns an error page, typically a "Browser Not Supported" message. However, I have found old news articles, especially for Microsoft titles, in places such as [https://web.archive.org/web/20010405230424/http://zone.msn.com/allegiance/news.asp here] and interviews and behind-the-scenes in (confusingly) the Tips & Strategies sections of a few entries, both of which I could not find anywhere else on the Web. It seems those articles are original content by Microsoft. Note that there was also a website called MSN Game News, also run by Microsoft, but virtually none of the article content is by Microsoft itself; the overwhelming majority comes from GameSpot and can still be read there. Anyway, the latest article I could find on MSN Gaming Zone is [https://web.archive.org/web/20021015183443/http://zone.msn.com/asheronscall/news/ASHEdevchattran0902.asp one] dated September 23, 2002. Hence, I have marked the year 2002 as the cutoff date for this source. FreeMediaKid$ 09:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

This one is pretty niche but it might be salvagable. They do have an editor in chief, and a means for reporting issues or corrections.[https://sirusgaming.com/contact/] I realize it's nowhere near the same level as IGN. But with those big outlets moving more to user generated content and AI, with fewer actual journalists, I feel like we ought to hang onto what few journalists we can still find. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

:Not too sure about this one. It doesn't look bad, per se, but there's no public editorial policy, and I had to search elsewhere to find the [https://sirusgaming.com/meet-the-team/ list of writers] (which appears to be auto-generated by the CMS anyway, sorted by number of articles written). Having an editor-in-chief and public email address is good but ultimately has little impact on reliability. A single article published over the last fortnight doesn't give much faith either, holiday period or not. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

::I feel reasonably confident that's just the holidays. I agree that we'd want to see the editor-in-chief enforce some type of editorial policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Bejeweled (video game) is currently undergoing a FAC per my nomination. Jo-Jo Eumerus has conducted a source review and is questioning whether some of the references have been "subject to some kind of editorial review". These sources are considered reliable per this page, but Jo-Jo says he is "trying to be a bit more rigorous with videogame sources" than usual because he's unsure if WP:VG/S is "up-to-date" and he doesn't "have the expertise to judge VG sources otherwise". As such, I would like thoughts on the following links:

• https://kotaku.com/from-bejeweled-to-plants-vs-zombies-how-popcap-got-jus-1844338169
• https://kotaku.com/15-years-later-november-2004-might-still-be-one-of-the-1839905549
• https://www.gamespot.com/articles/polishing-bejeweled/1100-6301815/
• https://www.pcgamer.com/popcap-week-john-vechey-on-founding-popcap-making-bejeweled/
• https://www.gamesradar.com/the-legacy-of-match-three-games-from-bejeweled-to-candy-crush/

Lazman321 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:Kotaku has been debated several times recently. The other three are fine with no debates or questions to my knowledge. -- ferret (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::Seconded, though I think Kotaku was deemed usable in that timeframe. Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:I see no problem. All of these sources are reliable. At worst, some may be situational, but these all appear to be proper fact-based articles with something substantial to say.

:Are there any facts that are in dispute? Shooterwalker (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::No specific facts were in dispute. Jo-Jo just listed a series of URLs used in the article and asked if they underwent editorial review. Lazman321 (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

New to Wikipedia, have no idea if this website is legitimate. They seem to have pretty good editorial standards (no broken English or obviously AI-generated content).

Their [https://onechilledgamer.com/about-us/ about page] seems legit.. MrFattie (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:No staff page or credentials, mostly guides, no editorial policy, 80-90% of the content is the site owner. Essentially a group blog, almost an individual blog. Unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:Unreliable as per ferret's reasoning. In addition, I cannot see any reliable sites linking to it, or even any sites that don't look like they're incredibly dodgy and/or they're listed with domains/subdomains like websitescrawl or keywordranking.

:As you're new to Wikipedia, it's worth a mention that for all we know this may be a great site and have an incredibly meticulous owner who ensures everything is perfect. But actual reliability and Wikipedia reliability are different things. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:I know this is a good-faith question, and its good that you ask these sorts of questions, but unfortunately, this is exactly the sort of sourcing we try to avoid on Wikipedia. It appears to be nothing more than a self-described "fan" self-publishing their unregulated thoughts onto the internet. It doesn't have any of the aspects of a professional publication that we look for in reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::fair enough. MrFattie (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

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

In light of VGHF's new library going live today, it made me realize that we don't currently have them listed anywhere on the page, so I'd like to get our stance down in writing, specifically in regard to the original content they provide like blogs and podcasts. Personally, I'm leaning reliable, between their collation of other reliable sources, the substantial research they provide on covered topics, and founder Frank Cifaldi's prior history writing for sites we've deemed reliable like Gamasutra. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:Agreed, I would say reliable considering the caliber of people involved. Worst case scenario, it'll help us access these old print magazines, and we can cite them separately. Sergecross73 msg me 21:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:Generally reliable: Most of the blog posts are written by Frank Cifaldi, who as you've said is a reliable author. According to this [https://gamehistory.org/writing-fund/ page], the posts that aren't written by Cifaldi do have to be vetted by him, making them probably reliable as well. As for the podcasts, it would probably be on a case-by-case basis, though most of the people being interviewed do appear to have good credentials or were involved in the subject in some way. The only potential concern I have is regarding WP:BLPSPS, as while the writers such as Cifaldi most certainly have credentials, I'm not sure if the editorial control is enough for this website to be used for BLP claims. In that sense, it's similar to People Make Games. Lazman321 (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

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

I presume that Loot Level Chill is unreliable, but I thought I'd log some information here as it may seem like it came out of nowhere to some, despite now being on MetaCritic and OpenCritic.

It's the new site by the editorial team from God Is A Geek (already marked as unreliable) who all quit after an [https://www.resetera.com/threads/god-is-a-geek-owner-father-calvin-robinson-does-the-nazi-salute-and-his-church-license-is-revoked.1095681/ well-publicized incident]. The owner Calvin Robinson was already well-known to be on the far-right, but he did a [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/30/michigan-priest-salute Nazi salute] and the news that he was associated with the site was mentioned by some high profile sources, which I'm guessing is why they quit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkeruTomoe (talk • contribs) 23:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, if we didn't support the use of GIAG, then I don't know what the argument for reliability for a group of them spinning out a new project at LLC... Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Part of GAMURS Group, which also owns Dot Esports (reliable per WP:VG/S), but also Destructoid (unreliable).

About Us page: https://www.touchtapplay.com/about-us/

:Leaning towards unreliable. Fine for reception sections, but not for sourcing biographical, historical or controversial information.

:* No editorial policy that I can find.

:* Reviews do not state how games are acquired (e.g., bought versus code provided).

:* None of the staff that I can see have wider publications. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Quick note: Destructoid is currently classified as situational currently. As far back as I can remember, its wavered between varying degrees of "reliable" and "situational" depending on where we split it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Review site run by Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian organization. I'm currently planning to rewrite the reception section for the Deltarune article and stumbled across their [https://www.pluggedin.com/game-reviews/deltarune-chapters-1-2/ Chapter 1 & 2 review]. I generally wouldn't mind using this source with attribution, but Focus has a reputation of misinterpreting information in favor of their viewpoint, and makes me concerned of its reliability. Maybe this source could be considered situational? I don't know. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 21:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:Unreliable: If they can't be trusted for correct interpretations of fact, how can we trust them for their opinions, especially since they are an anti-LGBT organization discussing a game with LGBT themes. Lazman321 (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:Unreliable: We should not cite sources known for promoting extremist views, and Focus on the Family and any of their publications are some of them. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 00:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Situational - I am not excusing or endorsing any of their views, but we need to make sure we're reviewing sources based on Wikipedia's reliable source criteria, not because we agree or disagree with their views. There's arguments to be made about them being a professional publication. They've got an [https://www.pluggedin.com/about/ established staff, and their "FAQs" are essentially outlining a editorial policy of sorts]. Their director [https://www.pluggedin.com/contributors/adam-r-holz/ has been an editor for religious publications], while their editor [https://www.pluggedin.com/contributors/paul-asay/ has experience writing for professional publications] like The Washington Post, Christianity Today, and Time Magazine. I agree that I would consider them unreliable/not an authority on off-beat games like Delta Rune or Undertale, but I'd see them as an authority for things like "the Christian view point on Christian games" or have their two cents on controversies not-created by themselves. (I wouldn't include their commentary about why Link (character) is a godless heathen for killing animals in Breath of the Wild, but I could see them giving their two cents on an already established controversy, like the Hot Coffee mod.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Owned by Future plc. Seen it a few times while searching game engine articles. My assumption is that it is good. Surprisingly it doesn't seem to be listed anywhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk • contribs)

• Reliable - Their [https://www.creativebloq.com/features/about-us About Us] section shows an established and generally credentialed staff. They've been around for over a decade, so I'm also surprised they haven't come up before. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm seeking help from administrators or people well-versed in Wikipedia policy to help me settle something regarding the Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds page. MissUnderstandin00 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:This has largely been resolved. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::I agree. MissUnderstandin00 (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Anyone have any thoughts on the reliability of [https://automaton-media.com/en/ Automaton]? Someone suggested using [https://automaton-media.com/en/news/initial-d-arcade-developers-involved-in-segas-new-sonic-racing-game/ this article] on the Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds page, and after scrutinizing the website as a whole and seeing no problems, I went ahead and cited it.

According to the footer, the site is owned by Active Gaming Media, so it looks like it has some strong video game industry connections and can likely generally be trusted as far as video games are concerned. They have a Japanese side and an English side (and some articles translated from the former to the latter), which could be relevant here if the editing teams of those two sides are found to be of different degrees of reliability. I can't read the language well enough to comment on the Japanese articles, so I'll mostly be talking about the English side.

Besides that, as far as I can tell, the site seems to accurately represent its sources- I can't see anything wrong with articles like these ([https://automaton-media.com/en/news/bleach-brave-souls-developer-becomes-next-japanese-company-to-reduce-executive-pay-due-to-poor-financial-performance/], [https://automaton-media.com/en/news/toby-fox-namedrops-possible-new-deltarune-character-in-amusing-account-of-his-familys-reactions-to-chapter-3-and-4/], [https://automaton-media.com/en/news/stellar-blade-to-get-goddess-of-victory-nikke-crossover-dlc-alongside-pc-release/]), so they seem good as a secondary source of basic "[x individual/company] did or said a thing" statements. There's also some interviews ([https://automaton-media.com/en/interviews/interview-like-a-dragon-pirate-yakuza-in-hawaiis-developers-maintain-the-mindset-of-plain-ol-guys-and-thats-what-makes-the-series-so-genuine/], [https://automaton-media.com/en/interviews/the-secret-behind-project-sekai-colorful-stage-feat-hatsune-mikus-super-expressive-animations-we-asked-the-devs-how-live2d-makes-it-happen/], [https://automaton-media.com/en/interviews/interview-suda51-on-the-resurrection-of-shadows-of-the-damned-his-undying-love-for-zelda-and-getting-more-directly-involved-in-game-development/]) which seem reliable enough given their aforementioned industry connections, and no signs of churning random listicles or articles entirely based on some random someone tweeting that a thing would be cool.

The only apparent catch I can see is that, while they don't seem to make anything up, they do have a fair number of articles which look like textbook examples of WP:FART ([https://automaton-media.com/en/news/the-life-size-gardevoir-plush-has-a-massive-butt-proud-owner-from-japan-confirms-with-now-viral-images/], [https://automaton-media.com/en/news/kingdom-come-deliverance-2-accidentally-tells-japanese-players-to-get-out-now-in-amusing-localization-mishap/], [https://automaton-media.com/en/news/war-thunder-is-collaborating-with-the-japan-air-self-defense-forces-erotic-furry-mascot/]) so it might be fair to say that the site isn't a major contributor to notability, and is best to use to reasonably augment articles about topics that are already proven to be notable.

In short, I think my personal assessment is they're probably reliable enough, provided that we're discerning about their use and consider the relevance of any given article on a case-by-case basis. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:Comment Apparently someone already raised the question of its reliability a few years ago, although it wasn't documented on the checklist afterwards. Going by the comments here, I'd imagine it's probably fair to say it should probably be listed as "Situational" or "Other". silviaASH (inquire within) 03:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think that was an oversight, there really wasn't a discernible consensus at the last discussion. It's good we revisit it, I have seen it used some in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 03:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I've cited them for interviews or their own reactions to things, and I think under those guidelines it should be perfectly fine. I feel we're a bit too strict on the "FART" aspect given every source does that to some extent (looking at you, IGN and whatnot)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think we need to limit the website's usability just because of WP:FART, we just use our best judgment and not use content that is WP:FART, which is something we have to be mindful on most websites. I'd !vote reliable unless it can be established that Automaton has FART issues that are worse than reliable sources we have listed here. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::It's probably not any worse than any other games journalism website, I guess. I've never really participated in or started one of these discussions before so I wasn't sure whether or not it would be a huge issue here, but I guess I've now learned that it isn't, so that's a good thing to be remembering for the future. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

::: You're fine, it's good to bring these discussions up when you're unsure. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:I'd say it's Reliable. If it's a significant issue, I'd suggest adding some notice to be careful of FARTy articles, especially for things published shortly after an announcement, but its issues are comparable to other reliable sources like IGN, so I'm not too concerned it's worse than other sources. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

: Only did a few mins of searching here but I Oppose listing it. No listed editorial policy, no SME on staff, and a "novice" editor-in-chief ([https://automaton-media.com/en/about-us/ link]). Probably fine for basic reception but I would not personally use it on an article. As a source reviewer, I would not be likely to permit it at FAC. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 10:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::I thought it important to clarify, but the English side is for English translations, which Townsend is experienced in. Adding onto that, while the Japanese side does not have a staff listing (that I can see), this is not at all uncommon for Japanese game sites. Dengeki and Famitsu both lack such pages, and I think it'd be folly to DQ a source for something that applies to arguably the two biggest Japanese game sites. In lieu of this, I think we have to examine other things that indicate reliability, and I think Automaton Media clears that. It is cited by numerous reliable sources: Time Extension, GamesRadar+, Eurogamer, Game Developer, Push Square, Nintendo Life, PCGamer, PCGamesN, VentureBeat, NME, HobbyConsolas Digital Spy, and TechRadar, just to name a few. I even found Yoshinori Ono writing a blog pointing to an interview he did with the website. They also interview many other people from major game companies, including Capcom, Spike Chunsoft, Sega, Suda51, Bandai Namco, Square Enix, Arc System Works, World of Horror's dev (I mention only because they also interviewed Junji Ito), and more. If there was not such strong evidence to show how reliable other sources view them, and how connected they are to the games industry, I would agree that situational would be acceptable. However, I find both of these to be extremely strong. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Are we sure that it's all English translations, and no English-original articles? There does seem to be at least [https://automaton-media.com/en/author/carlos-zotomayor/ one writer] on the English site who writes their own articles rather than translating them from JP. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::::You're right, I misspoke there. There are some articles that the English site writes. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::I made a point of emphasizing how commonly Automaton Media is cited: User:Cukie Gherkin/Automaton Referencing It should also be noted that the company that owns the website is itself a games publisher, so they're not some small or independent venture. I believe that Automaton Media, like Famitsu, despite neither having staff pages or editorial policies listed, are clearly reliable through WP:USEBYOTHERS. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Reliable - I see them as comparable to our Siliconera/Gematsu/Nintendo Life type websites: probably not worth citing if we've got 50+ publications to chose from for your next Tears of the Kingdom] or GTA 6-level blockbuster, but a good source to use for smaller, Japanese-centric titles. Similar to those sites, they've got a pretty strong USEBYOTHERS argument. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: To put that in context, their reports and interviews for the indie hit The Exit 8 are among the earliest - faster than Famitsu and Dengeki. Their articles are really useful for insights into Japanese games and developers. MilkyDefer 07:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Reliable: I concur with Cukie and Serge on this. I have used them quite a bit in the past for both Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia purposes and have found them really reliable when it comes to more Japanese topics as well as interviews. I also agree from my time using Japanese websites, especially websites such as Famitsu, Dengeki and 4Gamer, they aren't very well known for listing their authors. Additionally, as mentioned above, they have been heavily referenced by a vareity of sources that we deem reliable, with the WP:USEBYOTHERS policy helping its case in reliability. CaptainGalaxy 02:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Reliable: They really do quality reporting, on par with 4Gamer.net and Denfaminicogamer. MilkyDefer 07:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Is this website reliable? [https://corp.qoo-app.com/ Its introduction] claims it's a "media platform" and "game publisher", but there's seemingly no public information of editorial policy or its authors. Author's name is only credited to nicknames like [https://news.qoo-app.com/en/author/qooapp "Mr. Qoo"] and [https://news.qoo-app.com/en/author/hiroto "Hiroto"]. I can't see how this is reliable, but other input would be welcome.--Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:It's a Hong Kong game media listed as a reliable source in :zh:PJ:VG/RS, with the following comment: "Please be careful not to quote the content of [https://notes.qoo-app.com/ Note Square], which is user-generated content and does not meet the requirements of reliable source." SuperGrey (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::Is there any justification for why they use the main part though? Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:::From their last discussion several years ago, they seem to focus on checking whether the article quality and factuality satisfy the RS criteria. While I also can’t find the editorial policy of QooApp anywhere (at least not on their website), it’s common for commentators of Chinese-language game media to hide behind personas and not publicize any personal information — in a toxic environment (especially in China).

:::That said, it seems that their English website and English articles are a relatively new thing. They might need separate evaluation. SuperGrey (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::::{{Ping|MilkyDefer}} What do you think? SuperGrey (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Plz give me some time I am pretty busy recently. MilkyDefer 07:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Since we are at English Wikipedia, it makes sense to judge using the (stricter) standards at English Wikipedia. My biggest concern of this website is its low fame. This is evidenced by its minimal user engagement and referrals by other websites.

:::::It is an extremely rare practice to provide a separate page for editorial policy in HK as well as in China, Taiwan even Japan so I don't think it is a big problem.

:::::I guess it is rated reliable in Chinese Wikipedia because they have a dedicated website, have access to various interviews and write seemingly decent articles.

:::::To put that in context, the media environment in China is extremely "liberate" just as envisioned and admired by Elon Musk. Nearly every news website operates like Forbes contributors (WP:FORBESCON) but worse,{{NoteTag|Forbes has screening for contributor applications, but these platforms do not - all you need is to sign up.}} and the vast majority of gaming journalism only happens on those platforms. Gaming journalism is barely a thing in Hong Kong. Therefore, if a publisher has its dedicated website to publish articles, it is a symbol of its seriousness and to editors in Chinese Wikipedia, it is very likely reliable.

:::::My suggestion is to close as inconclusive and wait for further developments for this website. MilkyDefer 06:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Agree. And I think the reason why this website is not famous at all, is because that they don't yet post their articles to the content farms like WeChat Public Accounts (for mainland Chinese audience) or Yahoo! News (for Taiwanese audience). SuperGrey (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

{{notefoot}}

Is this a reliable site? They claim to be mentioned by multiple high-profile sources and also have a pretty detailed editorial policy on its about page. [https://www.tweaktown.com/about/index.html] Kazama16 (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:I've never liked this site, personally. I appreciate that they apparently run their own tests, so their benchmarks and performance analysis are original. But as far as I can tell, their product review articles are mostly rewritten manufacturer specs and their product announcement articles are mostly rewritten press releases. On top of that, there are prominent affiliate links all over the place. All they're doing is making it easy to compare manufacturer details and buy a product.

:Unless I'm missing something? What would we use them for? Woodroar (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

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

A bit iffy on this one as I can't find a staff or about us page, but the Editor in Chief is someone that's [https://muckrack.com/sophie-mccarthy written at multiple publications], and a writer I wanted to cite has written for [https://muckrack.com/brittany-gonzalez-5 Polygon and eSports.gg] as well. Maybe there's something I'm missing here? Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Ran across this [https://aftermath.site/kotaku-australia-dead-inside-do-not-enter article] from Aftermath, but looking at [http://kotaku.com.au the site itself] confirms that yeah this is pretty much AI slop. The new owners seem to have no ties to Kotaku or even Gawker Media at least. Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:Good lord, the Kotaku situation finds ways to get worse and worse every few months it feels like. Now I wonder if this is what the rumours of them possibly dabbling into AI generated content (and therefore what solidified them as unreliable post-2023) were actually referring to. Especially since I don't think the main Kotaku site has published any AI content itself yet. Anyways, the domains new ownership being for an AI slop website is something that absolutely needs to be noted on this page. λ NegativeMP1 07:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Asking whether Dread Central is reliable or not. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

[https://www.gfinityesports.com/reviews/calculator-review-a-math-made-in-heaven/ Example review article]. Its [https://www.gfinityesports.com/page/editorial-policy/ editorial policy]. Feels pretty reliable. SuperGrey (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:This is run by Gfinity Digital Media, a brand of British company Gfinity. The example article suggested by you does not open for me. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::[https://web.archive.org/web/20230713145510/https://www.gfinityesports.com/reviews/calculator-review-a-math-made-in-heaven/ Example review article in Wayback Machine]. Its [https://web.archive.org/web/20250302053123/https://www.gfinityesports.com/page/editorial-policy/ editorial policy in Wayback Machine]. SuperGrey (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The editorial policy is transparent. Hugo Drayton is the head of its editorial board, and had worked for Future plc. The page has a remarkably detailed coverage of how it controls the review process. I can't tell how much well they enforce this policy, but from the policy page alone it looks sound to me. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Then Reliable. SuperGrey (talk) 02:47, 23 March 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)

• 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=%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) 08:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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=%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)

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=%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)

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

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

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

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

:* Inappropriate for biographies (no ethics policy).

:* Inappropriate for reception (no editorial policy).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::There are some caveats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you guys think?

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

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

Find video game sources: [https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%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)

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)

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)

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)

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)