See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Shortcut

This talk page is for discussing the reliability of sources for use in video game articles. If you are wondering if a video game source is reliable enough to use on Wikipedia, this is the place to ask.

When posting a new topic, please add a link to the topic on the Video Game Sources Checklist after the entry for the site. If an entry for the site does not exist, create one for it and include the link to the topic afterward. Also, begin each topic by adding {{subst:find video game sources|...site name...|linksearch=...site URL...}} in order to provide other users with some easily accessible links to check up on the source.


creativebloq

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

Dota2.ru

Find video game sources: "...Dota2.ru..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

After editing the Dota Pro Circuit page and the comment from Dissident93, I would like to raise the question of the validity of 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 articles, reviews and interviews with esportsmen.

The editorial staff is recognized and cooperates as information partners of many esports tournament operators and coverage studios: Paragon Events, FISSURE, RED Expo. The journalists receive official press accreditation at major esports tournaments on Dota 2, such as The International/majors.

I'm not sure how important it is, but materials from the site are also referenced on Liquipedia (the esports equivalent of wikipedia). Examples:

QooApp

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

Is this website reliable? 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 "Mr. Qoo" and "Hiroto". I can't see how this is reliable, but other input would be welcome.--Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 Note Square, which is user-generated content and does not meet the requirements of reliable source." SuperGrey (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any justification for why they use the main part though? Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@MilkyDefer: What do you think? SuperGrey (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plz give me some time I am pretty busy recently. MilkyDefer 07:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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,[note 1] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  1. ^ Forbes has screening for contributor applications, but these platforms do not - all you need is to sign up.

Plugged In

Find video game sources: "pluggedin.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · 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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Touch Tap Play

Find video game sources: "Touch Tap Play..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · 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.
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)[reply]

Loot Level Chill

Find video game sources: "Loot Level Chill" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · 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 well-publicized incident. The owner Calvin Robinson was already well-known to be on the far-right, but he did a 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can TheGamer be reevaluated or have additional notices?

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

I'm asking because of this, which comes off as WP:BLP gossip to me. TheGamer also published 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed. I'd support a BLP warning on any and all Valnet websites. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Definitely a word of warning is warranted. Red Phoenix talk 19:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Source dispute

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)[reply]

This has largely been resolved. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. MissUnderstandin00 (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automaton

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

Anyone have any thoughts on the reliability of Automaton? Someone suggested using 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 ([1], [2], [3]), so they seem good as a secondary source of basic "[x individual/company] did or said a thing" statements. There's also some interviews ([4], [5], [6]) 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 ([7], [8], [9]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're fine, it's good to bring these discussions up when you're unsure. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Are we sure that it's all English translations, and no English-original articles? There does seem to be at least 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)[reply]
You're right, I misspoke there. There are some articles that the English site writes. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Reliable: They really do quality reporting, on par with 4Gamer.net and Denfaminicogamer. MilkyDefer 07:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TweakTown

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. [10] Kazama16 (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

ComicBook.com

Find video game sources: "ComicBook.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · 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 about page, they do have an editorial director. MoonJet (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Gfinity Esports

Example review article. Its editorial policy. Feels pretty reliable. SuperGrey (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Example review article in Wayback Machine. Its editorial policy in Wayback Machine. SuperGrey (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17173

Find video game sources: "17173" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This is a Chinese portal website founded in 2001 that comes up from time to time. It's currently owned by Sohu. 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). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [11] [12]--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 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 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [13]. 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)[reply]

Hotspawn

Find video game sources: "Hotspawn" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · 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 written at multiple publications, and a writer I wanted to cite has written for Polygon and eSports.gg as well. Maybe there's something I'm missing here? Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:VG/S
No tags for this post.