This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
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.
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:
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)[reply]
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. Sergecross73msg me14:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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.[12] 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)[reply]
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 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I can't find any information for the writers except being fighting game fans, and 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
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)[reply]
MSN Games is a casual gaming website. Before that, way before that, back in the halcyon days of the Internet, it was founded in 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 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 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 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)[reply]
Sources in Bejeweled
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:
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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: