Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by It is a wonderful world (talk | contribs) at 13:47, 3 November 2025 (→Chinese-language gaming sites: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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 Video Game Sources 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.

Click here to start a new discussion thread


Final Weapon

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

The site lists out a list of staff members, showing journalistic integrity. Website is split up into clear sections, and reviews are overall very in-depth. A good number of writers listed on the site have formal education in writing and general experience. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decent review ethics policy here: [1] Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems reliable and I agree it has journalistic integrity. Gommeh 📖/🎮 11:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So this is not archived as an inconclusive discussion it would be great to get a third opinion Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning reliable. Editorial staff looks good and reviews are featured in OpenCritic: [2] [3] etc. While the website's articles seem to be written in a rather formulaic manner (e.g. listing the staff who worked on a game or TV show in bullet points; ending many articles with Lastly, [...]), I don't see any facts that stand out as particularly unreliable. –GM 01:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable or situational at best. Final Weapon was previously discussed in May 2024 where it was deemed unreliable by two frequent editors on this talk page. From my own analysis and by doing a comparison from last year's discussion, I can gather that:
  • Whilst they do have an ethics policy as provided by nom, they still do not have a stated editorial policy in place. The current ethics policy mainly talks about their approach to reviews and listing that they don't use AI and will declare when provided a copy by developers.
  • The website has had an increase quite a bit in staff since last year, with only one member leaving. Of note out of the 13 listed staff member, the co-founder/Editor-in-Chief has experience as a freelancer for IGN for over 2 years, the Managing Editor had experience as a writer at GameRant and has degree in journalism and a senior staff writer has a bachelors in creative writing. All the rest, including the other co-founder, have had no prior experience or qualifications in journalism, which is big issue when it comes to this.
  • As was previously mentioned by DarkeruTomoe in the last discussion, they do have good content (although they do publish a lot of guides), get a decent amount of interviews and have a decent amount of industry access elsewhere, which demonstrates a baseline amount of integrity and rep.
Overall, definitely not a high-quality source and is likely the same status as last time, but I'd like to here what other editors here would have to say. CaptainGalaxy 17:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Tactics

I'd like to get this one out of inconclusive one way or the other. Based on past discussions, there seems to be some positivity related to the EIC. @Sergecross73: I noticed you had concerns about missing bios in 2016, though I was able to verify that some staff were fairly experienced. Looking at Muckrack:

  1. Nathan Ellingsworth wrote for Polygon and Nintendo Life
  2. Holly Alice wrote for Rock Paper Shotgun and VG247
  3. Callum Self wrote for IGN and PCGamesN

With a good EIC, I feel like it might not be the strongest source, but it's at least strong enough to be identified as reliable. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me dig further, but that's a good reason to re-evaluate this one. Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Network N site, so probably as reliable as PCGamesN. IgelRM (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable similarly to Galaxy, I've had some good experience with them, and they seem to be owned by a reputable owner. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable I have had previous experience with this site and have found them to be great to use. As Cukie mentioned, the staff seem to have great previous experience and they have a similar background to another reliable site. CaptainGalaxy 00:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's reliable, though not the best possible source. I find it useful for reviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GLITCHED.online (previously GLITCHED.africa)

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

This South African website is currently listed under "Inconclusive discussions" and the last time a discussion was had about this website was in 2023, where it was deemed too early to determine its reliability. Per WP:USEBYOTHERS I've found some sources that have cited this website since then:

  • Cook, James (2024). "Kingdom Come: Deliverance and the Aesthetics of Authenticity". Journal of Sound and Music in Games. 5 (2): 23–48. doi:10.1525/jsmg.2024.5.2.23. ISSN 2578-3432.: Marco Cocomello, writing for Glitched notes both perspective in his review: “Historically accurate and ultrarealistic, Kingdom Come: Deliverance is a brutally challenging, rewarding and vast open-world RPG, but it definitely isn’t for everyone. You need to have patience, a willingness to learn and face hardships in this beautiful world that Warhorse has created. You will live there, die there, and even face a lot of bugs, but the journey will be well worth it in the end.” Marco Cocomello, “Kingdom Come: Deliverance Review—Realistic, Daunting and Unforgettable,” Glitched, February 12, 2019, accessed January 3, 2024, https://www.glitched.online/kingdom-come-deliverancereview-realistic-daunting-and-unforgettable/
  • Kifer, Avigail; Prince, Jeffrey (2023-09-18). "Conflicts of Interest and Platforms". doi:10.2139/ssrn.4575050.: Sam Aberdeen, “The 20-Year Story of Xbox: The House that Halo Built,” Glitched, May 14, 2021, available at https://www.glitched.online/the-20-year-story-of-xbox-the-house-that-halo-built/;
  • Rehse, Jessica; Riemer, Nathanael, eds. (2020). "Wir alle treffen Entscheidungen im Leben, aber letztendlich treffen unsere Entscheidungen uns": Didaktische Potenziale digitaler Spielwelten (in German). Universitätsverlag Potsdam. p. 280. doi:10.25969/mediarep/20015. ISBN 978-3-86956-489-0.: Cocomello, Marco: Red Dead Redemption 2 Streamer Feeds Feminist to an Alligator - Gets Banned On YouTube, 10.11.2018, in: Glitched, online einsehbar unter URL: https://glitched.africa/news/red-dead-redemption-2-streamer-feeds-feminist-to-an-alligator-gets-banned-on-youtube (zuletzt abgerufen am 21.04.19).
  • The South African: [4]

Thoughts on this website as a reliable source? The articles seem well-written and its inclusion in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal as well as a book published by a university press makes me believe we can safely consider it reliable. –GM 23:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions in the sources above don't convince me as strong. It doesn't look to bad but not safely reliable. IgelRM (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, after having a look over of this site, I'm not feeling confident in classifying this as a reliable source. For starters, they have no stated editorial policy at all, or at the very least one that I can find. Out of the 4 listed staff members; one writer has no listed background, another writer doesn't have much of a background in writing prior to joining, the third writer has had previous writing experience but all for outlets we have never covered before, and the Editor has also had previous writing experience although similarly for websites we haven't discussed before (outside of Playboy Magazine, which is considered a Perennial sources). As for their content, I think their quality can be mixed. Their reviews are of decent quality, but their news can be mixed as they can either be decent length coverage, 1 minute news pieces, or routine coverage that are cited to more reliable sources such as The Verge. Something I did also notice when searching was this article which uses an AI-generated expansion of the Pikmin 4 cover art. Whilst I can confirm that GLITCHED weren't the ones to first use this as I can remember seeing that image years prior, it doesn't bode well for their quality checks. Overall, I think as of now they are unreliable to cite from, however, I would like to hear from other editors here to see what they think. CaptainGalaxy 13:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LaPS4

Find video game sources: "...LaPS4..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Spanish-language video game website. Reviews are featured on MetaCritic ([5]) and have been used in peer-reviewed journals and WP:RS per WP:USEBYOTHERS:

Thoughts on this website as a reliable source? I'm thinking that this source is reliable per the evidence above. –GM 00:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gone through this and I really couldn't find much on this site. As far as I can tell, they have no listed editorial policy, nor a staff list. As far as I can tell, the site has only 1 current writer, though they seem to have had members in the past. I can at least see that the current writer has pretty good credentials as they have worked for MeriStation and GameReactor Spain. They do seem to have good quality articles, but overall there's not much to really go on. I'd say either mark as either unreliable or inconclusive unless can provide more evidence for a better analysis. CaptainGalaxy 14:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you say that articles written by Jose Villalobos (the writer who has worked for MeriStation and Gamereactor) are reliable? I agree inconclusive is probably best for now, but I have seen this author's work in other places as well. –GM 00:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My problem with this is that Jose seems to be the only writer for this site at the moment, which I feel could indicate WP:SPS but I am not entirely sure because they don't own the website as far as I'm aware. I also couldn't really verify any of the former writers for the site either, and I can't recall a time when we've made an exception for a sole writer of an indetermined source. I would like to hear what others have to say for this. CaptainGalaxy 14:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

iXBT Games

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

Similar to the discussions for GLITCHED and LaPS4 above, here are some reliable sources and peer-reviewed journals that use this Russian gaming website as a source:

Thoughts on this website as a reliable source? I'm leaning towards reliable for this website per the evidence above. –GM 01:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I should have checked the Russian WP:VG/RS before making this post; they have already deemed iXBT Games as reliable. I believe this discussion can be closed. –GM 01:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I see that per @Rhain there should be some discussion in this talk page at least, so I'll leave this discussion up. –GM 02:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • After having a look at the website, here is what I noticed. As noted on their Information page, they have their own editorial board and do seem to list their policies for editing, such as authors needing to list their full name instead of pseudonyms and about copyrighted materials. Whilst I couldn't find much about the authors, the site itself does seem to be a respected source within Russia, as well as being listed as reliable on the Russian WP:VG/RS as stated by the nom; this isn't the most compelling piece of evidence, I believe it does help the website's case. Additionally, I would say that their articles do have good quality, at least as far as I could tell through Google Translate. Overall, I am leaning on this site being reliable or at the very least situational over not being able to find info on the writers. I would like to hear more from other editors to hear their opinions on this. CaptainGalaxy 15:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it isn't uncommon for Russian gaming websites to not have a staff page or have their staff use pseudonyms; it isn't just iXBT Games that has this problem. –GM 01:34, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't that, I could see iXBT's authors use their full name, it was just I couldn't check prior history because they didn't have accounts for things like LinkedIn or MuckRack. I kind of expacted that because those sites aren't exactly universal so I was fine with overlooking that. CaptainGalaxy 14:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COGconnected

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

Been seeing this one pop up a lot in Metacritic review lists, and is linked over 100 times across Wikipedia, but I don't think there's ever been a firm stance established on the site (someone brought it up a few years ago and got no response). Has an about page with staff, but no ethics policy I can find. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately leaning oppose. This is a tricky one because it is in a grey area where the site is clearly rigorous and putting out good stuff. But while no one factor is strongly against, the indicia I would use to suggest against is (1) the lack of published editorial policies as you mentioned; (2) Muck Rack [6] suggests its editor and most contributors have no external journalistic experience (Newsbreak is just an aggregator), as reflected by the "game lover" tenor of the profiles on the About page [7]; (3) the site has an open offer for contributors to "write for us" [8]. Could maybe lean situational if I missed any writers that independently have games coverage in other outlets, but not seeing it from the Muck Rack listed writers. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If a site doesn't meet WP:REPUTABLE, we shouldn't be using them. Perhaps if there's an independently reputable journalist, but I'd want to see a strong background. Woodroar (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to this, it looks like they have undisclosed sponsored content, but I can't confirm it since it's not disclosed. Searching for Casino or Gambling on the site shows a bunch of articles that read like ads. Many of them link to websites that have a list of gambling sites and deals. Here's one example. This unfortunately adds to the lack of editorial policies showing that they may not be following basic journalism ones.
Also, it doesn't help that the two writers I mostly frequently see writing this content on COGconnected aren't listed on the staff page. Snakester95 (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have to agree that while prior experience with reliable sources isn't required for reliability, combining that with a lack of a visible editorial policy and apparent undisclosed sponsored content makes me say that they are unreliable. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Win.GG and associated sites

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

I'm considering adding win.gg to a draft I'm working on and am wondering if it would be considered reliable or not. The website shows a list of staff members which shows journalistic integrity. Several members of the writing team have written for reliable sources such as Bleacher Report, the Washington Post, Dot Esports and ONE Esports. The editor in chief, Jared Wynne, has over twenty years of experience in digital media and specifically gaming coverage. (Part of that information comes from sister site gameland.gg.) Gommeh 📖   🎮 00:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse

It is an online magazine owned by the Bustle Digital Group. Currently listed as inconclusive, however, I feel it is potentially reliable.

Ethics: [9] Staff: [10] Kazama16 (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really read them anymore, so I could be out of the loop, but have they gotten any better with their churnalism problem? I remember back before I blocked them from my news feed, it was because they flooded my timeline with all this junk like "One weird thing we noticed about the new Zelda trailer (Link was wearing shoes.)" and "4Chan Leaker releases bombshell report on Zelda (It may come out this year, next year, or the year after that, unless plans change.)" Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have never noticed that Inverse had a notably bad churnalism problem (no worse than Polygon pre-Valnet IMO), but looking through their most recent articles, a lot of the articles seem to be actual unique content, followed by some routine news coverage, and followed by a handful of how-to articles. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable. I was surprised to see that it was in fact still listed as "inconclusive" when I had recognized the writers of multiple Inverse articles who had written in other reliable sources. Staff and ethics pages look very strong. A search of the staff members shows that they have published in various other reputable sources (e.g. New York Times, SlashFilm, Fatherly per WP:NPPSG) and have been interviewed by reputable sources (e.g. NPR). –GM 18:08, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have the same opinion with the person above. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable I'm fairly surprised we don't list them yet. A quite reliable source from my experience, and I haven't seen any of the churnalism referred to by Serge in my time using it (Indicating it's cleared up). Any sources that fall under Serge's definition should be scrutinized, but the bulk of their content seems chill. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable Their content looks good to me, they have a solid ethics page, and their reporters are credentialed. I'm surprised they haven't already been listed as reliable. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IGN Unreliable Source

There is a growing consensus that IGN is considered generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The publication is considered biased or opinionated. Should we deem this source unreliable on this site? 2600:4041:528B:ED00:5132:B505:3FE0:361E (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, vague allusions without proof doesn't change anything. Please provide some examples of what you mean, both of this "growing consensus" and alleged lack of fact checking, for starters. Sergecross73 msg me 03:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like these two won't even work to prove this claim. 2600:4041:528B:ED00:5132:B505:3FE0:361E (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those look like sources from the side of gaming that fell out of Gamergate, treat most games as "woke", and the like. They are definitely not usable sources here and the issues they have with IGN is their opinion, not something agreed by other reliable sources. Masem (t) 03:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, these sources don't help at all. Sergecross73 msg me 11:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IGN does have a few parts to be wary of, likes anything under "https://www.ign.com/wikis" (user-generated wiki content), but the main articles are absolutely fine, unless you can specifically illustrate an issue. Masem (t) 03:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One notable part is their tendency to give very high scores for games that are known for negative reception. I don't know if other editors would agree on this. 2600:4041:528B:ED00:5132:B505:3FE0:361E (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is scores matter a lot less than what's said, and IGN's still cited more for just reviews. While I do think to some extent it's silly we treat some Valnet sites harsher for the exact same things IGN sometimes does on the churnalism front, it makes no sense to mark IGN as unrelaible.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So do we put it as "No Consensus" for IGN then? Or do we just put a mention that some editors consider it to be biased or opinionated? 2600:4041:528B:ED00:5132:B505:3FE0:361E (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither. If we're attributing reviews to the reviewer (as we're meant to), I don't see how this is an issue? It's also not like IGN is the sole source we use for reviews, so if they were out of step with wider critical consensus, the reader will be able to see that for themselves. We should only be calling sources unreliable if there's an actual issue with their fact-checking, editorial processes, or independence etc., and not because some gamers disagree with their scoring... Nil🥝 04:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So do we mention that its statements should be attributed on the perennial sources page? 2600:4041:528B:ED00:5132:B505:3FE0:361E (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, because attribution is required for all sources in critical review sections – that's not unique to IGN, and there's no evidence that it should also be required when using them as a non-review source either (beyond a normal inline citation). Nil🥝 04:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All sources are opinionated, what do you mean? Any review that isn't opinionated isn't worth the bandwidth it takes to post. Are you claiming that their news pieces are opinionated? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As others have said, incongruous review scores do not an unreliable source make... but I decided to look into this anyway, and it appears to be very much untrue. Looking at the list, IGN's reviews generally match the average Metacritic scores; the biggest difference is Postal III, which got 5.5/10 from IGN and 24/100 on Metacritic. In fact, IGN is often below the average, like with Cyberpunk 2077 (4/10 from IGN, 59/100 average on Metacritic). Again, not really relevant—but also not really true anyway. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:00, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable No. If there are valid concerns here, they're not being substantiated. The irony of using pieces about bias from non-WP:RS to suggest a consensus WP:RS used fairly vastly across the project is not lost on me. I'm going hard on this as there's barely anything brought to the table with this discussion here. The Lords of Gaming doesn't substantially discuss anything about IGN, and CCN seems to generally just call the scores "bad" and points to one decade-old plagiarism controversy IGN seems to have resolved itself by firing the contributor. If you want to allege there's a systemic issue that compromises the ability of the site to present facts about a game, you need to provide far better evidence of that. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable Nothing has changed since prior discussions, and nothing really indicates IGN is unreliable. Them having scores outside of the standard does not indicate unreliability, and their guidelines are the same as before. This is a moot discussion. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vox.com

Vox is listed as a reliable source on the perennial sources page, whose even potential unreliability is related exclusively to whether it may be partisan in political topics. They do more than just routine video game coverage, as evidenced with these: [11] [12] [13] [14] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable. A search of the staff members shows that they have published in various other reputable sources. Even the articles given in this post as examples demonstrates this: Alanna Okun, The New York Times, Neel Dhanesha, Nieman Lab, Edward Vega, The New York Times. Very strong ethics and staff pages. –GM 10:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable I've followed Vox for years at this point and their video game coverage also seems to be good. GregariousMadness already pointed out that their journalists also wrote for other reliable sources. So really I don't see anything that would stop us from labeling it as reliable for video game coverage. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable per others. A universally strong source that, when covering video games, does just as good a job here as it does anywhere else. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable- Obviously reliable, as argued above. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Design Room

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

Site is primarily operated by Matt Leone, formerly of Polygon and 1UP, and seems to be focused exclusively on oral history articles similar to the ones Leone did for Polygon. The first article also credits other former Polygon staff such as James Mielke, Blake Hester, and Samit Sakar. Has an About page. Definitely too soon to add, since it just launched, but given its staff credentials, I think it's worth keeping an eye on. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it's too soon to write down a definitive answer, but Leone definitely has the credentials, and it looks good to me. I expect it to become a very useful source for development sections in the future. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreed. Thanks for the heads up, had not heard of this one. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't agree that it's too soon. My thoughts are that, if it did prove to not be a reliable site, the number of articles that would need to be removed would be such low effort that I wouldn't consider it a risk in any way. The pedigree is simply stronger than most sources we consider reliable. They have a strong editorial policy, a strong anti-AI stance, and a strong editor-in-chief. Like, look at the credentials here:
  1. James Mielke: Former editor-in-chief for Electronic Gaming Monthly, editor for GMR and 1Up.com
  2. Samit Sarkar: Deputy managing editor for Polygon, writer for The Verge
  3. Blake Hester: IGN, GameSpot, Motherboard, Rolling Stone, Vice, Polygon, Game Informer, Kill Screen

On top of that, they work with translators like Alex Highsmith (Shmuplations), and work with video game industry people, such as hiring Gravity Rush concept artist Takeshi Oga to make art for the site. I think that, with how many names involved in the project are rather prolific and trustworthy, and with how they definitely check all the boxes, it feels like worrying about the tiniest of risks. Strongly support marking it as reliable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox.com

This is more a formality, but we oughta list Xbox.com as a primary source, as there is valuable information on it. [15] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we already consider any developer/publisher/manufacturer's website reliable by default within the limitations of WP:PRIMARY. I don't think we need to list it any more than the music source list needs to add www.foofighters.com to theirs. It's assumed. Sergecross73 msg me 00:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I think it may be worth mentioning since not all company pages have this kind of development content. I, for instance, never knew that Xbox had these blogs Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't particularly know either, though it makes sense, as Nintendo has their Iwata Asks and similar developer commentary, Sony has the PlayStation Blog, etc. Looks like their equivalent.
I don't oppose an entry explaining this if people think its helpful. I just haven't particularly noticed any disputes on it. Seems like editors commonly use these sorts of sites as references, and they're generally only challenged if its related to PRIMARY or GNG reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aight, I took the liberty of adding it, if only because I like to use this page to see what I can use and figure some others might as well. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment Software Rating Board

Saw that there hasn't been a specific ESRB discussion since 2008, and I wanted to move it from inconclusive. I have no knowledge on how trustworthy it is, but my gut feeling is that it shouldn't be used to verify something about a game because the things they list in their ratings explanation aren't necessarily noteworthy. That said, I could see it being used as a supplementary source if the ESRB rating and reasons for the rating are the subject of discussion by reliable sources. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Wire

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


In my quest to hit zero inconclusives, I decided to check this source. From my check, the site is not cited that often, the staff page is broken, and I don't see an editorial policy. I believe that this should be labeled as unreliable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about its reliability, but the staff page works after refreshing it a few times. From a quick search, I was unable to find other WP:RS that staff members have written, but admittedly I haven't done a deep dive yet. –GM 14:10, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dread Central

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


The video game content was formerly hosted on DreadXP, and much of it is written by author Joel Couture. He has written for The Escapist, IndieGamesPlus, Siliconera, and The Escapist. He has also done interviews on Game Developer. As far as the EIC goes, Mary Beth McAndrews has worked on multiple reliable sources, including Paste Magazine, Bloody Disgusting, Polygon, RogerEbert.com, National Geographic, Discovery Channel, and Rue Morgue Magazine. This demonstrates that McAndrews has authority and experience in games writing and horror writing. It doesn't have an explicit editorial policy, but it does mention a focus on high-quality and authoritative reporting. In addition to these two, there are also Josh Korgnut (Paste Magazine, The Advocate), Tyler Doupé (SyFy Wire, Rue Morgue), Chad Collins (Rue Morgue), and more. Other staff members have similar credentials. It is also an award-winning website, receiving multiple awards from the Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards for Best Horror Website. All of this I believe demonstrates that they are an authoritative source for use on video games. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Another thing that I should note that it is already listed as a reliable source here and the CiteUnseen script tags it as a reliable source. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, a million thanks for pointing that out! - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable per nom and above. –GM 20:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small note that they probably shouldn't be used for DreadXP published games since their parent company owns DreadXP Snakester95 (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dread Central is a reliable source. I wrote the Wikipedia article on them, so I guess I'd be considered biased? But, yes, be aware that they've become one of the bigger horror websites, and they're going to be a primary, non-independent source for some things. It's not a big deal – they're competent. They're not going to give their own stuff a 5 star review. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation Universe (PSU.com)

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

The last discussion about PSU was over a decade ago and is still listed as "inconclusive". PSU has an experienced staff team and has been WP:USEBYOTHERS by plenty of WP:RS; e.g. IGN, PC Gamer, Eurogamer, and NME (and plenty more, I just took the first four that were obviously RS) without comment for facts. I believe this source is reliable but would like some more editors to confirm. –GM 20:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that this is reliable after checking their content. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate? I believe that the reliability of these sources is pretty evident. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I looked at one of their older articles yesterday rather than a recent one. For now, I’ll consider it reliable based on the confidence expressed by other editors. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable I've cited them in articles prior, and I agree with Madness' assessment of them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gamereactor

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

Similar as above; last discussion about this source was over a decade ago and is still listed as "inconclusive". Pretty well-known gaming magazine (now only online) and one of the largest in Europe. Has experienced staff and has been WP:USEBYOTHERS by plenty of WP:RS, e.g IGN, Shacknews, PC Gamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, Game Informer, United Daily News, Automaton Japan, and Den Fami Nico Gamer (and plenty more) without comment for facts. I believe this source is reliable but would like some more editors to confirm. –GM 08:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those two discussions, the first one briefly mentions it (Gamereactor does not seem to be discussed in detail, however), while the second one... well there wasn't a discussion at all. They seem to be cited by other reliable sources, which is a good thing. They have a lot of freelance writers, editor-in-chiefs do not seem to have past experiences (however, some wrote for MSN). GamesIndustry.biz described it as a "high quality free magazine" [16] and "The great success has been achieved with the uncompromising strive for perfect products" back in 2010. I've read some of their reviews in the past year and nothing seemed out of the ordinary. Looks reliable to me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that they are reliable. That being said, I should note that "writing for MSN" can be misleading, as MSN reposts Valnet content. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good to know. Then we should ignore that part. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mic.com

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

Similar to Inverse above (which has been determined reliable per WP:SNOW); Mic.com is also owned by Bustle Digital Group. Staff and ethics pages look solid, has been WP:USEBYOTHERS by plenty of WP:RS, e.g. PC Gamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, and NME without comment for facts. I believe this source is reliable but would like some more editors to confirm. –GM 08:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable I've had good experience with Mic and their content is pretty reputable and in a similar content boat to other Bustle properties. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable I should note that their editors have also written for other sources we deem to be reliable (e.g., NYT, GQ, etc.) Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checkpoint Gaming

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

Australian gaming news and reviews website with a focus on diversity and LGBTQ representation; it was given an award in 2021 by the first and only Australian LGBTQI+ community radio station Joy 94.9. Their ethics policy looks good. Their full staff can be found here. Reviews are featured on both MetaCritic and OpenCritic. Editors have written in other local Australian WP:RS, such as Junkee. The articles and reviews on this website seem to pass the smell test. I've read through various articles and they seem well-written and offer perspectives and information that other WP:RS have not mentioned. Seems reliable to me, but would like some more editors to confirm. –GM 02:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, Metacritic and OpenCritic also feature reviewers that we deem to be unreliable, so I don't think that we should take that into count when determining if a source is reliable or not. I do not have a particular opinion on this website. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable per comments below. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of them before, but I'm leaning reliable. Beyond the already stated listed ethics and review policies, this link establishes that their radio show is nationally broadcast across Australia, which indicates they are something far more established and professional than the extremely common "Gamers who love video games" bloggers of the world. Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and doing another check through their staff, I found that all of them have at least a college degree in journalism or video game design per their LinkedIn profiles, with some of them having higher degrees as well—likely another indicator of reliability. –GM 00:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot that I had done further research on this website to get an article to GA status. It has also been used in reliable peer-reviewed journals per WP:USEBYOTHERS:
Though it appears that there is already consensus to deem this source reliable, just wanted to put this here if anyone was curious or from the future. –GM 23:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable, more for Sergecross' reasons, just being on MC/OC doesn't really mean much sadly. It's good to see Australian media cut the mustard: this has coverage of quite a few Australian games that could benefit from its coverage to establish notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Road to VR

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

I think I've cited this one before. It's useful for news and reviews related to VR games, and we seem to be citing it as such in a non-trivial number of articles. It seems to be treated as a reliable specialist source by other sources: Digital Trends, PC Mag, PC Gamer, TechRadar, UploadVR, etc. I don't know much about the VR industry, but Fast Company and Game Developer seem to indicate that the industry isn't ignoring their existence. Staff page isn't really very helpful, but it seems like a reasonable source for VR news and reviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable They're also partnered with Gamer Network. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable per nom and above. –GM 03:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Areas

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

Appears to be a blog. Can't find an about us page or editorial policy.Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin and Kung Fu Man: Thought I'd ping you; I remember we discussed this on Discord in relation to Draft:Kaedehara Kazuha. Gommeh 📖   🎮 21:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AnandTech and TechPowerUp

I don't think those two need a lot of introduction, and I'm aware that AnandTech is now a forum, but I believe the former can be added as a reliable source in the list? TechPowerUp seems OK for PC hardware, but I find inconsistencies in custom console GPU hardware. JidoBarbeiro (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I would say there's little reason to even discuss websites like AnandTech. Consider it on the same level as Tom's Hardware and use it for the same things. However, it should not come up often because their primary goal was news and reviews related to enthusiast PC hardware. As for TechPowerUp, Tom's Hardware has written about GPU-Z (1, 2), TechPowerUp's database (1, 2), and TechPowerUp reviews. For console stuff, I don't really know how reliable they are. But they're prominent and considered reliable in the enthusiast PC hardware sphere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: RSP is reconstructing to counter the PEIS template limit

See WP:RSP RFC 2025 for details. Although we have less sources to worry about than RSP, it might be worth considering if we are to follow suit and use the proposed new format "list of subpages." SuperGrey (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheGamer

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/thegamer-website-suffers-widespread-editorial-layoffs/

I hate to have another one of these discussions, but this appears to be the norm in 2025.

TheGamer is a little different, I feel like it's been classified as unreliable, situational, and reliable at various points. We'll have to keep an eye on it moving forward to see if it needs further reclassification or context to its status. Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame, the Valnet sites aren't helpful for notability, but their more conscientious writers tend to contribute helpful coverage for new indie games. I've seen sites like TheGamer slide from original content into game guide material for a while now as their editorial resources stretch thin. Haven't seen a lot of churn or tabloid level slop like GAMINGbible, but if it started happening I wouldn't be surprised I guess. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geek Culture

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

Is Geek Culture a reliable source? I found these two links in zhwp article "The Dark Pictures Anthology: Man of Medan":

  1. https://geekculture.co/e3-2019-interview-with-man-of-medan-shawn-ashmore-and-tom-heaton/
  2. https://geekculture.co/man-of-medans-after-credits-hides-trailer-to-next-dark-pictures-adventure-little-hope/

SuperGrey (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable. I've used them before on other Wikipedia pages, and their articles seem well-written. They have a clear editorial staff and they have been WP:USEBYOTHERS in various scholarly articles pertaining to entertainment topics. It doesn't contribute to its reliability, but they are also hugely popular in Southeast Asia. –GM 00:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Source Gaming a reliable source?

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

I've found two citations of it, one of which being on a B-class article:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mario_franchise_characters

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Smash_Bros._(video_game) TheSilksongPikmin (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seemed to be situational for interviews, but because the articles are written by staff that use pseudonyms it was ruled as unreliable in many cases.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should I use update pages on steam as resources for in game events and changes?

Find video game sources: "Midseason Update 8.6.0" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo I am currently editing the page for The Finals and am having trouble finding a reliable source for the in-game events. I know that Wikipedia doesn't accept primary sources, but the secondary sources I can find are all just copying and pasting the primary source content. What should I use as the sources then?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarlet1661 (talk • contribs)

Hello. It's not accurate to say that Wikipedia doesn't accept primary sources, its more that it favors secondary sourcing. You may want to read WP:PSTS a bit for starters. Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scrmbl

Find video game sources: "Scrmbl" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo I had noticed this one pop-up not too long ago and was decently surprised by the quality of their coverage. The website is dedicated to covering Japanese pop-culture topics, including video games, similar to Siliconera, but instead is in the form of features and editorials. Scrmbl does alos seem to have some industry reach, being able to interview musicians and game developers. They have an overview of the site, including a mention that their editorial team is mostly comprised of "experienced journalists" or "industry related veterans". And from what I have seen this does seem to be the case, at least on the gaming side. From the journalists I can verify, one of their most frequent writers, Alicia Haddick, has written for a whole host of outlets we consider reliable including The Verge, Gamesindustry.biz, GamesRadar+, PCGamesN, Eurogamer etc; Carley Garcia has written for PC Gamer, Siliconera and Game Rant; Steven Porfiri has also written for Game Rant; Patrick St. Michel has written for The Japan Times, Pitchfork and The Atlantic; Jacob Parker-Dalton has written for Kotaku and AniTrendz. Even writers that didn't have previous experience at other outlets, they do have educational credentials for writing such as Sean Colligan. Scrmbl was built off of an older website and YouTube channel called OTAQUEST, of which several members used to also contribute to. Overall, from what I have seen of them, I would lean reliable for them but I would like to hear what other editors have to say. CaptainGalaxy 14:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Seems to have an adequate editorial commitment and experienced staff. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese-language gaming sites

Find video game sources: "Youxi Putao" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Find video game sources: "Game Grape" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Find video game sources: "GNN Gamer" Bahamut – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Find video game sources: "Youxi Tuoluo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
Find video game sources: "4Gamers" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

These websites are considered reliable on the Chinese Wikipedia for video game coverage (GameGrape: 1, 2, 3; Bahamut: 1, 2; 4Gamers [zh]: 1) with the exception of Youxi Tuoluo which has not been discussed. Game Grape (also known as Youxi Putao) has an independent editorial team ([20]). I'm unsure if the Taiwanese company 4Gamers is related to 4Gamer.net.

@It is a wonderful world, IngeniousPachyderm, and Olliefant: pinging you all per recent discussions on Talk:Arlecchino (Genshin Impact)/GA1 and Talk:Liyue (Genshin Impact)/GA1.

Gommeh 📖   🎮 17:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gommeh Thank you for the ping. Glad to know it was already determined to be reliable on Chinese Wikipedia. Thank you! IngeniousPachyderm (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Youxi Tuoluo is currently under discussion (zh:WikiProject_talk:电子游戏#遊戲陀螺), where editors are in favor of a "marginally reliable" rating. SuperGrey (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that! Thanks for letting me know. Gommeh 📖   🎮 21:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I can't really help here as I don't speak Chinese. I will say the evidence you have given points towards them being reliable though. IAWW (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

mxdwn, specifically games.mxdwn.com

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

Some articles use this source. Unsure about its reliability, though. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 11:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources&oldid=1320227572"