Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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

WikiProject Video games

Main page

talk

Archives

Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

GamersNexus

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

Saw their name being thrown around on social media recently, but I'm not fully convinced, so wanted to get others' thoughts. Not to be confused with Gaming Nexus, which is currently listed as unreliable. Has a website, but appears to be primarily video focused. Already in use on multiple articles. Includes an ethics page. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cyberlink420 If this is an example of their coverage, I am concerned. It is not signed by any person (that I noticed), uses royal "we", and they have no editorial about us or such I could find. This kind of content could be AI generated, or otherwise made up, and is no better than an anonymous blog, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Top right it has Writing, Lead editing Steve Burke, and Research and Writing Ben Benson. Steve Burke is also the presenter in all their youtube videos (there is at least a review/hardware channel, and a consumer advocacy/protection type channel). Wilbers (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Unreliable per the example coverage. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Cukie Gherkin this appears to be a mistake on your part. Their byline is on the right hand side of the page. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Generally Reliable - GamersNexus is primarily video based but has been reviving its written content in recent years. I think it's fair to say they're extremely well-regarded within the industry as an outlet, especially for hardware items, and they're pretty much my go to source for hardware reviews. They're extremely transparent in their editorial, and also keep a running log of errors and corrections on their website which is good to see.[1] Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

They are a specialized outlet for gamer hardware, which I would say is "Situational". IgelRM (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Adding Gameliner.nl to reliable gaming resources

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

Hi, we would like to open a discussion in regards of adding Gameliner.nl to the list of reliable gaming resources. Gameliner has been founded in 2005 and focuses on gaming news, reviews, articles and previews. The editorial staff consists of 12 actual active writers/ editors. The platform is a used as a source by both OpenCritic as MetaCritic for a longer period of time and has posted approximately 3.000 gaming reviews since its founding (all of which are still available for reading to date).

Gameliner is one of the last independent Dutch gaming media outlets and provides it's articles in Dutch, which of course would make it a foreign language platform. All additional information in regards to the platform have been provided in [games/sources]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RudyWijnberg (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Further context here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@RudyWijnberg: If you're here, then I might as well ask you a few questions. What's your editorial policy and what's your stance on AI? EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@EnvironmentalDoor Our Editiorial staff is 100% human, as well as our front- and backenders. Our bios are written below every article and every editor can be verified via multiple sources such as LinkedIn. We are a 100% independent, human and long lasting crew of writers.

I'n regards to the comment by @Piotrus regarding the mehness and non recognition of the platform. We are actually recognized and validated by Metacritic, which is I believe a very reliable source on here is it not? As a Dutch platform it is quite hard to outshine megacorps like the IGN's, Gamespot and other million dollar companies. ~2026-67876-7 (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to login appearantly RudyWijnberg (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Fair, but 1) I don't see the bios - see links below? You have a dedicated bio section in the author profile pages, but the bios are elsewhere? 2) Metacritic argument is fair and I'll wait for others to comment on whether that's enough (and if not, why - I am curious). As for other forms of recognition, as a Pole I write about Polish sources and I know sources are hit and miss, but the more important platforms like yours tend to be able to point to some mentions of them by occasional other reliable media and if lucky enough, scholars. Was your platform ever profiled or mentioned by a Dutch newspaper, magazine or such? (I did search, with no luck, but I don't speak Dutch, and I am also well aware of that older mentions tend to be not digitized).

On a separate note, I see a critical comment at nl:Wikipedia:Te_beoordelen_pagina's/Toegevoegd_20160320 by @Fred Lambert (sadly, they seem inactive since last November, so I am unsure they can stop by to elaborate). I don't think nl wiki ever had or has an article about Gameliner (which is not a strike against, notability=/=reliability, just observing). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Being in Metacritic (or OpenCritic) is not a hallmark of reliability. Huge swathes of sources in both are unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I see, the Bio on the profiles are just user pages, all of our users and commenters have those. We don't offer testimonials or former work about the editors. The "Colofon" page gives an overview of all people associated, their role and their year of starting/ ending at Gameliner.

In regards to the peer assessment, as shown in the Colofon we have both an editor in chief and a managing editor, who are in charge of checking the articles for any inconsistencies, dubious facts or speculation. Our Editorial guidelines are not published on the site itself, they are shared internally though. RudyWijnberg (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@RudyWijnberg Would you consider making them public? I don't see how it would be problematic, and would help for your case here (and perhaps elsewhere). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that should be possible. Let me make it a bit user friendly, as it is now mainly used by the staff. Should be up before the weekend. In the meantime, tried to find some noticable mentions. The NOS (dutch broadcasting association) requests our expertise on occasion Example [2] can be found here (with editor Claudia Tjia) RudyWijnberg (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@RudyWijnberg How has this whole editorial guidelines thing been going so far? Would it be OK to provide an update? EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey @EnvironmentalDoor sure! Nearly there, currently on a small holiday break and had some other domain related updates which had to be done first. On it, though, i'll drop a note once live! RudyWijnberg (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @EnvironmentalDoor, pleased to notify you that we've just published the editorial guidelines (redactionele richtlijnen). These can be found in the header under "more" and/or by just visiting this page RudyWijnberg (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts: I cannot locate editorial policy outside information about recruitment, which itself is fine [3] but does not suggest any form of peer review/supervision (on the plus side, there is no suggestion they use AIs - but there is also nothing saying they don't), their about us [4]is more of a history and 'cool stuff we do'; there is no information there that the site won any awards or received any form of recognition from anyone. Team members are not anonymous [5], two sample bios I checked are empty [6], [7], which makes it hard to confirm credentials of their team members. So, errr, pretty meh-ish for me. They are better than a social media / AI platform, the structure is reasonably average, but there is also no evidence they recognized (no awards, press coverage reported). I can't say they are unreliable, but I can't say they are a strong source either. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems reliable now given updates/comments/discussion above. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Collider

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

I have a soft goal this year to reduce the number of sources listed at WP:VG/S#Inconclusive discussions, which currently sits at around 185 sources. I figured starting with Collider makes sense, as a Valnet source it should be slightly simpler to evaluate. It has a short about page and also follows Valnet's editorial integrity standards. Recent sources I plan on potentially using include this one, which discusses Tulkuns from the Avatar franchise. It follows a straightforward question and answer format. Collider seems to mainly focus on media, including television and film, rather than strictly video games. I would personally say they are WP:MREL, and probably shouldn't count towards notability, due to the ongoing concerns about churnalism, as detailed at WP:VALNET. The articles Collider publishes aren't outright bad though, so either MREL creeping into generally reliable would be fine with me! 11WB (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed that it's generally reliable. I have used Collider articles for television and film articles with no objections to their content. –GM 07:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll respectfully disagree I'm afraid. Per discussions at WP:FILM, which resulted in WP:RS/VALNET. We basically found topics going into depth on histories or lore of material to be poorly researched or often contradicting themselves. We basically boiled them down to usefulness if they had an interview or a review of a contemporary item that didn't sprawl into a dozen topics. The initial conversation about it can be read here here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not saying this to discredit your discussion, as there are some valid points made, but it comes across as though you were trying quite hard to force the unreliable consensus when that wasn't actually the case. @Adamstom.97 pointed that out here, here and in the following chain of replies. You were also corrected regarding the purpose of one the sources Collider used here.

I will read the rest of that discussion, however I don't believe Collider is as bad as was made out in the initial statement of that discussion. 11WB (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Even with Adamstom's point, the statement there stands. I'm not sure why this is being brought to WP:VG for questioning either, as it seems like WP:FILM discussion. Regardless, What exactly do you want to use from this article? This is a clearly written for hype review with no real insight on the topic that I can see and mostly speculates on material. This is the kind of churnalism that was part of the discussion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

This discussion is to gather a consensus on Collider in general. As to why I posted here, I gave the reason in my opening comment: "I have a soft goal this year to reduce the number of sources listed at WP:VG/S#Inconclusive discussions, which currently sits at around 185 sources." 11WB (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Fair. I believe I understand your point of view. I think in this case you should probably show off their more video game related content which I'm less familiar with for the discussion to go forward. I know this is more for deletion topics, but three best examples of content would help us understand its usefulness for the project. That said, I've found their own editorial integrity standards false "We prioritize the authenticity and reliability of our content" in my previous discussion posted where someone who was an expert in Roger Ebert clearly made up stuff he said. Even prior to the ValNet purchase, there was no real consensus on whether Collider was reliable. Similarly, outside sources have also doubted it, such as this The Guardian source which states "if a report from Collider is to be believed suggesting they are not known for their journalistic integrity. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Most Valnet sources are the same way: sometimes useful, but are generally not high-quality sourcing. And there's pretty much unanimous consensus on how to use them in this project: they can be used in some cases, but shouldn't be used to demonstrate notability outside of niche instances (e.g. when the source is a large WP:SIGCOV piece from an experienced author). Some of their sources may be higher quality than others, but they're pretty much one in the same. Collider is the exact same way and there's not much difference. Most discussions about Valnet sourcing boil down to this.

In accordance with status quo and my own personal use of the source, situational, with the exact same scrutiny as all other Valnet sourcing: they should be excluded entirely from WP:BLP articles (even if an interview, there is a history of Valnet sources faking quotes), they can't demonstrate notability outside of niche cases, and should be replaced with a higher quality source when possible. We know the drill at this point. λ NegativeMP1 17:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Situational is basically MREL right? If so, I would agree but would say they aren't quite as bad as some of the Valnet owned sources. 11WB (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Situational seems right for Collider & other Valnet owned properties. In general, we should trust editor discretion when evaluating specific sources from a situational outlet; if someone disagrees & can't find a higher quality replacement, then it should be discussed on a case by case basis. I haven't seen any examples that Collider interviews should be blanket mistrusted at this point. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Situational per VALNET and above. I don't see why it can't be used, but it should probably be substituted where possible for stronger citations where applicable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Adding my 2 cents as I was pinged above. The consensus we came to at WP:RS/VALNET is that Valnet sources like Collider should be replaced with higher quality sources if available, and users should be especially wary of churnalism and listicles, but they are fine to use in some situations such as direct interviews and official reviews. There is no consensus at the film project that they should not be used at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I think Adamstom summarized fairly well. At least for film topics, most of Collider material was able to be found elsewhere. This might not be the case for games, but I'd have to see more game related content from them. Looking at their video game section,

• Collider report on Split Fiction film, which as the article states, is taken from Variety here
• Collider Report about Nintendo wanting to make a Harry Potter game is taken from Unseen64, a hobbyist website.
• What Happened to AMC’s ‘Alan Wake’ Series? is another one of their articles which has you scroll through a history of the series, again, with history bobs attributed taken from Variety and other sources to tell you "there's hardly a better time to tackle a television version than now." So uhh, thanks for the article.

I'm not sure their validity or depth you can pull from them in terms of WP:VG related content as it seems to have the same kind of issues. Regurgitating other material or barely giving anyone any meat on their bones with an overview or an opinion on a topic. I obviously haven't gone into huge depth, but from a glance, there's not much to pull from Collider on video games, what can be pulled is reported elsewhere, or questionable at best. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97, the issue with no consensus is that in the long run, it isn't helpful to keep adding to a list of inconclusive sources. The VG project list is now at almost 200 sources due to this. It's going to take some effort, but my goal is to gather a consensus for every source on that list. Admittedly, Collider is not on that specific list but it is still without a formal consensus, so I hope one can be established here. 11WB (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, it's not impossible for it to produce in-depth content. This article on The Great Ace Attorney's Kazuma Asogi goes well into depth about him as a character, with the only mistakes being the claim that he suffered blunt force trauma from a "bedpost" (when it was the floor instead) and the typo of "sane" instead of "same" at the ending paragraph. So clearly they can publish something that's not just regurgitated news. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Cinema Blend

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

I'm proposing this be reexamined, as I don't think the prior discussions were thorough enough to actually put it under unreliable. Looking at their about page, they indicate that they follow The Editors' Code of Practice for independent sources. I also question listing as unreliable because none of the articles identified what is wrong with their content. I mean, the content does not appear to be revolutionizing media discussion, but I have not found issue with anything I've seen. Not only that, but they're clearly not some rinky dink website; in the past week, they published 20 interviews, including of CM Punk, Paul Giamatti, and Bill Skarsgard. Looking at Google Scholars, they're also cited incredibly often; clearly, they are considered reliable enough to be cited as frequently as they are in published works.

While Cinema Blend primarily focuses on television and movies, almost exclusively, being that they cover shows and movies about video game adaptations, it makes sense to list them here in some capacity. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable: The Code of Practice seems to mainly focus on ethics company policies, which is fine. According to their about page, they cover "what fans are into" with their "own insights, opinions and perspective". They also mark advertorials and sponsored content as such. This recent article is marked as having affiliate links, with the actual article itself reading in a more informal manner. Based on these brief checks, I wouldn't say they are outright unreliable, which CB is currently marked as. Instead, I think WP:MREL would be fair, as better, reliable sources such as Radio Times and Gizmodo are available. 11WB (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Situational It's not an unusable source, judging from what I see, but it's very weak. I would not use it when stronger sources are available, but I don't see why it can't be used. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I think I recall the very old articles were particular blog-like. Perhaps improved, but these are often cited for "quick Google" convenience and not for good reason. IgelRM (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

American City Business Journals

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

This source was previously discussed at the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Quite a few info on varies video game companies from the different business Journals (Washington Business Journal, Baltimore Business Journal, etc)

Examples. [8], [9], [10]

I propose we add this to other reliable sources. Timur9008 (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

What was the outcome of the RSN talks? Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

No consensus Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_485#BizJournals. Timur9008 (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I should note I've been checking these for info from 1996 to 2000. Not sure if the current stuff is reliable. Timur9008 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It's stately a business trade source, which should be viewed in that context. E.g. not giving notability, but fine corporate reliability. IgelRM (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I looked at the examples cited and I don't see any problems, seems pretty standard if uninspired type of coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Sportskeeda revisit

Find video game sources: "Sportskeeda" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo So, not the site I would usually do, but I thought it warranted at least a revisit due to some of the findings I discovered recently. So, for background, Sportskeeda was discussed in May 2021 and has since been used as the consensus twice on this forum in September 2021 and January 2024. The discussion mainly concluded that they a low quality source, with little editor oversight and also advocates for user submitted content, which I would agree with. However, since the original May 2021, the website has been revamped to where they have clearly laid out their guidelines and ethics for making articles. They have since overhauled their About Us section in May 2024, as well as have listed their editorial policies and fact checking policy. I also believe that their non-guide content is pretty well written. Personally speaking, I would reclassify Sportskeeda as a situational source, where pre-2024 content is seen as generally unreliable whereas content after that should be judged on a case-by-case basis, adding that the content isn't just user-submitted or the typical "churnalism" style content. I'm curious to hear what others here think. CaptainGalaxy 16:19, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

From August 2024: [11]

From June 2025: [12]

I think that we should look a bit deeper in their articles. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's their prolific output of junk like that that has kept me opposed to their use. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• Situational, but barely: This is a trickier one to assess. None of the individuals on their editoral team seem to have any experience writing for websites and outlets considered reliable on Wikipedia. I spoke to @PL a little while ago about one of their writers, Spencer Whitworth, who has previous experience writing for Collider, but only after the site was taken over by Valnet (which as we know is its own can of mayhem).

If I pick a random recent article, such as this one, it is mostly just quotes with very little substance to it. Whereas this one about Necrozma, which I found for a draft I was recently working on, is mostly just WP:PLOTSUM. I agree with @Sergecross that their content doesn't have much substance, and I honestly cannot see why they should be used over other, more reliable, higher quality sources. I am not going to say they are outright unreliable, but I definitely cannot say that they should be used. This, to me, is the thinnest case of a situational source as is possible to get. 11WB (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Correction to the above. Only Arvind Sriram could be considered as having published anything in reliable sources (BBC and The Guardian). 11WB (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment do we have any examples of their video game related works? It seems they have authors for different sections of the sites, and it's possible their Hollywood gossip articles don't have the same standards as other parts of the site. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 See my comment below for links and my thoughts about their coverage of a game I know (TL;DR it's ok if its bylined). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm a bit iffy but I'm unopposed to this small subsection of articles being used. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The issue with promoting Sportskeeda is that editors will think it is a generally acceptable source to use, when in reality, as @Piotrus has demonstrated, it really isn't. It should be made clear that it can never be used to prove notability and should always be replaced with a better source for statements of fact. 11WB (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to that either. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I looked at their description of a game I know ([13]), and it looks to me AI generated (and not even a review with opinion, just a description). Now, their "news" articles like [14] seem ok-ish - it reports on an upcoming feature, is bylined, and I agree it seems human written (more or less), and useful for reporting on said feature if we wanted to add that fact to some article. I also googled a review of the game itself ([15]) and I'd consider it ok-ish (bylined, with decent summary of some aspects and opinions). The pieces are bylined and the authors even have short bios ([16]). So yes, I can see calling it situational (not unreliable for everything) - just make sure that we use their bylined pieces, not their generic possibly-AI-generated guides/overviews. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The current consensus towards Sportskeeda being unreliable was established at WP:RSP. I don't think we can overrule that, but I might be wrong.

With that said, I don't see too much of an improvement between what Sportskeeda is known for and what they may have published recently. It is still largely a landfill. Are we really considering "some of their articles are starting to resemble human writing" or "they give okay information" a major improvement? We already allow leeway towards sources that are not high-quality. Sportskeeda is low quality even by those standards. I would rather keep the status quo of unreliable. λ NegativeMP1 19:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I haven't personally heard of any one noticeboard having superiority over any other? There is also WP:NPPSG, along with others. I don't think it would be very fair for one venue to have the ultimate say over a particular source. I may be wrong, I can't of anyone in particular who would know the answer to that other than @ActivelyDisinterested. 11WB (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

This is a project, rather than a noticeboard, some editors can get very tetchy about WP:LOCALCON and projects. NPPSG uses the RSP as one of its sources.
Ultimately though RSN or here doesn't matter, it's consensus that matters. It's not one to one, RSN to VGRS, but the editors taking part in the discussions. You can't ignore prior discussions on RSN, and RSN should take note of discussions happening here.
There's been quite a few editors who thought Sportskeeda unreliable, but that should be generally unreliable. The difference between that and "situational, but barely" is very little. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

So this is to say RS/N isn't the ultimate authority on any one source? 11WB (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The 'ultimate authority' is consensus (WP:CONSENSUS). The wider ranging, and more attended a discussion is, the firmer that consensus should be considered. RSN is for third opinion, that can include for someone wanting a third opinion about a project discussion. Basically it's a place to try and find a wider audience if you think that's required.
Wikipedia is not a legal system, so ideas like 'ultimate authority' are a poor fit. RSN is a place for centralised discussions and those discussions can carry weight, but that weight comes from the editors taking part not from the fact they happen on RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly what I thought. Hopefully this clears up your concern, @NegativeMP1! 11WB (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

To clear up why I thought the way I did, I've always thought on the lines of: RSN has more active editors from across the site, a discussion there likely holds more weight than a local project one (e.g. if a site-wide unreliable source such as this were ruled as situational by a single project it might be discarded). But yes, thank you for clearing that up regardless! λ NegativeMP1 23:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately, outside FA (since GA reviewer quality varies greatly), this doesn't matter unless we have a bot or a live equivalent :P who would remove the links to them on-sight. Which we obviously don't, as linkto shows over 500 pages using the this source. As for LOCALCON, it can matter, depending also on participation etc., but best practice would be, if we reach a different consensus here, to report on that to RSN, ping everyone involved there (this could even be done here), and see what happens. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

At the moment, the new consensus would be no consensus, as there are split opinions currently. 11WB (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Unreliable per Negative above. Sergecross73 msg me 23:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
• Having had a look at the site I would agree with those saying that they're unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable per comments above and per my research, as well as complaints from online users over low-quality content. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Gaming Cypher, Twisted Voxel, BrowserGames.de, TheGameHaus, 148Apps

Gaming Cypher

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

This site unfortunately has no editorial policies or an about page, despite being around since 2013. I've emailed them and requested them, but haven't had a reply yet. This is probably not reliable, but I'll update this if they do respond with something. 11WB (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

No editorial policies is a big strike against. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

They may still respond to my email. 11WB (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean the fact they're obscuring it at all is a big red flag. Given the lack of a noteworthy editorial I'm leaning Unreliable for right now. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Verifying what they say in the email is hard. IF they say something publicly, at least that's a proof of them saying so (and that can be taken apart later), but I wouldn't put much faith in the email, in which they can claim whatever (or these days, just have an AI do so). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Twisted Voxel

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

Their about page says they are managed by "passionate bloggers". None of their listed staff seem to have any experience writing for any known, reliable sites. Khurram Imtiaz mentions previous experience as editor-in-chief at GearNuke and TechDeville, the latter of which is just a blog. There are also concerns over blatant plagiarism from a few years back. I don't think this site is reliable personally. 11WB (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable per BLOG and the lack of an editorial, as well as the plagiarism concerns. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

BrowserGames.de

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

A German site with no editorial policies or about page. Reviews, such as this one, are bylined at the very least and appear to be substantial in depth. Unsure. 11WB (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

But no about/editorial policies means there is no reason to assume they are better than a blog. Of course, we don't require these from print magazines, for example, but these tend to have connections to publishers following ethical standards or journalists who publish in reliable venues. Here, the reviews are signed but the authors are not linked to any biography even. Not seeing much to go with here to call them reliable more than a "good blog", and that's not good enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

TheGameHaus

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

Mixed on this one. They have a pretty detailed about page, with review practices and disclosure policy. They interview reasonably sized content creators, such as YouTuber PokeaimMD. That article is bylined and is reasonable in quality. Their page ads are a tad obnoxious, but I think they are probably okay to cite. Not outright unreliable, but definitely marginal. 11WB (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Situational Their editorial isn't particularly strong, and I do have some pause about the fact that gambling ads are apparently a major focus for the website according to their footer. I'd say interviews are marginal per Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF and other similar policies, but that's about it. As for the rest of their content, their main ESports writers (At least glancing over it) are Connor Knudsen and Rob Hanes. Hanes, according to his profiles, is an associate professor at Miami University (Where he's an "ESports Professor", apparently) and Knudsen is similarly a staff member at Oklahoma City University and has some experience with the very marginally reliable Dexerto. Their authors may be considered SMS members, but given the shaky aspects of this site, I'm inclined to say it's best to look at the author before using a source. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

148Apps

Find video game sources: "148Apps" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

They are currently listed on the cite plugins as marginally reliable. Their about page offers very little and they seem to be quite intent on offering advertising for mobile games and apps. A random recent article gives practically very little from about 400 words of in-game specific technical details. I would not count this as WP:SIGCOV. The articles I read are pretty much all like this one. They are at least bylined. I don't think they are reliable personally. 11WB (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The previous discussions on the subject seem to indicate that initially it was viewed pretty favorably, but over time many experienced editors have taken issue with the low quality of their reviews and their seemingly minimal editorial.

Pinging @Czar for their thoughts since they were a pretty big advocate against this in prior discussions. For my part I'm still a bit unsure since the first discussion's notes about it give me a little bit of pause about it being completely unreliable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I used to use 148Apps for reviews. When people started questioning it, I stopped. But it seems no worse to me than several trash sources that this project considers reliable, such as Gematsu (a self-published blog that seems to republish press releases without any fact checking), Siliconera (whose writers' qualifications seem to consist of "I like anime and JRPGs"), and Nintendojo ("Love video games and Nintendo? ... This is a volunteer site, so there is no pay"). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you about the sources you listed there. Siliconera has published some rather low quality articles such as this, which lacks a proper byline and any grammar. 11WB (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, we can reassess them - just start a discussion about them. Other than that, it's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type of an argument (i.e. not very good). As for the site in question, I looked at their recent rather short article [17] about a game I am familiar with. It's ok-ish if "nothing special", little better than a social media post (not a proper review - just some random dudes summary and thoughts of an about-to-be-released expansion), bylined but there is no author bio. I am not impressed by the site (nor by the article I read, which is pretty much useless), but I'd be curious to see an example of their "better" pieces. @NinjaRobotPirate - could you show one of their articles you considered useful in the past? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Gematsu, Nintendojo and Siliconera all have an established consensus. It would be a bit unfair to start up another discussion, only for it to likely end in the same way as prior discussions, despite what @NRP has correctly said here. 11WB (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Source evaluations aren't about fairness. If there are legitimate concerns, any source should be re-evaluated no matter how long established or accepted. Things change, especially this day and age. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

That isn't what I meant by saying it would be unfair. I meant it would be unfair to expect editors to spend time evaluating these sources again, when that has already happened in the past. 11WB (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Editors can spend their time however they like... that is a very WP:VOLUNTEER argument. And with discussion about these being such a long time ago (Siliconera three years ago, Nintendojo eight years ago, Gematsu eleven years ago) it's entirely possible for consensus to have changed in that timeframe or for new arguments to have been made. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

This has strayed off-topic. The discussion is about 148Apps. 11WB (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

GamerGen

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

Stylized as GAMERGEN. Their copyright information indicates they are a long running site (2005-2026). Can't find an about page or editorial policy. Unsure how to feel about this one. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• Unreliable: No editorial policies or about page. This recent "article" is a couple of paragraphs giving the price and nothing else. If this is what qualifies as "news" to them, this should probably be avoided. Especially when we have actual reliable sources that do a much better job of reporting on the same thing. 11WB (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  The comparison here is between a French website and English ones, which assumingly have different focus areas? But I don't know of anything that makes it reliable either. IgelRM (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Coming Soon Magazine! (late 90s zine?)

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

Used by MobyGames as part of their aggregated score. I'd call them a zine (old, published from c. 1996 to 2000). The reviews don't seem to be signed, but their about about has real names. Their amateourish approach wouldn't be called reliable now, but given this is a site from 30 years ago, I wonder if we could call them situational? Particularly given that they seem to have had a real office and a legal standing (again, see their about, and again, this is easy today but we are talking about the late 90s here). Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

PC Joker (German magazine)

Find video game sources: "PC Joker" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · URL... LinkTo The magazine is available in IA: https://archive.org/details/pcjoker-magazine-ger De wiki has a larger article on it than our stub, and also on the editor: de:Amiga Joker. Seems like a perfectly fine magazine with one and a half decade of history (1991-2004), my only concern is that I am unable to identify the authors of individual reviews (in the issue I looked at they are signed with bylines like (mic), (mz), (md), (ole), etc. and if they are decyphered somewhere I don't know where it is). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

[18] – "Impressum" means "masthead". "mz" is Markus Ziegler. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate Thanks, I thought this might be the case (I can often ID mastheads in Polish magazines, but had trouble here). In this case this addresses my primary concern. Any thoughts about reliability of this on your end? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's a mainstream magazine with a good reputation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

PSX Brasil

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

About page here. Brazilian Portuguese-language video game review and news website with a focus on Playstation specifically. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I see names of staff but no discussion of editorial policies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Mothershipg

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

Mothership is a recent website creation (subscription-only) with an extensive editorial and ethics policy. Given the pedigree of the staff, I find it believable that this extensive policy is authentically followed. As far as the staff goes:

• Nico Deyo wrote for Vice, Paste, Kotaku, and Polygon
• Nicole Clark wrote for Polygon, New York Times, and Aftermath
• Susana Polo founded The Mary Sue
• Beatrix Kondo wrote for LGBTQ Nation
• Zoë Hannah wrote for Polygon
• Maddy Myers wrote for The Boston Phoenix, The Mary Sue, Kotaku, and Polygon
• Nicole Carpenter wrote for Polygon, The Guardian, USA Today, IGN, Washington Post, VG247, Paste... like a lot of stuff

The website focuses on feminism, women's issue, and intersectionality (such as race and sexuality). The articles appear to be written by people with relevant expertise; for example, this article, in which the author interviewed queer Nigerians, is identified as a Nigerian themselves.

With how much of the staff has written for reliable sources, the expertise they have with the specific subject of their articles, and the strong editorial policy, I believe that it should be considered fully reliable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable they seem to have a good editorial and a strong staff backing that up. Unless there's a major stipulation I believe it passes the reliability threshold. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Why is the heading Mothershipg not Mothership? I checked one article, which seemed interesting but paywalled which will significantly lower the practical usability of this site (which, according to linkserch above, is not used as a source anywhere?). The author bio I checked is sparse on detail [19]. Their editorial policies seem fine. I'd call them reliable, but if they are indeed paywalling content, not very useful. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, I use muckrack to check experience. As for paywall, I plan on subbing in a few months (once there's more articles posted) and offering to cite articles for people. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

It might be good to update WP:VG/LRS pointing editors to the Resource Exchange if they think a paywalled source will be useful. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable - seems similar to Aftermath (website), 404 Media, Rascal, etc in terms of being an independent outlet founded by experienced industry reporters who have worked for various reliable (or formerly reliable) websites that have gone through layoffs. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Twinfinite (again)

I decided to look into this one, and found that the discussions deeming it unreliable have largely been based on only very few people. In my opinion, and I don't blame anyone for this, but I believe Twinfinite was erroneously labeled unreliable. There were claims that staff did not seem to have experience working on reliable sources. However, using muckrack, I can verify that to not be true. For instance:

1. Managing editor Chris Jecks: Siliconera, PCGamesN
2. Ana Mitic: Siliconera, Prima Games, The Escapist, Destructoid
3. Damiano Gerli: IGN Italia, VICE, Kotaku, PC Gamer
4. Gordan Perisic: The Escapist, Destructoid
5. Jovan Krstić: Destructoid, The Escapist, Dot Esports
6. Keenan McCall: Game Informer, Electronic Gaming Monthly
7. Maja Kovačević: Destructoid, The Escapist
8. Ben Williams: The New York Times, Nature, The Washington Post, Entrepreneur

With the website's strong fact-checking policy, corrections policy, review policy, and ethics policy, I believe that this is a perfectly acceptable entry as a reliable source. The only downside of this source is that any sourcing worth citing is basically defunct, as the site only does guide content anymore, but I believe there is nothing damaging older sources' usability on Wikipedia. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Conditional RS: Their news page has nothing from after October 2025, which is a bit odd. On that basis, they clearly aren't reliable for up-to-date news. @Cukie's comment on being defunct is accurate.

Their Expedition 33 review written by Ben Williams isn't really anything special in all honesty. I wouldn't say it is either reliable or unreliable in that sense. A GTA VI console update by Damiano Gerli is straight to the point, no extra nonsense that readers won't care about or don't need to know about, beyond the update itself. Their policies are also short and straight, with no immediate red flaggs. Twinfinite is also owned by Gamurs, who own Destructoid among other marginally reliable outlets.

Their 2017 staff appear to be completely different to their current staff. I trust @Cukie's list is probably correct, though one check for Ben Williams writing for NYT turned up with nothing. I will say Twinfinite is probably reliable, on the condition other editors don't find things that would make them untrustworthy. 11WB (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Reliable I concur with Cukie that the evidence provided is adequate for a re-approval for the website's reliability. Good policies, strong team with a background (I did find out that Ben Williams hadn't wrote for the New York Times despite what MuckRack says, but I am willing to believe that is a problem with MR rather than the actual author) and well written articles. Being apart of Gamurs shouldn't really be a problem for the site as we use many reliable sources of theirs, that said it maybe the reason why they have stopped doing anything that isn't a guide. However, I would suggest maybe listing the website with suggested cutoff points similar to Kotaku, whereby I would probably cut off past the last discussion and then maybe also suggest avoid using the more recent guide churnalism. Something like 2018 or 2019 (around the time they hired their Managing Editor) to 2024 or 2025 which is around when their news articles stopped. CaptainGalaxy 21:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Reliable - I was also puzzled on why it was labeled unreliable. Authors like Giuseppe Nelva often covered niche topics and offered insightful commentary: example Jotamide (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps the site improved, but neither spotlighting or commentary equals journalistic standards. I recall serious concerns before. IgelRM (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

esports.gg

Find video game sources: "esports.gg" – 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 site that comes up quite frequently in my searches for content, and while I'd loathe to lose it as a source for secondary confirmation, it's hard for me not to want to be safe rather than sorry. Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Just a small bump on this, but it is important to note it is cited by a few books, but also a significant number of papers. Maybe there's some greater importance in the eSports scene I'm not noticing here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable on principle. They appear to be a well established publication with good commitments according to their About Us page. Whilst I didn't check every single staff member, a majority of the first 9 that I checked had a background with a source we already consider reliable such as Dot Esports, the Upcomer, GameSpot, Sky Sports and The Australian just to name a few. One thing I wanted to bring up though was their use of AI. According to this letter by one of the managers, the site would use AI tools for data analysis and translating. However, with these cases, they will have a human review process to make sure the information is accurate and high-quality, as well as stating they would be transparent about any text that had been generated. This is a great level of transparency for readers, although I think this may at least raise the idea that perhaps there should be caution using this website in certain cases, such as with translations. I think we should at least be fair given the day and age when it comes to AI use, we should come to expect that more sites (regardless of ones we already consider reliable or ones we haven't review yet) will eventually use AI tools, and I think we should be more nuanced when it comes to areas such as this. CaptainGalaxy 19:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable for the same reasons as Captain Galaxy. I have also used this site in the past with no issues. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 19:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable They seem to be a trustworthy, authoritative source on the subject given the sheer amount of use they have in scholarly works. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

SteamDB

I am quite new to the in and outs of Wikipedia but what makes SteamDB (or any of these sites) less reliable than somebody writing an article which provides statistics? I've done a little research into SteamDB and I can see that it uses Steam's public APIs to provide live and historic player counts. The accuracy is reliable because this can be confirmed with Steam itself when visiting a game's community hub as it shows the players in-game, there's maybe a 5-10 player discrepancy between SteamDB and Steam itself in games with 20,000+ players. In terms of providing statistics without a bias it seems very reliable?

Are we saying Steam is an unreliable source for conveying player counts on Steam? Why?

I guess the question I am trying to ask is: why is an article from somebody who may or may not have a bias more reliable than statistics which are accurate and data driven? JackFrostyG (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

See the most recent discussion on it here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Archived discussion doesn't fully answer my question. While it may not be reliable in other areas it is certainly reliable in use of obtaining a player-count for Steam as proven by Steam itself when visiting the Community Hub and checking the '___ Player's in Game'.

I also still don't understand why we would not use an unbiased Statistic from Steam's own public API for a game published on Steam when editing around player count at a minimum, but we would include an article including a figure with no source of it's own, can be biased and is less accurate. JackFrostyG (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

We don't use SteamDB for player statistics because we don't care about player statistics unless its creating noticeable impact and commentary by reliable sources. SteamDB isn't that, it's just a number, carrying no context. As for the rest, I don't think its worth getting into the "but why are unproven estimates bad when companies might just be lying anyway". SteamDB is not a reliable source. There is no verification of its figure, simply a blackbox estimate using various pieces of public data. There is no editorial process happening here. Yeah, it's probably close, but that's not good enough for Wikipedia policy. -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

It's exact reasoning is to give context. It is the base of any article and Wiki page that discusses player count on Steam and the majority of pages discuss reception, engagement or count. If this is unreliable despite being verifiable via Steam then every Wiki Page discussing these topics has no reliability unless we can see where these figures are coming from.

"but why are unproven estimates bad when companies might just be lying anyway" - Steam can be used to verify SteamDB's player count figures. Where is this quote from? Why are we now mentioning companies?

Next, by this logic, articles giving player counts are also unproven estimates and therefore unreliable as they aren't verifiable. They can add all the context they want to the subject, but if there's no verifiability of player count then we can't take the source as reliable when discussing this topic. JackFrostyG (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You're not arguing from a position of Wikipedia policy. The words verifiable and reliable aren't just common words for Wikipedia. Verifiability is essentially "Can you check a reliable source and it cites that data?" Yes. We can. When PCGamer or Eurogamer or another WP:RS as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines writes and publishes an article that states a game has sold however many copies, that satisfies WP:V. It's not "Can I, the reader, directly ask and verify this number with Valve?". It's "Do we have a reliable source to use that verifies this claim?"

SteamDB does not pass WP:RS, lacking any editorial control, using guesstimates gleaned from various public statistics (Steam does *not* publish sales figures. SteamDB does *not* have them. They estimate from other data). SteamDB does not talk to industry partners, does not report actual sales releases, does not do research or factchecking. It simply ingests various player statistics to calculate out a guess. So its figures are not usable on Wikpiedia. -- ferret (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I suppose I don't agree with the Wikipedia policy in relation to sourcing/using statistics then and that is an issue for a different page, if you are being genuine.

Other than that, we're going to be going around in circles so let's not waste our time and thank you for the discussion. JackFrostyG (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Android Police

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

This was discussed once in 2015, as seen on the sources list. It was deemed "unreliable" or "situtational". However, it was purchased by Valnet in 2021 and we've seen sources like TheGamer that are now considered reliable because of that. It looks to me like they have reported on games for which there aren't that many other sources, so I see them being useful to cite. They are cited in nearly one thousand articles on Wikipedia already and in AfD discussions. NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Being purchased by Valnet moves the needle further to unreliable rather than towards reliable. TheGamer itself is barely situational in my view. -- ferret (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Seconded. "Valnet acquisition" in no way should be seen as a move towards reliability. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

gamers heroes

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

seems... very mildly not up to par? and i really do mean "you could just stare at the ball hard enough and it would probably fall into the hole". despite the worrisomely fast output, it seems to be doing the cooking by the book with its two editors (plus a third one who seems to be on hiatus, probably due to having three ankle biters to take care of), which i fortunately managed to find proof of existence for, which is to say that i don't think it's ai slop. really, by all metrics i can think of besides the possibility of churnalism, it seems to be reliable enough to not be unreliable, but not much more

also, this might just be something on my end, but the general review list refuses to load, so i have to look through each editor's output. how very consequential that is when it boils down to three people~ consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

What in the world are you trying to say? I can't parse statements like "reliable enough to be unreliable, but not much more." Sergecross73 msg me 14:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

it's "reliable enough to not be unreliable", big difference. basically, this seems like an extremely run-of-the-mill, extremely okay source, aside from the possible churnalism (which could land it on "situational" when it comes to non-review pieces) consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I see, you chose to use a double negative for some reason. Okay, that makes a little more sense. Still not really sure where you're coming from with your assessment though. Do they have an editorial policy with oversight? Credentialled writers? Cited by other reliable sources? We need something more concrete than "kinda looks okayish I guess". Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

sorry, this comment blew out of proportion because i actually did find stuff, even though said stuff was of varying levels of underwhelmingness

starting backwards with citations from other outlets: several other outlets seem to routinely use their content (usually guides or walkthroughs) as points of reference in menial stuff, like polygon recently using a guide to discuss an obscure quest, inverse using one almost wholesale, and them being a partner of opencritic (which really isn't worth much for whichever valnet-shaped reason you want to point at first). this isn't much, but this whole paragraph was actually just a red herring for findings more directly related to the individual members~

• this from pre-valnet polygon, which cites lead writer #3 casey scheld's work, namely a... sandwich. weird, but thematically relevant, it is about swery
• this from unreliable source svg detailing lead writer #1 blaine smith's review of the medium, which i'm just leaving here for the sake of being able to say that i didn't forget it
• and finally, for lead writer #2 johnny hurricane, i found a grand total of... nothing of note

so still underwhelming with only one noteworthy citation from a reliable source that turned 13 just last week (which i guess could also prove some level of experience in the field?)

for credentials...

• blaine seems to be a bit of a circular case: he's apparently been doing freelance writing since 2005, but his only noteworthy stuff seems to be from his work in gamers heroes... or bird app antics i value my life too much to check. still, in the area of journalism, he seems to be somewhat trusted, even if his pre-gh work is hard to find because of his vague name
• johnny is the trio(?)'s social media guy, his only contributions seem to be related to gh and its social media account. even the site doesn't list any credentials or milestones for him beyond social media numbers. definitely the weakest link here, and probably enough to warrant the whole outlet being considered unreliable by himself
• lastly, and not actually underwhelmingly this time, casey seems to have the most monetarily useful credentials, with a master's degree and years of experience in various things. he also has a site to flex, i guess. how immediately useful those things actually are for gaming journalism seems to be anyone's guess, though

finally, for the editorial policy and oversight... i guess their review policy (boiling down to "we're not in the mood to sell scores") and scoring system explanation thingy (boiling down to "there is one in place") count, but that's probably not worth much considering the previous two

this overall means that my assessment is still a big ol' shrug, but i can confirm that they're at the very least not outright shit. maybe stuck in the early state of an outlet for about 15 years by now, but not shit. except johnny, he really needs to do other stuff consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The Escapist

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

The Escapist is currently listed as Situational with content between October 2017 and July 2018 to be handled with care.

I believe newer content may no longer be reliable due to this article:

Clickout Media, owner of websites such as Esports Insider and The Escapist, has told its staff that they are being laid off. The layoffs come just a week after they began laying off freelancers and pausing all future freelance hires.

Insider Gaming understands that the company is making a heavy pivot to AI content, resulting in almost all of its editorial staff being let go.

It was said that Clickout Media will be maintaining a skeleton crew of “AI Editors.”

“Sad to say that my role at The Escapist is up for redundancy, and that means a lot of things that I’m still not quite getting my head around,” The Escapist writer Lloyd Coombes wrote, though he did not mention the AI pivot in his posting.

It’s also believed that employees being let go are being forced to sign an NDA from speaking publicly about the layoffs, at risk of not receiving their severance payouts.

https://insider-gaming.com/clickout-media-owner-of-the-escapist-pivots-to-ai-holds-mass-layoffs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinNyanko (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

unreliable per... uh... "per nom" is also a thing here, right? let's all laugh at an industry that never learns anything, tee hee hee consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable after December 2025 & situational before (they did have some decent coverage of tabletop products for a bit but I don't recall using Escapist for video game coverage). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

"Insider Gaming" is not a reliable source, so I don't think there should be changes solely based on that. IgelRM (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

GamesIndustry.biz (link) & Aftermath (link) reported on a major round of layoffs in April 2025 which impacted Escapist; A.V. Club (link) & Kotaku (link) picked up Insider Gaming's coverage of the more recent layoffs and AI pivot. Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Another Clickout Media website, VideoGamer, was caught earlier using a fake writer to create reviews. This led to two reviews being removed from Metacritic and allegedly future VideoGamer reviews not being added to the site. A former VideoGamer editor also mentioned the use of that AI writer. While this isn't The Escapist, they're both owned by the same company. This supports the statement that Clickout Media is using AI to generate content. Not to mention, they also aren't disclosing it.

I mentioned in a previous thread about The Escapist's reliability that their Managing Editor has stated using genAI to make images for another Clickout Media property as well. Snakester95 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Esports Insider

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

Esports Insider is currently listed as reliable.

I believe newer content may no longer be reliable due to this article:

Clickout Media, owner of websites such as Esports Insider and The Escapist, has told its staff that they are being laid off. The layoffs come just a week after they began laying off freelancers and pausing all future freelance hires.

Insider Gaming understands that the company is making a heavy pivot to AI content, resulting in almost all of its editorial staff being let go.

It was said that Clickout Media will be maintaining a skeleton crew of “AI Editors.”

“Sad to say that my role at The Escapist is up for redundancy, and that means a lot of things that I’m still not quite getting my head around,” The Escapist writer Lloyd Coombes wrote, though he did not mention the AI pivot in his posting.

It’s also believed that employees being let go are being forced to sign an NDA from speaking publicly about the layoffs, at risk of not receiving their severance payouts.

https://insider-gaming.com/clickout-media-owner-of-the-escapist-pivots-to-ai-holds-mass-layoffs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinNyanko (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Kotaku - Re-evaluation in light of change of ownership

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

For those who aren't aware, Kotaku changed ownership in recent months[20] and under new management look to be expanding their human journalistic operations in complete contrast to the previous owners wanting to AI everything that saw the downgrade.[21][22][23]

Therefore wish to reopen discussion as to whether to return the site to Generally Reliable following the change in ownership given the positive directions they appear to be taking. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I think in retrospect the decision to classify Kotaku as fully unreliable post-mid 2023 was jumping the gun. The only AI thing that came out of it IIRC was the Kotaku Australia domain being sold to an AI content farm. But I don't think anything AI really came to the main site?

Kotaku did undeniably have a period there where their content was kind-of content farmy, but we already noted that even when they were reliable. The July 2023 cut off was 100% based on the AI thing, which did not go far. I think we should revert the unreliable classification and just go back to the "be cautious of certain types of articles" status quo that existed prior. λ NegativeMP1 00:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1 G/O Media did indeed have AI articles, to the point G/O Media staff themselves criticised it,[24] so the reclassification in that regard was justified (and even then as said the situational nature was just G/O Media in general).

However it does appear the new owner is going in a positive direction in terms of funding their operations well, so I think the concerns for why it was reduced have been dealt with. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

If that's the case, then maybe have something where mid-2023 to late-2025 articles should be treated with extra caution to make sure they're not AI generated, but not strictly unreliable. It wasn't their entire output, was it? λ NegativeMP1 00:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The GUNREL for the latter G/O Media period was for a variety of things by the end (content farming, editorial interference by management etc), with the undisclosed AI usage being the last straw.

Like I say, I think the cleanest move would be to leave the G/O Media period as it currently stands (a slow move to generally unreliable) and then for the new ownership move it back towards reliable because it looks to have sizeably increased in quality and be getting editorial resource. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that G/O Media should be possibly reliable, as there were still staff with experience at other reliable sources doing journalism there. I think we should just advise caution, and particularly to check the author of an article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

From what I recall they published a few AI-generated articles under G/O. The main issue was that, like CNET, they weren't marking the content as AI (they simply published them without a credited author) which wasn't acceptable in our eyes. That being said, they definitely seem to have turned things around since July 2025. I'm fine with treating articles published after the Keleops acquisition as reliable, though it should still remain under the situational section due to the iffy reliability of pre-2010 articles and the 2023-2025 period where they were a clear content farm. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 10:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure it was Kotaku? I remember that a G/I outlet did, but I don't remember it being Kotaku. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

[25]. Articles "written" by "Kotaku Bot" weren't properly marked, such as this simply not listing an author at the time of publication. Based on my look through archive.org, they still weren't distinguishing AI articles as late as May 2025, which looks to be when they discontinued it. I will note that they still are publishing a ton of promotional crap that looks AI-generated, though it's at least marked. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 17:29, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

If the time period is marked situational, it should specify that articles without author credit shouldn't be used since it is an AI indicator. Per WP:SPONSORED, as long as promotional "articles" are marked as such and you can distinguish between them & regular articles, then we don't really have to consider them when doing the evaluation. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable - I was also thinking about starting this discussion. Kotaku is now owned by the same parent company (Keleops) that bought Gizmodo; along with expanding the staff size, the new owners did away with some of the G/O Media weirdness (such as restoring the ability to comment on articles). I haven't seen any AI indicators on either Gizmodo or Kotaku since they were purchased. Keleops also "owns several French-language technology titles, including legacy brands 01net and Presse-citron"; I'm not seeing anything in the WP:RSP noticeboard archives about either of those sites but might be worth looking at to get a better sense of how Keleops manages the outlets it owns. I also agree with NegativeMP1 that Kotaku from mid-2023 to mid-2025 could be considered situational instead of unreliable. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable but with a note that mid-2023-mid-2025 should be considered highly situational per above. As of now it looks like things are good for now, but this is definitely something that can be re-evaluated later if need be. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable; it always bothered me that Kotaku had fully been considered situational when for the majority of its over-20-years span, its articles were of good quality, only tarnished by a brief period in which they could be construed as situational. I support moving the source up to generally reliable. –GM 02:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable per above. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

reliable, but with a little prejudice to reconsidering previous consensuses (consensi?), as "reliable but watch out for geekier stuff" and "reliable when it's not ai slop" are pretty plainly the case for its states before. maybe separate it into four sections though, including that ai skinwalker that stole kotaku australia's domain consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I do agree that this re-evaluation is probably more consistent with how we've handled these situations that have been happening in recent years. (Polygon, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

noclip360

Find video game sources: "noclip360" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This is completely unreliable, but more here for a history of discussion just in case it persists and we get people trying to cite it. The latest venture of Mark Kern's, the site is completely AI generated, down to the comments section... Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Clearly unreliable. Good to have discussion record I suppose, but feels almost unneeded in this case. ~2026-11263-84 (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

AndroidMag.de

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

Magazine with an editorial team. I've found reviews by them to be useful when sourcing. However, they are scarcely cited on Wikipedia. Has anyone ever used them as a source before? NewAccount7295 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Does anybody want to discuss this? NewAccount7295 (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Netto's Game Room

This one's kinda interesting. Here's their about page and staff members,[26] review scores details,[27] and the companies they have worked with.[28] Kazama16 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Some good content, but seems unreliable by Wikipedia standards. Can't see reliable sources citing them, no established writers, no editorial policy, accepts guest posts. TinNyanko (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

ClickOut Media

I think we need to make a new subsection for sites purchased by ClickOut Media, similar to Valnet. Per this article, they have been pivoting hard to AI generated content and laid off most if not all staff. Affected sites include The Escapist, Adventure Gamers, Esports Insider, and VideoGamer [EDIT: a report from Aftermath has gone into further detail, including identifying more sites they've bought such as Esports News UK], and the results have been almost immediate: as of today, AI-generated reviews of Resident Evil Requiem and Pokémon Fire Red/Leaf Green were uploaded to VideoGamer that resulted in the site being blacklisted from Metacritic, and multiple contributor bylines have been overwritten with AI profiles. IMO, we need to clearly cordon off any sites under their ownership and establish hard cut-offs for when they were considered reliable/situational (though the replacement of the bylines will admittedly make this more difficult and will perhaps require additional vetting if older content is being cited). -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Support cordoning off ClickOut Media owned outlets in a similar fashion to Valnet. I think December 2025 as an end date for reliable/situational makes sense if the AI generated content just started in 2026 (ie. seems to have occurred following the 2026 layoffs). The rewriting of older article bylines is such a pain; probably means treating those sources as dead & using archive links. This is where I'd normally suggest making a WP:URLREQ but the editors who run that seem swamped by WP:NOMOREARCHIVETODAY cleanup so it might be a bit before an automated "mark everything as dead" solution is available. In the meantime, I'd suggest adding guidance in the new ClickOut Media section about marking those sources as dead & adding archive links. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I might even go earlier. The second Kotaku article states that social accounts for the fake writers started popping up in October 2025, so there might be some AIgen articles in there even before the layoffs. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Bummer. Maybe situational from various sale dates to somewhere in Oct-Dec 2025 and unreliable afterwards? Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we should consider deprecating - We already have a couple of individual discussions above on individual publications but I was coming here anyway to suggest we outright deprecate them given as shown with VideoGamer (genuinely depressing how far that's fallen from the 2010s when it was so truly unique, in particular its now largely wiped video content) the new owners are actively engaged in deliberate attempts to mislead readers into thinking it's not AI by generating fake social media profiles for their "writers".

I think this adds a new level of risk that goes beyond simply being unreliable so would deserve consideration of active warning and blocking that deprecating carries. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Deprecate for all content from October 2025. Even if the AI content only started this week, I feel that it is too risky to include anything from October 2025-February 2026, especially if they are trying to trick others into believing it is human work. I would also suggest adding it to the spam filter. Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd be against adding it the spam filter because it would prevent the use of archived older work which is usable. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Tech Times

Tech Times (https://www.techtimes.com/) is listed as a reliable source under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#General computing/technology, and I'd suggest re-evaluating that. See RSN in 2022 (three editors considered it unreliable), RSN 2024 (three more editors agreed), and this RSN thread I just posted. It posts a lot of lightly-rewritten content from other sources and solicits for paid placement in articles, and it's not clear whether they appropriately disclose paid placement. Looks like it's currently cited in about 185 relevant articles. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Videogamer publishing AI generated reviews

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See this gamesindustry.biz story about their recent Resident Evil review being pulled off metacritic. Apparently they've recently layed off most of their staff. I think it should be downgraded from "situational" to "unreliable". Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion on this is bundled under the above Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#ClickOut Media (current owners of VideoGamer). Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see that I didn't read the "situational" source list carefully enough, and that it is considered unreliable since 2022, for AI stuff like this. I guess it's just a further nail in the coffin. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.