Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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


GamersNexus

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Several websites I noticed

[edit]

I plan on improving The Witcher Adventure Game (board and video game combo), and there are some additional sources (reviews) about its digital version that I found online byt I don't see in the list here, that I'd like your thoughts on whether they are reliable or not (and in either case, they should be added here to either reliable or unreliable):

CGMagazine

[edit]

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

My thoughts: "Originating as a monthly Canadian print publication in 2010, CGMagazine has since expanded to include a globally-distributed digital magazine, as well as a thriving website...". Print magazine claim is a plus. Their editorial team has real names listed. They don't seem to solicit articles. Reviews are signed by named authors, with bios, although the one I checked [1] is not very serious. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HardcoreDroid

[edit]

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

My thoughts: they solicit writers but test them: [3], which suggests some editorial controls and standards. Review I checked seems signed by what seems like real name, but with no bio, ex. [4] --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unreliable: This quote: "We welcome guest blogging. If you’re a blogger and you have a great idea for an Android related blog or article, contact us at the email below and tell us about it", is indicative of a self-published blog with the added step of somebody internally accepting it. If there are no biographies or information to verify those who submit articles, there is no way to judge how their content is reliable. 11WB (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Rainfall

[edit]

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

My thoughts: I cannot locate their "about", which is likely a bad sign... - on the other hand, they are notable and have a Wikipedia article? Review I checked seems signed by a real name, but with no bio, ex. [5] --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable. Cannot find any writers who've worked for reliable websites or use as references from reliable websites. Many author names used are firstname then last initial only. Not even an editorial policy. Can't see an argument to suggest they're reliable. They aren't notable as website either just the campaign which ended long ago is with them transitioning to a blog just given a passing mention in the wiki article. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty certain there's prior consensus somewhere that they're not reliable. They're just a bunch of fans that did a campaign to support some JRPG releases, that started blogging after they achieved their goal. Sergecross73 msg me 02:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GamingTrend

[edit]

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

My thoughts: Their about has some names, doesn't seem to solit any submissions, and stresses they are not using AI to write stuff. They claim to be "one of the longest running gaming-focused sites on the web". But their editorial controls are unclear. Review I checked seems signed by a real name, but with no bio, ex. [6] --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Last discussed in December 2019 as unreliable where two editors deemed GamingTrend as nothing more than a fansite. Since the last discussion, the site has been updated to include both an About Us and Ethics Guidelines. Additionally, co-Editor in Chief Mike Dunn has previously written for Digital Trends according to his Muck Rack, a site we deem as reliable. Wasn't able to find any other notable links out of the sample of writers I background checked as they have a lot of staff. Curious to see what others say. CaptainGalaxy 20:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted Reviews

[edit]

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

My thoughts: Notable company with a Wikipedia article. Seem to have editorial controls and good practices per claims at about page. Review I checked seems signed by a real name, but with no bio, ex. [7] --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Previously considered reliable by TheJoebro64 in a July 2020 discussion featuring multiple other sources, however, I could find no prior discussion on this source to establish this. I did also find a user on the WP:RS/N that did consider the site trusted alongside other well established sources, once again though, no prior discussion has ever been held for this source. CaptainGalaxy 20:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Board Game Quest

[edit]

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

My thoughts: Their about at [8] has real names, disclaimers, and does not seem to solitic submissions. Review I checked seems signed by a real person, and there even a bio (not very serious, again), but better than nothing: [9] --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


shock2

[edit]

Find video game sources: "shock2" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts: About lists names, but does not discuss their editorial poliocies; they don't solitic content at least. Review I checked seems signed by a real name, but with no bio, ex. [10] --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Times

[edit]

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

Radio Times covers a range of topics, including gaming. They also have an about page. This is my first request of this kind, so I'm not very experienced in judging its reliability. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

haha my comment got deleted when the title got added. I believe this one to be a totally okay source per the Radio Times (long running BBC related magazine in the UK). I've used them a few times for album reviews. They are also already used in various featured articles like David Bowie, The Simpsons and other assorted media articles. They would be good for interviews or reviews of content. I don't know if I'd bank on them as experts to like, give more historical details on stuff, but I don't think they'd approach that kind of material either. I'm presuming this is mostly for content like the above mentioned reviews, release, and other technical details? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I want to use it for general coverage of games, releases, or reviews. I've used this source before, but I only noticed today that it isn't listed yet. It seems I had mistaken it for something else. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've used it in music articles in the past without issue. Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I doubt they would have anything beyond reviews, but that's still solid. It's also a useful site as I feel they have *knock on wood* kept most of their older material online, which is grand for writing about older material. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's probably fine, at least for things related to video games and music. If it has been used in several featured articles which go through a rigorous vetting and improvement process, then I think it must be reliable. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Based on everyone's answers, I assume the source is suitable to add to the reliable list? I would probably add it to Games industry-related/academic/other then. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No problems using this. Seems reliable. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable per others. They are a strong reliable source for entertainment with good standards and authors. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Gameliner.nl to reliable gaming resources

[edit]

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)[reply]

Further context here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to login appearantly RudyWijnberg (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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 [11] can be found here (with editor Claudia Tjia) RudyWijnberg (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts: I cannot locate editorial policy outside information about recruitment, which itself is fine [12] 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 [13]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 [14], two sample bios I checked are empty [15], [16], 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)[reply]

Collider

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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,
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Cinema Blend

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

NookGaming

[edit]

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

What is the reliability of NookGaming? Its a site that has a focus on Japanese-centric games, I've seen it used in some articles This search says about 38, but it does not appear to be covered here. +2 here. It's used in relatively high-traffic articles like Umamusume: Pretty Derby.

  • Their editorial policy here.
  • Their "Join Us" page says: "We do have a strict application process that assesses the quality of work and we would expect a strong familiarity with any areas that you would want to write about. That said, whether you have written for several websites in the past or even if you have no more experience than writing a few reviews on Steam, you are welcome to apply." and "there is no payment for any positions, which is the case with most small to medium websites. We generate a small amount of revenue to pay for hosting costs and other related costs, but this all goes back into the website."

While they do seem to have interesting content, specifically some interviews (here and here) or overviews of material, I'm not sure if their editorial policy with unpaid writers is applicable. On looking at through the "Find Sources" above, they don't appear to be used by others or anything either. While I'd love to give something niche and independent support, I'm going to presume its not permissible. Thoughts?Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest they're reasonably reliable for their niche even if I'd use a more mainstream source if one was available. Admittedly, I would've thought there'd be better sources for Umamusume: Pretty Derby since that is so well-known now.
I’m generally familiar with them as they often pop up for visual novel coverage when not many others do, but when I was working on the visual novel articles I looked into their background before deciding to use them. It’s a good sign that they’re linked by places like Ars Technica, Engadget, and Digitally Downloaded, all explicitly listed reliable sources, so I feel they're good enough for non-controversial uses. They also have a clear editorial policy and a listed Head Editor. They are an approved outlet on OpenCritic, which usually implies at least a certain level of professional standard and editorial oversight even if it's not a pass by itself. The fact that they’ve presented at a VN conference suggests they actually have some expertise in the field that's respected by the industry. Those factors especially being linked by at least three reliable sources at least somewhat offsets the fact that their staff doesn't also work for existing reliable sources. Having been judged to be reliable enough to report accurately enough to be granted an interview with some big names in the Japanese gaming industry doesn't hurt either. Also, I’ve mentioned this with other independent sites on occasion, but I haven't ever found any policy stating a source has to be a commercial operation to be reliable, even if some editors tend to use it as an argument again the reliability of a source.
They specialize in visual novels and obscure titles which don't get covered on most websites, so I sometimes go to them for niche stuff like that. Their news posts usually link back to the original source, which gives me some confidence there. They mostly write reviews so they'd mostly be a source of opinion anyway.
In short, while they don't have all of the green flags, they have quite a few and I've not found any problems in their accuracy as I have with some other sites in the niche, so I feel they're good enough for some basic use within their niche, especially just as a source of opinion.
That said I'm guessing the question came up because of the interview I mentioned for the visual novel article rewrite? Either way, I would have thought that usage should be fine under WP:Interviews depending on how you use it since the policy allows interviews to be used as primary sources as long as it's about themselves and that's about them and the company they're a CEO of. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for chiming in Darkeru! I did find them in regards to the interview you shared with me, but also a few other articles I looked at or stumbled upon. Agreed for Umamusume: Pretty Derby article which (i haven't researched at all), but probably could find a better source for whatever its stating. I'm a bit back and forth on what we could use this site for. I'm not too familiar with WP:Interviews. What part of it are you specifically applying them makes them acceptable? (Also, I did find some other content for the AI part of the VN re-write, was going to ping you but haven't had time to really focus on it specifically). As for reliable on their niche, I don't know. They seem to be happy to take anyone with no pay and just presume you know what you are talking about. I know we'd like to apply it for some more difficult to research topics, but even the sites you mention don't seem to cite this website by name which kind of makes me feel a bit on the fence still. :/Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On WP:Interview, I'd read it as a fairly low bar to pass in this instance, as long as it's being used as a primary source about the person or their company. It states "as long as we can be reasonably certain that the material was written by them, then the Wikipedia policy on primary sources applies" and "While primary-source material from interviews is treated the same as other primary-source materials, it is necessary to verify that the comments attributed to the interviewee were actually made by them". We're looking at a website which is on OpenCritic and appears to have been getting early game codes including from the connected publisher to some of those interviews. On the Ono Wasabi one, you have to scroll back ages since it's not a quote retweet but the publisher retweeted it. The creator of Disgaea tweeted about their interview with him so no doubt that happened. It's a minor connection but a little digging shows another connection with them mentioned on a Disgaea 7 press release so them interviewing the creator of Disgaea seems further supported. I'd argue there's little room for doubt the interviews happened.
I would again say that I've never seen a policy that connects a source's reliability to its payment structure. On top of that, through a lot of source checking in the past, I can tell you many websites don't state either way whether they do pay, including some on the reliable list. If anything, I think the focus should be on a lack of noted issues in facts published and on their vetting process, which specifically looks for quality and area knowledge. The reality is that many writers at established sites don't have specific credentials or relevant career experience, with some who are still university students or never attended. If you check the hiring for even very reputable sources like Polygon, EuroGamer, or Aftermath for example, they're mostly looking for strong writing, SEO skills, and subject-matter passion. Experience is asked for in some but not all cases, but it seems they'll take anyone who they assess as having the skills even at professional websites with plenty of reputation and experience.
On citing by name, the Digitally Downloaded source does. The others don't, but one example links them as a source for a fact (on cut content), one for fact and opinion (weight and similarity), and the other for opinion (described as one of the "prominent people from independent game publications"). I'd suggest even if they're not mentioning them by name as if it were an academic source, linking them as the source of those facts they have published as true without further comment shows a level of trust in the reliability of the original source, as it's one of the aspects mentioned in WP:Reliable sources. I wouldn't weigh it against Polygon or Eurogamer where use as a source is much more widespread, but I think it's reasonable for items such as interviews or non-controversial uses such as opinion in absence of other sources. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rolimon's

[edit]

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

This is one of the most popular fan sites associated with Roblox, and with how Roblox coverage on Wikipedia keeps growing (multiple games getting their own articles and the expanding List of Roblox games, for instance) and this source has been cited on multiple occasions in its associated articles, I think this source should be vetted here (as unreliable).

To summarize this briefly, Rolimon's is a fan-operated site that mainly exists for other users to look up data on Roblox players and games. To that degree, it takes all of its data from the Roblox site, but it also generates multiple other statistics based on that data as mere estimations. Per the about page [17], it was founded by one user, and operated by moderators hired via a Discord server, which also operate a news/articles section of site. It has no editorial policy, staff experience, oversight, or anything going for it besides merely being a fan site operated by, once-again, arbitrarily hired staff. It has no qualities that we look for in a a reliable source, let alone one for video games.

I think it's obvious that this site should be labeled as unreliable, and I honestly feel silly even bringing it here, but having it here would make it easier to state that it's unreliable and shouldn't be used in articles regarding Roblox, or on articles for people that play Roblox (since a user look-up function that exists which can, in a sense, be used as a stalking tool). λ NegativeMP1 00:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, I have gone ahead and added it to the list of unreliable sources. RedShellMomentum 00:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
NegativeMP1, RedShellMomentum there is a duplicate discussion occurring at WP:RSN#Rolimon's. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like that discussion started after this one, but it might get more attention. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable, for all the reasons listed above. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

American City Business Journals

[edit]

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. [18], [19], [20]

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

What was the outcome of the RSN talks? Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_485#BizJournals. Timur9008 (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sportskeeda revisit

[edit]

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)[reply]

From August 2024: [21]
From June 2025: [22]
I think that we should look a bit deeper in their articles. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to that either. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at their description of a game I know ([23]), and it looks to me AI generated (and not even a review with opinion, just a description). Now, their "news" articles like [24] 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 ([25]) 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 ([26]). 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So this is to say RS/N isn't the ultimate authority on any one source? 11WB (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is exactly what I thought. Hopefully this clears up your concern, @NegativeMP1! 11WB (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
At the moment, the new consensus would be no consensus, as there are split opinions currently. 11WB (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Polish sources - part 1 (magazines)

[edit]

I was curious what sources are listed on interwikid pl wiki equivalents of WP:VG/S and Template:Video game reviews. Here are the inconsistencies (basically, sources recognized as reliable on pl wiki but not yet listed here). For the record, many sources from other countries are not very well covered here (ex. Play (Chinese magazine) is only mentioned in a rather unclear way in our entry on Ultra Console Game - someone interested in Chinese media may want to take a look). Anyway, first batch are magazines - these should be pretty run-off-the-mill reliable, as most magazines are (large publishers, editorial boards and standards, etc.). PS. I should also clarify that all of these are defunct now, only one had a website. If you want to see archival issues, some are in IA, others at a Polish fan site [27]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Play (Polish magazine 2000-2012)

[edit]

Find video game sources: "Play" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo My thoughts: pl:Play (czasopismo). Webstite is now defunt. Not to be confused with several others mentioned at Play#Literature_and_publications (we recognize UK and US as reliable, although there is no connection by title). Pretty standard video game magazine, published by a major Polish publisher (Polish branch of Ringier Axel Springer Media AG), had editorial boards, named authors, the usual. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Playbox

[edit]

Find video game sources: "Playbox" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk My thoughts: A Polish magazine that existed only for about a year, on pl wiki just a redirect to CD-Action. Nonetheless, despite being rather ephemeral, it is likely RS, as it was formed by CD-Action editors/writers, and CD-Action is a RS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bajtek

[edit]

Find video game sources: "Bajtek" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk My thoughts: One of first if not the first Polish magazines about computers, existed for over 10 years, editorial board, publisher (pl:Spółdzielnia „Bajtek”, same as publisher of Top Secret (magazine) which we recognize as a RS - TS was the VG spin-off from Bajtek. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tajemnice ATARI

[edit]

Find video game sources: "Tajemnice ATARI" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk My thoughts: pl:Tajemnice ATARI. Just ~3 years of history, but other than that, the usual magazine. Published by the LK Avalon studio/developer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oficjalny Polski PlayStation Magazyn

[edit]

Find video game sources: "Oficjalny Polski PlayStation Magazyn" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk My thoughts: I am not sure what was its relation to RS sources we list such as PlayStation Official Magazine – UK and the Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine, but I assume they couldn't call themselves official without vetting from Sony or such, which likely means they are reliable by association. The publisher was Computer Graphics Studio, a Polish book publishing company. 4 years of history, replaced by the "Oficjalny Polski PlayStation 2 Magazyn" (same publisher).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[edit]

Gaming Cypher

[edit]

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)[reply]

No editorial policies is a big strike against. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They may still respond to my email. 11WB (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Twisted Voxel

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

BrowserGames.de

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

TheGameHaus

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

148Apps

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

GamerGen

[edit]

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)[reply]

Coming Soon Magazine! (late 90s zine?)

[edit]

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)[reply]

PC Joker (German magazine)

[edit]

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)[reply]

[29] – "Impressum" means "masthead". "mz" is Markus Ziegler. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
As far as I can tell, it's a mainstream magazine with a good reputation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PSX Brasil

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Mothershipg

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 [30]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Twinfinite (again)

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

esports.gg

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

SteamDB

[edit]

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)[reply]

See the most recent discussion on it here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources&oldid=1338352672"