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

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

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

Valnet and the "notability" issue

I feel we need to address the "Valnet cannot count for notability" issue. Discussing it with several editors since my return, the commonly accepted statement is that, despite how its worded, it only applies to "churnalism", pre-packaged media clearly put out for the sake of having something, and articles that echo reddit. However I wish to argue that honestly many websites we cite daily are particularly guilty of that, be it IGN, GamesRadar or similar. In fact this sort of media is not limited to just the English language, and several outlets are far more guilty of the "let's just do the press release" style churnalism articles.

But another problem arises where that statement is being taken at purely face value: that these sources are considered, wholesale, unusable for citation for notability, regardless of the content. This has been an argument frequently brought up, and while one could rationalize only certain persistent users may see it this way, the fact that the writing is as it is there leads it to a debate frequently occurring. And to be frank if someone's going to suggest an editorial piece where the subject is discussed heavily throughout is somehow less usable than an old 1UP.com article that has its tongue so firm in cheek it may be impaling it all because of what WP:VG/S says, I'm going to look at them funny.

So with that said, I propose two changes to that guideline regarding Valnet:

• For the purposes of notability, treat all sites under the umbrella as one source. This way we can't have articles pop up because The Gamer, Game Rant and ScreenRant all covered it to some degree. How tightly to define that hydra may be up for discussion as websites such as Hardcore Gamer got bought by them later, but also consideration how editorial content may fit into this too.
• Refine the notability statement to make it clear only stronger instances of WP:SIGCOV should be used in this case, encouraging editors to make sure there is some meat on the statement they're citing.

I feel these two guideline changes for Valnet will not only help overall sanity, but encourage editors to be more careful with the sources they use for articles with less frustration during the article creation process. Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I had a similar sentiment recently. You find a single year that IGN existed, and you'll find very low-quality sourcing. For example, this article "about" Delibird is just a joke article, completely unusable for anything. You can find churnalsm on IGN, Polygon, and many other sites we do not recognize as having issues. Sure, you might want to argue that Game Rant and The Gamer should be used with caution, but there's nothing about these sites - barring possible editorial issues behind the scenes if any are found - that would suggest to me we should ignore quality articles that, if published on IGN, would be no issue. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the broader point that we need a guideline that can discern between types of journalism, and not just singling out a specific source. There are sources that are marked as situational (and even unreliable) that sometimes produce good content. There are sources marked as reliable that produce churnalism. I realize a lot of us have enough common sense to see the difference between a high quality editorial "best of" list, versus a clickbait "ten game hats we wish were merch". But Wikipedia works best when you document best practices and common sense, so it's clear to newer / outside editors. Let's see how other editors feel and then we can make more concrete proposals for WP:CONSENSUS. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Without specific comment on the wider issue, just thought this might be relevant as a note about the general standards of the writers and editing staff.

Dualshockers (Considered unreliable prior to 2022, now situational), a Valnet website, is in a little controversy today. It published a review referring to a game as having "had a bit of the Sweet Baby Inc. treatment in spots", seemingly using the whole culture war angle.

They then edited it out the review after people called it out without note and disabled comments only on that article.

https://x.com/jasonschreier/status/1851031448993587232?t=llh4CZxmxzDZDapSZ-6IIA&s=19 DarkeruTomoe (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This is extremely disappointing, and that alone honestly makes me question the standards of Dualshockers. λ NegativeMP1 23:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, could be time to revisit that one. If I recall right it was a pretty weak upgrade up situational anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to such an action, yet I feel like it'd be prudent to make sure whether there is a pattern of similar behavior. I doubt one can point to a site that hasn't had a pretty bad editorial blunder; for instance, GameSpot punishing employees for criticizing sponsored games. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Also very true. Sergecross73 msg me 01:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I'd definitely be cautious but not rush in to nuke. Let's watch for a track record and see if it's a recurring issue.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Would appreciate more feedback on this matter, as I feel just three editors bringing up an issue with this isn't going to do anything in the long run but get archive and forgotten the next time this matter comes up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't really commented because, honestly, my personal stance is closer to saying "Valnet shouldn't be used at all" than trying to qualify their use further. But I also understand that, if we're too harsh, its going to be difficult to find sources, difficult to enforce anything, etc. So I'm a bit torn. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That's honestly the situation things feel like they're in now, where if you look up anything they tend to be the broadest sources on a subject, and sometimes best sources covering a subject. With a large part of the internet steadily dying or getting consolidated we're having fewer and fewer areas to pull from for discussion.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• If people are going to start questioning the fairness of the policy, I'm in the camp of banning all Valnet sources entirely. Better that then allow a usually lackluster source to be used. They are essentially a plague on notability due to their total lack of discernment for SEO content. Almost none of my articles are predicated on Valnet anyway, due to the pre-existing notability rules. I also wouldn't mind putting a disclaimer for early IGN articles given some of them are pretty low quality. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel the VG space tends to throw the baby out with the bathwater when we talk about sources in a black-and-white manner like this. Yes, Valnet sites put out a lot of low-quality social media reposts and press release reprints, that we shouldn't count for notability (or, frankly, shouldn't even be using, given the clear lack of editorial content). At the same time, I think they put out reviews with legitimate editorial content, and I see no problem with including Valnet reviews as sources. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: I think Shooterwalker put it best above: I agree with the broader point that we need a guideline that can discern between types of journalism, and not just singling out a specific source. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the reason the guideline is source-based is because people can have a hard time arguing "what exactly is a poorly-written source" besides the "I know it when I see it" test. You will inevitably have someone arguing that actually, it should be admissible. Singling out things like banning all listicles is also a baby-with-the-bathwater scenario. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a whole other problem Zx. The definition of Listicles seems to vary from user to user, where a statement that takes up two paragraphs and discusses aspects of a subject is treated with the same weight as one that is two sentences and says nothing, all because they happen to be list formatted. That alone flies into the fundamentals of WP:SIGCOV.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

To break away for a bit as a thought exercise, here's some comparison: why should this article be considered unusable but this one not based solely on their sourcing? What makes this a poor quality source but this more or less press release is high quality sourcing? Even in terms of some of the lists, there's actual tangible statements that can be taken and offer unique views. So as A412 put it above: why are we throwing the baby out with the bath water based off where it's coming from, when the things we're holding against the sites are done by most reliable sources on our list?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Of those four articles, my opinion is that

1 is an extended opinion piece of little value.

2 is at least a "news" piece, but at 4 paragraphs, is too short to be considered "significant" coverage.

3 is another extended opinion piece of little value.

4 is based on a press release so unusable.

Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to some guidance on the low-quality sources that we shouldn't accept from any publisher: listicles, press releases, press release rewrites, interviews, trivial/short content, mostly opinion pieces, jokes/shit-posting, and probably more. Yes, plenty of publishers run this kind of content, but they also run other stuff.

Like Sergecross73, I'm in the "don't use Valnet at all" camp, only because I can't remember coming across an article from them that I'd consider good. By that, I mean in-depth, informative, not primarily based on opinion, etc. Woodroar (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say opinion pieces are worthless. There are several subjects where they are remarkably helpful, such as the video game characters space, which the above two opinion pieces are primarily discussing with their subjects. In the video game characters space, reception is oftentimes based on how independent coverage tends to analyze or discuss a character, and opinion is often a good way of showing that discussion. Some of these opinion pieces are also coverage of a given subject as a whole, for example, video games, such as in this case. That coverage is viable for use in cases where opinion on something is needed, such as in showing reception for a video game or television shows. I obviously can't speak for every opinion piece's usability, but to rule them out entirely I feel is a bit dismissive of their value. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the assessment of opinion pieces being of little use. The backbone of establishing notability in the video games space is opinion pieces. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about this before, but I suppose I consider reviews to be different from opinion pieces—when they're not, really. So yes, I think reviews are fine, and when long enough, should count towards notability. When I say "opinion pieces", I mean articles like "Pokémon X is cooler than Pokémon Y". I tend to avoid reading character articles because I often find them bloated with these kinds of sources, exhaustively documenting what every possible writer/publisher thinks about the character. (Are all/many/some character articles still like this? I have no idea. I avoid them!) These kinds of opinion pieces remind me of the "which superhero is stronger?" articles you find in comic book fandom. Everyone has an opinion, but they're not all valuable, and we shouldn't rush out to document them. Just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

But neither are anything like that...one is discussing how designs felt like hit or miss and giving examples and thoughts to that end, while the other is praising how representation of LGBTQ matters was done in a game and giving examples there. What you're describing are powerscaling articles and...I don't think anyone is citing that on wikipedia?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I suppose I could (marginally) support citing these articles along with similar ones in a Reception section, say "Some reviewers criticized the new Pokémon designs.[1][2][3]" or "Some outlets praised the LGBTQ+ representation in Overwatch 2.[1][2][3]"—but only when it's an opinion expressed by multiple outlets.

The issue with Valnet properties is that they pump out so much content. In discussions, I see comments like "Valnet is the only site talking about this"—and that's the problem. Imagine if your local news media wrote about literally everything happening in your town, no matter how trivial. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine what they actually consider important. It would also make me question their capacity to fact-check and edit all of those stories. That's what I see with Valnet. It's also why I don't think they shouldn't be used to evaluate notability. Woodroar (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

While I primarily feel as though Valnet sources tend to be consistently low quality, I do agree that they occasionally have remarkably well-written editorials and opinion pieces that have proper effort put into them. In any case, I do feel as though sources should be judged on a basis on if they provide Wikipedia:SIGCOV or not, with some sort of hard and fast guideline for determining what that cut-off should be. Something like a two paragraph listicle entry from Game Rant is nowhere near equal in terms of quality to a whole editorial by TheGamer, for example.

Additionally, this quality problem isn't something I've seen in just Valnet. I've seen articles from places like IGN and Polygon flip-flop between incredible journalism and "Here's what Twitter said about a niche subject that doesn't really matter." The latter two sources have less problems than Valnet, but the fact a weak listicle from IGN can have more weight than a properly researched Valnet editorial doesn't quite seem right to me. Of course, I do feel if these should count for notability, we need to determine what counts as a proper editorial. There's plenty of cases where I see whole articles from Valnet on subjects that just serve as plot recap that people try to pass off as SIGCOV when they really aren't, and I'm fairly certain this will likely be a recurring issue in places outside of just Valnet if something like this is implemented. I feel this individual assessment of a site's content is valuable instead of just making a sweeping statement about the site's overall quality, but we need to determine exactly what content should be considered valuable for fulfilling that Wikipedia:SIGCOV bar.

I will say, as an aside, that I have seen some Valnet sources produce consistently high-quality content. (Namely TheGamer and Collider, the former of which is classed as reliable post-August 2020 currently and the latter has been a pretty well valued site for decades) Additionally, Hardcore Gamer is considered reliable, but is counted under the Valnet umbrella. If the outcome of this discussion determines Valnet sources are entirely unreliable (Which I am very much against per my reasons outlined above), I would suggest that we at least not do an umbrella sweep, and assess each Valnet property individually, as not all Valnet properties are equal in terms of quality. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I've seen pretty good sourcing from Screen Rant, Comic Book Resources, and Game Rant too. Even DualShockers has managed to produce some actually good editorial opinion pieces. There is a lot of chaff, but there's still a lot of wheat worth citing in there. And in all honesty, what are reviews if not opinion pieces of their own?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

If people are going push the issue, I say we move Valnet to unreliable and be done with it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate With all due respect, but for an admin, that is without a doubt one of the most baffling takes I've seen in a situation in all my years on Wikipedia and a terrible response to a rational discussion. "Well people are questioning why this source gets punished for what all the others do. Scorched earth it is" is an absurdist response. Hands down that reaction would mess up so much of wikipedia alone to the point it really makes me question your judgement. Why would you even respond that way to a calm discussion?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Jumping in here before I go to bed, I genuinely don't know why I am up so late. Regardless, I disagree with notion of going full guns blazing here. Barring sources outright here goes against a lot of the discussion developed here as well as in the past to get the valnet source where they currently. It would affect many articles here and I don't think this sort of rationale is helpful to the topic. We are talking here to widen our options for article coverage, not limit our options with what we can use. CaptainGalaxy 03:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

What an odd thing to say - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I always preferred Valnet sources because they discuss unique varieties of topics that most of the other so-called reliable sources don't. As much as I have observed from the comparison between reliable sources like Eurogamer, IGN, GameSpot etc. They tend to be less informative than valnet sources like The Gamer, Screen Rant, and Game Rant. Well, I'm open to the use of Valnet sources if they contain significant coverage of at least 4 paragraphs well they actually do most of the time. They may contain so much buttery about the topic/subject but can we just ignore that and focus on the provided valuable coverage that is useful and interesting to read for the audience. That is just my subjective opinion and bye 👍. Kazama16 (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Throwing in 2¢ for the heck of it. Clearly churnalism like listicles and regurgitated press releases (whether original text or slightly rewritten) don't really do anything for anybody, either in terms of notability or sourcing facts. Longer-form opinion pieces can have value in reception sections, and somewhat speak to notability; people don't tend to write long-form pieces ahoy non-notable things, but even there there's a limit. Firstly, as opinion pieces shouldn't be used as sources for anything except the writer's own opinions, and facts should be sourced elsewhere, But also anything of that variety on gaming websites has the issue of being in the walled garden of industry-specific sources that only show limited notability, as they're not generalist press. Likewise, just as a genre film or literary magazine review doesn't automatically make a film or novel notable, a standard run-of-the-mill review on a gaming website isn't really of itself a strong indicator of notability, only when taken in conjunction with other coverage. A single-column review of a fantasy film novelization in a magazine dedicated to the fantasy genre doesn't particularly confer notability. Same with a routine review of a game.

Honeslty, the idea that some websites have no value as sources because they sometimes try to grab clicks with listicles and such doesn't entirely sit well with me, as it ignores that other parts of the same site may be perfectly fine op-eds and reviews of the type we already use. Ultimately, the state of the gaming press is pretty dire, with all sources subject to mediocrity. oknazevad (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll give an opinion based on my recent work in trying to revive an Amy Rose article - I think I'm in agreement with where the standard is at now, and here's why. I've seen a lot of low-quality stuff, absolutely, and I disregard pretty much any listicle, but I do the same for IGN and the like. I don't think that its discussion does much for indicating a subject is notable given the articles I've worked with tend to lack depth. That being said, I have found value in the plot summarizing in doing just that - summarizing plots across games and not having to cite a primary source or assume people will just get it from the games themselves. More so, though, some of the opinions are quite useful, just as they would be from journalists of other publications. For instance, in the Amy rewrite in my sandbox there is a full section on Amy's role as a female in video games and how she's essentially been designed stereotypically as a "Ms. Male" type and a damsel-in-distress. This GameRant article, however, is the only one I've found that points out - correctly - that this image is changing and Amy is being depicted with more leadership character as time has gone on, and that she's becoming a better role model. Aren't all game and character receptions pretty much the opinion of a journalist, anyway?

I'm not saying I fully trust Valnet sources, as I've found a lot that makes me wonder if the author has really thought it through or just typed up a plot rehash. But there are some gems in there, some useful things if they're used correctly. I don't like the idea of "let's reject everything because a large part of it is garbage". A lot of it is, but not everything, and a discerning eye can pick out what's useful and has meaning, and what isn't. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• I still think this issue isn't as simple as "Valnet bad, other sources good". Half the problem with Valnet is just the sheer flood of listicles to capitalize on the popularity of whatever people are clicking on. But once you filter that out, there are some good sources. And I would apply the same filter to even our best sources: "Top 7 best weapons in Fortnite" isn't worth a lot, regardless of who publishes it. And I think we'd accomplish a lot more if we finally tackled that issue. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposal

At the very least, the "can't count for notability at all" statement clearly doesn't work. I understand people want to ensure crap lists don't lead to a flood of low quality articles, but again every source does those, especially when some editors agree some of the content should be usable. So a possible alternative may be to suggest that consideration be made for what the source is saying, not just that the source is saying something. Suggest that the notability contribution may need to be more thoroughly argued, and that overreliance on sources from Valnet may undermine notability. I feel these two provisions alone should help give editors more tools and less repetitive arguments, without opening the barn door to low quality articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think it goes deeper than overreliance on sources from Valnet may undermine notability. Woodroar made a good point in that they put out so much that it does make it harder to determine what's notable and what isn't simply from their sources - that's a consequence of "churnalism". I feel more as though a well-written Valnet piece that's actually saying something of worth could potentially supplement notability, and could be a reliable source for certain information, but that on its own a Valnet source doesn't demonstrate notability for that reason. I would be more in line with the idea of "Do not assume a subject is notable simply because it is mentioned in Valnet sources." Red Phoenix ^talk 23:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I can dig that. I would not exclude a particular strong source from WP:THREE in that regard, my thinking was more "don't just grab a ton of brief entry lists and go ham thinking it's strong."--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

On that note, I think the "listicle" issue is a separate problem altogether that really needs a community-determined guideline for the project. Not all listicles are inherently bad, i.e. one from a respected publication comparing the best video game consoles of all time is likely to be a noteworthy opinion. The example above of the 7 best weapons in Fortnite? Obviously not. There are probably many more that are not good than are good, but context matters and it's not entirely all-exclusive. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

On the listicles subject, I will point out that it may be best to not necessarily exclude a list based on its title. I've seen some with great names that saw squat, and others be hyper focused but the author gives some in depth thoughts on some of the entries you don't find elsewhere.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think Red Phoenix is basically right, if we're looking for a quick and agreeable fix. On the bigger issue with "listicles", I'd sum up my thoughts I've shared before.

• General Notability Principles
  • Significant coverage is based on both quality and quantity. (e.g.: without both, you might get verifiability without notability.)
  • An award can offer quality (e.g.: "best game") but not necessarily quantity (e.g.: database style entry).
  • Quantity needs to be more than a WP:TRIVIALMENTION.
• Indicates Qualitative Coverage
  • A ranking of best games indicates notability for a game. (e.g.: "underrated Atari Jaguar games")
  • A ranking of best characters across all games/media indicates notability for a character. (e.g.: "best gaming characters", "best villains in media")
• Does Not Indicate Qualitative Coverage
  • A ranking of elements within a game/series does not indicate that any of the listed elements are notable outside of that series. (e.g.: "best quests in Baldur's Gate", "7 best weapons in Fortnight")
  • A ranking that isn't about the "best" doesn't indicate that any of the listed elements are notable. (e.g.: "hardest levels", "funniest achievements", "most badass anti-heroes")
• Unknown/Situational
  • Other game elements: best weapons, best levels (risks WP:GAMEGUIDE)
  • Other story elements: best cutscenes, best quests (risks WP:PLOT)
  • Rankings across many games, but not all games: best RPG characters, best post-apocalyptic characters, best blonde characters (this is a grey area, and might be unavoidable)

This isn't meant to be authoritative, and is meant to start a discussion. I'm basing this on experience with lots of editors and discussions, but it's still just my experience. It's very hard to get a consensus on these things with all the outlier opinions, but I've found the games WikiProject to be consistent where it counts. Maybe we should do a survey. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I'd be fine with this. Emphasizes what's being said by the sources instead of where it's being said. I have definitely come to see mentioning ranking as usually pointless to even mention over what's being said in the list itself.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

What would the case be with Valnet content that tends to be higher quality? I assume their listicles would fall under the same as above, but their news coverage, reviews, and editorials/opinion pieces tend to be high quality and have a much higher output percentage than other Valnet websites. (I.e, I've seen way more actual journalism from TheGamer from both Rants combined, for example) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Figuring out a blanket baseline approach to Valnet would be best first, and then evaluating if any need to be treated harsher. Right now for example things are a mess; Comic Book Resources is somehow completely unreliable post-Valnet purchase just because...Valnet bought them? Meanwhile, Hardcore Gamer is considered completely reliable despite a similar buyout situation. And from the last discussion nobody is entirely sure why. We get a base going, then we can see what's weaker and what may need special consideration.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I agree with this so far. The details are challenging. I don't think anyone wants to open the floodgates to a lot of bad content, but it would be nice to have guidance on what situations a source can help build a good article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

So with some time to rummage on this, where are we standing on this proposal?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a whole lot of support for it, honestly—and a fair number of reasons why we shouldn't upgrade Valnet sources in the parent section. Maybe we could make it clearer that low-effort content from otherwise reliable sources shouldn't be used, either.

I mean, personally, I'd rather we were much more selective with sources in general. Not just in WPVG but across the project. Woodroar (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you elucidate me of the reasons why? As I've argued, I don't think Valnet sources demonstrate issues that are not present in abundance in more reliable sources, and I can't think of anything for, say, Screen Rant that doesn't immediately rule out IGN and Polygon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I said a lot in the parent section above, but: they're a content mill and push out tons of low-effort, clickbait, SEO targeting junk. Some editors have mentioned that they cover topics that nobody else does, which just seems like a part of their "let's have an article on everything" strategy. That makes it impossible to know what they actually consider important. What hasn't been mentioned is that they're tainted (via CBR) with editor firings and covertly-written AI content. I think we should write off the whole network and be done with it.

Yes, other outlets do publish shitty content, like listicles and joke articles. I'd like to think that most editors would be smart enough not to use them. But if we need to write some guidelines to separate the wheat from the chaff, I'd support that. Woodroar (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Woodroar with all due respect, IGN and the rest of them are all just as much content mills cranking out trash articles alongside the good ones. Go right to IGN's front page right now and you get "Daily deals on ITEM", "Best guide for X thing in GAME", "Top Ten Things in THING" etc etc etc. And both outlets still, on occasion, produce solid articles that are good for citations. But we punish one excessively for the things they both do and it comes across like "If these were published on OTHERRELIABLESOURCE, there wouldn't be an issue".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I won't spend much time defending IGN/Ziff Davis, they're as much a media conglomerate as Valnet. But I don't recall reading stories about editorial interference or pushing editors/writers to produce ridiculous amounts of content from Ziff Davis as I have about Valnet. IGN adds a banner at the top of pages with deals/affiliate content ("If you buy through our links, IGN may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more.") while the Valnet sites include a disclaimer below the story, a small but important distinction. Woodroar (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

[1] While I think affiliate posted above is better than below, below is not at all unusual. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Weird. I don't see any affiliate links on that article, so it's interesting that they have the disclaimer. I don't see it on other pages (without affiliate links). On articles with affiliate links, it does look like they put the disclaimer next to the title: 12. On mobile, it's right underneath the byline and social share buttons, before the full article. That just seems to be the trend; I can't say it's the same way on every article, though. Woodroar (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I think if we are concerned with AI, we could assert that people with editorial history, especially those from before AI articles were a serious concern, can be used to assert notability. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not sure I even understand what exactly the proposal is? Can you sum up what exactly you see there being consensus for? Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That instead of this blanket "it can't count for notability" approach and inconsistent reliability standards we encourage what sorts of articles there could be and help provide discussion/notability regarding a subject, albeit with a caveat that they may be questioned more heavily than other sources. Like nobody's saying "cite Top Ten Facts About This Thing", but if you have an editorial piece covering a subject or even a list going into significant thoughts (i.e. actual SIGCOV) that could be viable to help illustrate notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• I know this discussion is over a month old now, but the whole Valnet situation has been bugging me for a while. I agree that it's time for a change. I like the first bullet point in KFM's proposal. I think we should allow Valnet sites to help establish notability, just like any other reliable source, but with the caveat of something like: "An article shouldn't over-rely on Valnet sources. For example, six Valnet sources (be it Game Rant, Screen Rant, The Gamer, etc.) vs. two non-Valnet sources. If the subject has mostly or entirely only been covered by Valnet sources, it likely shouldn't have an article."

• Responding to MoonJet above, I feel it should be treated as one big source with multiple fonts, instead of encouraging people to use it willy nilly. I still think Valnet, to an extent, shouldn't be used a lot, but for the purposes of considering notability if something viable's been said that should be taken into consideration over the blanket "doesn't count; WP:VG/S said so".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I see this and it's good to see that you're still pushing for this. I think this discussion has stalled because people aren't sure what the next step is, even if there is broad agreement that the source has issues. There are some good ideas in here but we can't do them all at once. It pays to be incremental. Reviewing this discussion, what do you think are the top three ideas? We can look for the one that has the most support and try to work out the language on the guideline page. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get across. If the only real coverage a characters gets is in Valnet sites, then they likely shouldn't have their own article. But if used in moderation (and if they're saying something viable, of course), it should count towards notability. MoonJet (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

HeroesNeverDie.com apparently quietly closed, its articles moved to Polygon main site

Noticed this today, but all the articles from there are now directly on the main Polygon hub. Only the domain is changed between the urls as it were. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Syfy

I'm pretty sure this is reliable, but I wanted a consensus of this source. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Boneless Pizza!:, there seems to have been a discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 105, the main assessment seemed to be that if follows the rules of WP:PRIMARY it should be fine. While there was an issue that "I couldn't find a single author on the website anywhere which does not bode well for the site's reliability. " that was in 2011, so perhaps things have changed with the site since then. I think it depends what you were looking for. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Arcade Express

I didn't find anything about this in the archive, but I figured I'd bring it up. Is Arcade Express a reliable source? I've mostly been using it for reviews of older games. Its a newsletter, and per WP:RS/SPS, per "self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media." That said, it appears to be a newsletter from Electronic Games magazine as a way to publish news faster than their magazine publication ("There is a vast amount of information crossing our desks everyday at Electronic Games magazine. Arcade Express will rush this information to you revery two weeks, to help you keep aware of what's happening in our favourite hobby." (see: [2]))

I've seen it cited in book such as Before the Crash (published by Wayne State University, here) Both The Minds Behind the Games and Ken Horowitz's The Sega Arcade Revolution (published by McFarland) here and here). I'm mostly interested in using it for reviews of individual games, as I've done with Pitfall! and Alien. Where do we stand with material like this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Rice Digital

The former editor seems to be the same person who worked before at Nintendo Life (a reliable source). The current writer has had experience at other outlets, a mix of situational, unreliable and inconclusive ones. I personally have liked this site's material and view it positively. Sceeegt (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I have concerns. I'd probably consider this site unreliable until I knew more. Without a masthead and editorial policies, it's tough to say a lot about their editorial structure. Isaac Todd seems to be the only person writing anything. Is he also the editor? That makes me wonder if it's effectively a SPS. Some googling says that Rice Digital used to be a retailer. I see that they're affiliated with Funstock, another retailer—or rebranded Rice Digital, maybe? I tend to be suspicious of sites affiliated with retailers, as there's an inherent conflict of interest unless there are strong editorial policies indicating otherwise. (Which there aren't.) I'm also not seeing much use by others. Woodroar (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, while I personally followed and liked their content a few years back, I do believe they also acted as a retailer of sorts. Sergecross73 msg me 01:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hm I do still consider the reasonable editing they have, and there are interviews like this that could make useful sources. Can you give an example where it sounds like a retailer? Sceeegt (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty directly stated they're a retail website on their "About Us" page. And if you go to their main page, one of the main page options is "Store", which leads to a full-fledged retail website. Sergecross73 msg me 02:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I see. The articles themselves though remain very sound, in my opinion. Sceeegt (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I've used Rice Digital from time to time but only the articles written by Pete Davison, who used to work for USgamer and Page 6 (later New Atari User) (P.S. He also wrote for PC Zone and the Official Nintendo Magazine) prior to USgamer. I would say only use the articles written by Pete Davison. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Possibly situational if author credentials can be proven through Muckrack or examples? Trent Cannon has written for multiple publications, as has Lilia Hellal (one of which, GamerJournalist, is apparently under Gamurs' banner?)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding conflict of interest, Geraint Evans is the founder of Rice Digital and Head of Publishing at PQube.

Two of their latest articles on the front page are news about a PQube published game launching. One of their recent features is about the PQube sale. They also recently did a giveaway for a PQube game and another before that for a PQube game. There are also ads, the only one I'm seeing being for PQube games. I cannot see anything in the articles about this conflict.

This has been the case not just recently, but even when Pete Davidson was editor of Rice Digital. He's not held back from posting at least one positive-sounding review of a PQube title with links to Funstock (it's categorized as a review and listed as such on OpenCritic too. Incidentally, almost all other OpenCritic reviews for this title were negative to average). There have also been very positively phrased release announcements like Could Sky Oceans: Wings for Hire be the Skies of Arcadia successor we’ve been waiting for?

This makes me certainly question the reliability of the outlet and potentially of the current and former editors. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Just as a brief follow up to add further how they're tired together, Rice Digital and PQube are both also listed as the same address, 77 Stokes Croft, Bristol, BS1 3RD, United Kingdom DarkeruTomoe (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe that means it should be situational depending on the topic, with anything related to PQube games not recommended to be used as a source. Sceeegt (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, I'd call it unreliable generally due to this.

We're aware it has ties to PQube and Funstock, but only after looking into it for the former. It seems to be overly positive about PQube without disclaimers and covering them more significantly than others. Funstock used to carry games from a variety of publishers like Idea Factory and Rice Digital wrote about their games with links to sell them, so there's a chance they may be overly positive about those too (and incidentally it now carries Evercade stuff primarily, which is where Pete Davidson now works).

This makes me feel that a large part of the website could come into doubt, not just PQube stuff, and makes me doubt Pete Davidson's editorial ethics since he was editor during much of this. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I would label it situational for authors from other reliable sources. I used this example elsewhere, but we know that uncontroversial sources, like GameSpot, have a history of overrating or forcing reviews to rate games more highly if a sponsorship is involved.

My opinion stands the same as always, that applying stricter standards to new sources that older sources would fail is creating more serious issues with how many sites are going offline. We're creating the risk of relying on websites that can be wiped out overnight on a whim. And while that shouldn't be said to mean we should have low standards, I feel like our project has stricter standards than Wikipedia in general.

For instance, where there is no serious concern on the perennial sources page for The Mary Sue, we treat it as situational because it has reblog content. And ultimately, with this situation, I do not think we ought to hold that Rice Digital cannot be used because it has issues present across games journalism. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

While I do agree that The Video Game Project seems to have stricter standard than Wikipedia in general, I can't think of another example of the same issue as this in video game journalism where it's considered a reliable source.

In this case of the Gamespot Kane and Lynch review controversy referenced above (where the review published was in fact honest and the writer got fired, which speaks poorly of the company but not the writer or editor who allowed it to be published), it was reportedly due to advertiser pressure. Other cases have been suspected due to concerns about advertisers or continued review access across the industry.

In this case, their owners are more directly connected, there's ads for the publisher all over, giveaways only of their games, no disclaimers mentioning the connection, no ethical or editorial policy, that they were selling games themselves, and so on. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Good points. Although it is worth remembering the many articles that are not connected to their sister company or the store, and that remain solidly written and could provide vital coverage for certain games, as Cukie Gherkin has noted. I think for this reason it is best to go situational. Sceeegt (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If we go that route, it's worth keeping in mind that it's very difficult to find out what is and isn't connected to the store. Any coverage remains from when they were either a retailer themselves or when Funstock sold anime games, but neither is the case any more. It's also sometimes difficult to know what's connected to PQube without checking carefully or what games might have been sold on Funstock (it wasn't just PQube games).

To give an example, Doki Doki Literature Club, which Pete Davidson covers and refers to as "one of the best visual novels" would come up as Serenity Force initially (but PQube have involvement) and was sold by Funstock, but no longer is. That it was sold by Funstock is only visible via an incomplete Web Archive listing. Under Night In-Birth Exe: Late has a review on Rice Digital too which recommends buying it. Again sold on their own store. An initial look would suggest Arc System Works is the publisher, but it looks like PQube may have specifically sold the physical in EU. And a completely non-PQube title, Vampire: The Masquerade, was sold on Funstock and essentially advertised on Rice Digital through this article about it.

Personally though, I'd think if we're finding ethical issues along these lines, it removes trust from the entire site and those who wrote the content. Someone willing to wrote a positive review or positively phrased press release as a news/opinion article and not disclose the financial benefit from doing so perhaps shouldn't be trusted on other topics either. In my opinion, that goes against the Wikipedia requirement for 'a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy' if we can't trust them to be honest DarkeruTomoe (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, I would like to note that while not ideal, they do identify PQube and Funstock as "friends" in most stories I see about related products, such as in the DDLC retrospective. They also normally note the use of affiliate links, which I feel demonstrates an understanding of disclosure. With those combined, I do not particularly believe that the writers' coverage of PQube is so egregious as to necessitate throwing the baby out with the bathwater. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this. Sceeegt (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree with Kung-Fu Man and Sceeegt, Rice Digital should be a situational source but only using articles by journalists who worked on other publications prior and avoid anything related to PQube. Roberth Martinez (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not feeling great about using them. The best I can rationalize is maybe treating them as a situational source in line with WP:PRIMARY. Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Tech-Gaming

https://www.tech-gaming.com/ It looks like most posts lately are from one person who has been writing for it since 2007, though I have seen other editors for example in this review. The reviews are quite well detailed, but I haven't been able to find more details myself about the authors so... Sceeegt (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Robert Allen is the editor and writes almost everything. Per his bio, he teaches at a couple of colleges, but there's no mention of what he teaches, or his own education or experience. I don't see any use by others. Ultimately, it's a tiny, self-published gaming site, which are a dime a dozen. If reliable sources haven't paid attention to it, we probably shouldn't either. Woodroar (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting the site has had interviews with a number of figures from the industry. Sceeegt (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you'll find that most sites are able to get some interviews if they try. I mean, it's basically free content for them, right? Personally, I wouldn't trust an interview on a self-published site by a presumed non-expert with no use by others. We don't know how much or little it was fact checked, for example. It's about as useful to us as talking points on a press release. Woodroar (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I would think that a site would need to be at least slightly notable to get interviews along with the company trusting them to report accurately what was said, at least with non-indie figures. The President of Nippon Ichi isn't likely to give his time to 'Gaming Blog #2024'. That is a different thing from being reliable of course, but I don't think most sites could do it when it'd require getting their time (and likely translators and HR/PR people to supervise) for a single published article, while press releases will be sent out to thousands of people.

In terms of Use By Others, it is important. Though I do feel it's hard to fairly judge in the gaming area recently, with big businesses buying up multiple sites and getting them to all link to each other within their own network to boost their traffic.

(This isn't in support of Tech-Gaming's reliability necessarily, but just about the points against it) DarkeruTomoe (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

NoobFeed

https://www.noobfeed.com/ seems to have a number of different editors and many reviews. I can't say I've seen anything off about their reviews so far. Sceeegt (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd call this unreliable without a question. No masthead, no editorial policies. The admin, senior editor, another editor, yet another editor, all appear to be pseudonymous. They don't give any details about journalistic training or experience. They're open to sponsorships/guest posts and press release but I wasn't able to find any, which suggests they don't label them. They also have hidden spammy SEO links to casinos. Woodroar (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Good find, definitely not suitable for Wikipedia. Sceeegt (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I also say unreliable on the same grounds. Sergecross73 msg me 02:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Foreign publication M!

This is a German language publication active since 1993, then called MANiAC and now M! Games (but still on www.maniac.de). It has an article on the German Wikipedia. I believe this magazine should be added as a reliable non-English source in the list. --Sceeegt (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, most print magazines are generally seen as reliable by default. Sergecross73 msg me 02:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, and it's also been a great source for some 90s games I improved here thanks to the Internet Archive. Sceeegt (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I've used it in the past too, in some of my projects tied to old Sega and Nintendo games. By all means, feel free to suggest adding old magazines like this, as they can certainly be added to the list, but you're unlikely to receive push back on using old print mags whether they're listed here or not. Sergecross73 msg me 03:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It'd still be best to have it in the list due to the non-print newer content published on their website and how people here likely don't know about this magazine especially as it doesn't have a page on English Wikipedia. Sceeegt (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm just saying, don't let its absence on the list make you hesitate to use it (or others similar to it) in the meantime. Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, though I wonder who controls the list and who approves new entries? Sceeegt (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The usual WP:CONSENSUS building process applies to this too. Technically, anyone can edit it, though it's watched by many, so people get their changes undone if they try to make contentious additions without or against consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 00:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

In that case I propose this publication to be added to the reliable list, if there is consensus. Sceeegt (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Spanish language 3Djuegos

Anyone who knows Spanish, could you check over 3Djuegos.com? From what I can see, it has numerous authors and the articles and reviews seem reasonably detailed. FYI it has an article on Spanish Wikipedia. --Sceeegt (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

They're also a Webedia publication. Here's the authors and contributors page. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess that means it's positive? If it is considered a good source, I am proposing it to be added to the list of non-English reliable sources. Sceeegt (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Action Figure Insider

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

Ran across this while cleaning up a video game character article, and while it does seem to have some credential as possibly a secondary source for merchandise/promotional items, the about feels a bit dodgy. The founder has been cited by other outlets, but that doesn't give a real indication of editorial standards either. I'm leaning unreliable, but wanting to be safe than sorry. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

French language Nintendo-Master

Anyone who knows French can you check over https://www.nintendo-master.com and see if it may qualify as a reliable non-English language source? The website has been sourced on articles on the French Wikipedia which could be a positive indication that it is good. Sceeegt (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Sceeegt, Ça tombe bien! Je parle français.

From what I see, this seems to be a public blog where anyone can write articles without editorial oversight (no policy in sight). I'm going to say unreliable on this one. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{【=◈︿◈=】} 20:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking Sceeegt (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

GameChamp, PC Champ and Net Power Zine

These three are defunct Korean video game magazines easily accessible through this official archive website. To briefly go through their history:

• GameChamp – Ran from December 1992 to December 2000. It was published by Jeumedia (their history page mentions this), and changed its name to Game Power around 1998. It largely focused on foreign console and arcade games, so it is useful when one wants to find release dates in South Korea for those.
• PC Champ – August 1995 to March 2005, also published by Jeumedia. It changed its name to PC Power Zine in 1999. As the title implies, it exclusively covers the PC gaming; this has a much bigger focus on coverage of South Korean gaming culture due to their developers mostly creating video games for computers.
• Net Power Zine – October 1999 to August 2006, a spin-off magazine to Jeumedia's PC Power Zine. Its coverage is limited to online gaming, which was in vogue there late nineties and 2000s.

These are print magazines that had decent prestige during their run, some of its authors still working in the industry. I'd like to suggest adding this to the reliable list. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Fandom Pulse

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

Yet another John F. Trent website (guy behind Bounding Into Comics and That Park Place), and has the same hallmarks as those unreliable sources. Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

So I'm going to ignore their bias for a moment, because "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" and we shouldn't dismiss a source based on their bias (which is made very clear, even just from the titles on the home page).

- Can't find any use by others by reliable sources.

- I don't believe the authors write for anywhere reliable.

- No editorial policy.

- Most articles uncredited.

- Brian Niemeier (a published author) did write one article for them, but no-one else I can see has any notable achievements or qualifications mentioned beyond having a reasonably sized Youtube channel.

- They're not even on their own domain, but substack.

Between all those, I think it's a safe unreliable.

As an aside, rather interestingly, it went from <200 backlinks to 27,000 backlinks over the course of a few days (and now more) which makes me wonder if they're paying for links. Not exactly an uncommon practice in black hat SEO but one to look out for since part of the evaluation is who links to them. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Rodrigo Copetti

This source has been brought to my attention at Talk:Nintendo DSi#Cpu & Memory revision. It has been mentioned at @RickyCourtney's Game Boy GA nom. A couple of articles like Super Nintendo Entertainment System and Nintendo 64 mentions it. What makes this a reliable source? « Ryūkotsusei » 22:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely unreliable. It's wonderful he's compiled such information, even including where he sourced it from... which is unfortunately from a great deal of homebrew and fan wikis/forums and related sites. -- ferret (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

As I see it, his articles are well researched, include sources, are written in accessible language, he sends his pre-published versions out for public comment/criticism on Reddit and other forums before posting, he is open to correcting his errors and publishes a log of all changes he makes to his articles. This is beyond the gold standard we expect from any newspaper or magazine article. It's honestly beyond the standard of a lot of books published recently. RickyCourtney (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is one needs to consider the sources he's citing from; it's one thing if he's being cited for his opinion as an expert on the subject, but he's being cited for facts and he's citing those facts himself to unreliable sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

And he is not an established expert in the field. He began the site in 2019 when he entered university, per his own website. So at best he has graduated since then, and this is a compendium of fan/hobbyish information taken from obviously WP:USERG and unreliable sources, including a collaborative effort on a Discord server (per noted changelog). Is it probably accurate? Yeah, probably. Fans are meticulous and fan wikis are often accurate, after all. But they are unreliable for our purposes. -- ferret (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

This is Rodrigo Copetti. I would have appreciated being contacted before speculation started about my persona (I only share minimal personal details about my life, and instead focus on my writings).

Just a few comments I’d like to clarify:

- I started my website in 2019 but I’ve been an engineer five years before. My whole career has focused on combining computer architecture knowledge with high-level applications.

- I don’t rely on information from ‘fan/hobbyish’, the majority of my background research was spent confirming or filling the gaps with experts (homebrew developers, security researchers and other engineers) and technical books. Many of this information took years to gather, and some of which there are only conversations recorded. It’s only then that I cite the correct source, so other people can find more information. This is apart from the corrections people can send me.

- Whether I am a ‘non-established expert in the field’, writing 24 articles about hardware architecture over six years hasn’t come for free. I’m not clueless in the field and spent a lot of time and effort dissecting misinformation out. I invite anyone to read just one article to see that effort.

- I’d appreciate it if I were not referred to as ‘at best he has graduated since then’ when no effort has been made to contact me.

Whether this community wants to consider my site ‘reliable’ or ‘unreliable’ as per Wikipedia’s definitions, that’s up to you and I won’t intrude. But I feel obliged to comment when I see misinformation spreading about me, especially in a place where I contributed as well. This is a public discussion after all.

Having said that, anyone is free to contact me if they need more information about the site, author or any of the articles. Flipacholas (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It's nothing personal - we wouldn't reach out to IGN or Gamespot before we discuss their use either. And additionally, one of this biggest issues is simply your format. Wikipedia prefers professional publications with things like editorial staff and editorial policy, not self-publishing to the internet. Sergecross73 msg me 12:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm not here to intervene in your review process. I saw unresearched speculation and misinformation about my personal life and wanted to clarify things. Unlike IGN or Gamespot, you're talking to an individual right now. Flipacholas (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You saw comments made in response to the data you yourself put on your webpage, nothing more. This is routine in how we discuss and look at self-published sources, while looking for evidence of reliability. Regardless, this only solidifies my personal position of unreliable for our purposes, as it addressed none of the actual concerns against our guidelines. -- ferret (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Right, we're talking about an individual, and that's the primary reason why you wouldn't be considered a usable source on Wikipedia. You're an individual posting unrestricted directly to the internet without any sort of editorial policy or team. Fan/hobbyist/enthusiast etc are simply the sort of terms we use for classifying output not done through professional publications. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Where I take issue with our policy on self-published sources is that we don't apply nearly the same level of scrutiny to books. If the same information were presented in a older book from a niche publisher (who may not have much of an editorial staff or policy), I highly doubt editors would question it, especially if it was a difficult book to access (as books from niche publishers often are). But that's more of my issue with Wikipedia's policies on a global basis. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but this page can't really address issues in the core policy as noted. But we (community in general) do frequently reject sources from small niche publishers, and known publishing houses that essentially act as a front to self-publish ebooks. -- ferret (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The other issue is, what is this being used to source? Extremely technical details that no other reliable sources are giving any notice or detail towards. Over recent years, these excessive technical details have been removed from most console articles, and if they had a "technical specifications" article that had been split off, it was merged or simply redirected. The issue in all cases is that there is no DUEWEIGHT from reliable sources to include such. -- ferret (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable per ferret. Sergecross73 msg me 01:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)