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


Mothership.blog

[edit source]

We need to have a consensus about this if it's reliable or not [1]. Some editors said that the website has a strong editorial policy and experienced writers on board. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very strong editorial policy with experienced writers that have been contributing to reliable sources since more than a decade ago. The quality of the articles has also been quite high thus far. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Similar to Aftermath (website) & other journalist-owned independent publications (ie. created by experienced but laid off games writers, etc). Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, similar to the Aftermath case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:27, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, and comparisons to other independent-owned journalism. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable - while I am unfamiliar with most of the writers (except maybe Ashley Schofield, for example) so I can't say much about them in that regard, their editorial policy gives me a lot of confidence in them. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 14:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable per rationales made by nom, Cukie and Sariel. CaptainGalaxy 00:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GameWhims

[edit source]

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

I was looking for an english game review for Trickcal: Chibi Go and I found this this. they seems to have a decent editorial policy and has a clear editorial team with this guy being the chief editor. Is this source reliable? Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks unreliable:

+ Editorial policies are fine.

~ Guest contributions are openly invited.

- Relatively new site made in 2025.

- Four-person team with one editor is a very small operation with limited oversight.

- Lead editor, Daniel Nashrell, has limited journalism experience and mostly roles in marketing, branding and SEO.

- Other writers lack any sort of experience relating to games journalism for WP:VG/S sources. Peter Glitch is identified as a "freelance writer", but does not turn up anywhere.

- Authors use pseudonyms like Lilac Pixie and Peter Glitch. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Inven

[edit source]

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

I recently had this challenged as a source, but I think it's reasonable. We list its sister Inven Global as reliable. Longstanding publication since 2004, one of, if not the largest gaming publications in Korea. About page and Editorial policy. On the jury for The Game Awards and Gamescom. ~ A412 talk! 15:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually slightly dumbfounded Inven would be challenged as a source, just going to say it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion on Inven was started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 29#Inven.co.kr but nobody ever said anything about it. Reliable per the logic of the nominator at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 22#Inven Global. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 02:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Destructoid

[edit source]

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

Destructoid is a situational site that hasn't been assessed in a decade. Formerly unanimously assessed as reliable in 2016 ([2]), the site was downgraded in 2017 when staff writers were pointed out to platform what people saw as blog-style informal and trivial content amidst news and reviews ([3]). Well, the good news is that discussion offender Jed Whitaker hasn't written for the site in ten years ([4]), there don't seem to be many community features left of the site, and feature writing style content is tagged. So I think it's worth another look.

Since 2017, Destructoid was privately acquired, and in 2022 acquired by the GAMURS network which overseas RS Twinfinite, Siliconera, The Mary Sue, Prima Games. Since GAMURS acquisition, the chief editor is Rachael Samples, who formerly was a long-term managing editor of RS Dot Esports ([5]) and has wide journalistic experience ([6]). The site has a published ethics policy committing to disclose conflicts of interest or past associations in author biographies and editorials, and disclosures of partnerships or commercial relationships ([7],[8]). Other than article comments, the site has no real community functions anymore. Whilst the site does not have an obvious staff list and invites private applications for writers, a skim of regular reviewers shows writers are generally experienced and have already written on other GAMURS network RS including Samples herself, Aidan O'Brien (GamePur, The Mary Sue, Dot Esports [9]), Scott Duwe (PC Gamer, MSN, Dot Esports, Gamepur [10]), Andrej Barovic (Dot Esports [11]), Hadley Vincent (ComicBook, Dot Esports [12]), Arka Sakar (Prima Games [13]), Kacee Fay (Dot Esports, Prima Games [14]) and so on. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remain situational, but leaning to reliable I like Destructoid for its opinions, and I mean a lot. Many of their articles are well thought out and honestly a good source of SIGCOV for topics. That said, there are some fringe cases especially in the earlier days of articles that are a bit more questionable, case in point things by James Stephanie Sterling that devolved into essentially rants. I feel it's a good source to use, but like with early Kotaku one should be mindful of what's being said and less focused on the fact something is being said.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more or less of a similar mindset. Not a fan of the hyperbolic content of Sterling or Whitaker, which often feels more like they're trying to be provocative more than informative, and even if they're inactive, their old USERG community content isn't usable...but otherwise I'm generally supportive. Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Sergecross73 and @Kung Fu Man. Does the following reflect an appropriate balance? Articles after the 2022 acquisition of the site by GAMURS are generally reliable. Content before 2022 is situational and articles should be treated with caution where they reflect community contributions as a platform for opinions by staff writers. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say Gamur's acquisition improved it, for example this is a great gameplay analysis from 2017. I'd more argue that when citing, the contents of the articles should be considered. It'd also prevent some of the issues when trying to cite archived Kotaku, where they were still putting pages out good as secondary sources to confirm the existence of products of advertising, despite being deemed "unreliable" here (which undoubtedly comes up during GANs).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Generally reliable. Editors should consider the content of articles when assessing use due to concerns about the unreliability of earlier site content including community contributions and informal opinions from site authors. Happy to continue to iterate; whether in the 'reliable' or 'situational' section, at least it sounds like this is something that can be reassessed as contributing to notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I like that a lot more yeah. I think it's fine on the notability front too, I'll admit I feel like that's a thing that came up out of concerns over churnalism, but over time that got ironed out as standards improved with a lot of websites.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable with caution on select articles per the above discussion. The Destructoid articles I've used in the past haven't raised any concerns from me, so I'm good with considering it generally reliable. –GM 13:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable with a cautionary message regarding content from its earlier years. I haven't had many issues with Destructoid's articles, though perhaps this is because most of the content I've written about has only existed since 2020 at the earliest. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 18:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard § Request to add Bounding into Comics to Edit Filter 869

[edit source]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard § Request to add Bounding into Comics to Edit Filter 869. Z. Patterson (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

HappyGamer

[edit source]

Find video game sources: "HappyGamer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo This one doesn't feel reliable at all. No editorial policy, articles frequently feel weak, no listing of staff either. It is referenced by other websites a few time from what I've seen, but that's almost in the same vein as those sites noticing what someone's said on stuff like social media. Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree patently unreliable, as foreshadowed by the about page: a blogging community for gamers to share news, guides, reviews and latest developments...by gamers like you. No site information or policy available, generic description. With a few exceptions, Muck Rack ([15]) suggests many writers for the site don't turn up anywhere else. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is about as unreliable as you can get, as it is a blog which fails WP:BLOG. However, I would be happy to reconsider on a case by case basis if the author was an expert. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 14:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GameToc and Gameple

[edit source]

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

  • I feel this earlier discussion On GameToc might have been a bit hasty, as the more I've examined the site, the more I've found useful articles from it. Case in point, there's this interview with Blizzard Entertainment, which helped for various articles. They are part of the Korean Game Media Association, and several of their writers have published for other websites such as Moon Won-bin and Seo Dong-gyu. Their articles are posted on news portals such as Daum within Korea. Going further, owner Park Myeong-gi is a veteran journalist with apparently two decades of experience, at a cursory search working for publications such as Ilgan Sports and business newspaper Hankyung. I feel too that the argument of them commenting on press releases is also off, as many media outlets do and does not imply a violation of WP:SPONSORED

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

  • I feel both of these show reliability, but at the worst case should be situational and not marked as unreliable.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable at least for Gameple based on the investigation made above. Realistically this really shouldn't have been listed as unreliable to begin with as that was based solely on the nominator and not one on consensus. I am a little bit hesitant on GameToc as I am having trouble with trying to find information on their site, however, assuming the investigation is correct, it did alleviate one of the main sticking points from the previous discussion, so potentially a weak reliable but to play it safe I will say situational for them instead. CaptainGalaxy 23:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IT Bear

[edit source]

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

I'm thinking of writing a draft on Hyacine (Honkai: Star Rail) and found this Chinese-language source that they posted on Sohu. While Sohu is generally unreliable, I wanted to see if IT Bear was reliable or not. Based on their Chinese website it doesn't look like it's a blog or anything, but I wasn't able to find much else. Would appreciate any input. Their English website is here, but I wasn't able to find much there either. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 01:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable Doing some hard digging doesn't look good: IT BEAR is basically a content mill, and there's no indication of editorial or corporate backing. They're in many ways a worse version of Dexerto.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I thought it could be something like that, but due in part to a limited understanding of Chinese I wasn't entirely sure (as Google Translate and Chinese-English dictionaries can only do so much), so I didn't say anything. If you don't mind, can you please elaborate on why you think this is a content mill? Gommeh (talk! sign!) 13:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(This is also partly because I'm relatively unfamiliar with the concept of content mills and how to tell if something is one or not.) Gommeh (talk! sign!) 13:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, this particular article isn't so much a problem (even if it falls more into "fan said this and this and this"), but if you look over their others you see the real issue where the vast majority are regurgitating press releases and designed strictly to hype things up, particularly in the tech field.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot currently access that article as I'm on my work computer (our security system blocks access to Sohu). I trust your judgment (even though at times I may disagree lol) so I'll take your word for it. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 17:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kanobu Discussion Part 2

[edit source]

Since the first discussion around Kanobu resulted in a inconclusive answer, we need to do another discussion by debating and researching more to see if it's valid for the list or not. Let the debates commence! ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 06:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • the list I mentioned was "list of video games listed among the best" if people are wondering.
~2026-35526-57 (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable. I've used them in the past with no issues, and Russian WP:VG/RS considers Kanobu reliable. –GM 13:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I might need to get my help from my buddy Rhain for this decision, by the way have you translated the source into English? ~2026-35526-57 (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GameDaily (China)/yxrb.net

[edit source]

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

So this one has been cited to a decent amount on here, and on the Chinese wikipedia it's listed as situational and probably best to replace if possible (literally stated as barely reliable). Digging deeper into the discussions behind it, it relies on a contributor system which like many Chinese news sites uses pseudonyms, but these articles aren't editorialized or fact checked, just disclaimered, and there's no evidence of the authors having any credentials to even sastisfy WP:SELFPUB in this context.[16][17]. I don't see any signs of it being a reliable source, even under a generous lens. Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Situational YXRB posted this on their WeChat, which states in part "[s]ome prior experience is required; we do not hire complete beginners". That link also indicates that they hire review editors (审稿编辑) whose job responsibilities include reviewing and revising, which I would assume would include fact-checking, although this is not explicitly stated. Combined with the other content posted by them here, I am led to believe the site does screen for professional credibility by requiring writers to submit a previously-published portfolio piece to prove their industry knowledge.
Based on what I can tell from those two links, here's what I think happens: for subjective and anecdotal columns, writers aren't really expected to fact-check in a traditional sense because they are writing their own opinion. Judging by what I can see, it looks like instead of vetting every individual claim, Game Daily instead vets the writer's credentials (as mentioned, they don't just hire anybody) and trusts them to do the fact-checking themselves. I do wish they'd be more forthcoming with regards to which qualifications an author has, but this to me signifies that they are at least trying to keep content as accurate as they can. By filtering for experienced industry insiders and writers, they rely on the writers' professional reputations to keep the content accurate. It is this that I think prevents it from being generally unreliable, but the lack of more transparency also prevents it from being generally reliable. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 14:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, if Game Daily allowed submissions from just anyone I would be 100% on board with calling it unreliable, but judging by the links I don't think that's the case, and I'm inclined to take their word for it. Additionally, not all of their writers publish under pen names (although I'm not sure how much that helps). I would also like to reiterate that I'd like it if they'd say which publications an editor has written for in the past, but given China's censorship policies for media I can see why they'd want to potentially hide that from the public, in case they run afoul of CCP guidelines. If you'd like, I can maybe try and reach out to them on WeChat to try and get more information from them, but no guarantee they will respond. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 14:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @SuperGrey who has weighed in on this source in the past. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 14:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reading those links particularly the second one shows they will take submissions from authors that may not have any previous published works, the only real guideline being "presenting a professional profile and areas of expertise" which can mean a heckuva lot. While this indicates some degree of vetting, the site itself makes no distinction between established author or random joe blow that wrote about why a character was important to them, or possibly just for a quick check. The articles also state they don't editorialize and put any fact-checking onus strictly on the writer, and while WP:SELFPUB gives that some leeway depending on who a writer is with or their personal credentials, we have absolutely zero way to reference that here. Effectively what you have is a worse version of Forbes' contributor system, which at least in that case uses real names and longtime journalists like Paul Tassi under its belt, but is still regarded as unreliable for purposes of wikipedia.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the lack of a publicly described fact-checking workflow is rather typical for Chinese commercial gaming outlets. Verification is expected in principle, and from what I've heard it's not exactly standard for many Chinese gaming outlets to have a transparent fact-checking policy that readers can see. But this doesn't necessarily mean they don't do internal checking.
Additionally, I'm not sure if the assertion that YXRB doesn't editorialize is 100% correct, or that it puts fact-checking strictly on the writer. The link doesn't specifically say any of those things; instead, it asks for "neutral and objective independent observation and commentary". Instead, the links support the valid concern that they do not publicly describe their processes, which is different from them having no editorial review at all. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 15:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But you can't just assume that with contributors. There's no evidence of editorial on the contributor articles (i.e. this one) compared to a brief mention of one on a staff article here. Then you have this which states outright they didn't fact check, and just repeated an article from another website, a disclaimer that appears frequently on the site.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Direct

[edit source]

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

I am considering whether or not to use this source for a potential Cerydra draft in the future, but wanted to double-check the source's reliability before committing to anything. The source's author, Klein Felt, does not appear to have experience working for any RS's before; their only experience with a source that's even mentioned on WP:VG/S is with CBR, which doesn't sound good. Similar things can be said for some of the website's other staff (Sam Hargrave, for example, who has prior experience writing for Gameranx which is unreliable).

The site was started in 2017. Experience aside, they do have a corrections policy and ethics policy, which is a good sign. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 16:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to indicate this: currently I'm leaning situational at best per the above. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 16:22, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After further review, I see there was a discussion which indicated a small consensus for reliability. I now think it is reliable. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 17:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources&oldid=1360953319"