Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Cobra (game engine) (4 participants)
Dink (software company) (1 participant)
Jeffrey Johnson (actor) (2 participants)
Rayman: The Animated Series (5 participants)
Sam Beres (2 participants)
Endor AG (3 participants; relisted)
Cue Club 2 (3 participants; relisted)
Planet Half-Life (4 participants; relisted)
Flash Element TD (5 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

ginx.tv

Previously discussed here. At the time, there was no staff page which seems to be the reason it was unreliable. A staff page has since been added, and lists 11 full time writers. I am using it for the claim that The Exit 8 uses UE5, which currently has no source. Source for UE5 claim: https://www.ginx.tv/en/video-games/the-exit-8-steam-release J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The EIC is a former Daily Star (United Kingdom) Gaming Editor. But it's fine for such a claim in any way. IgelRM (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IGN & GameSpot for older titles

I've noticed this recently and have edited this main page to warn people. IGN for older games doesn't always have the correct release date, because if a date isn't exact (i.e. only the year is known), IGN defaults to displaying it as "December 31". This and this are some of many examples I came across. It could even be displayed as January 1.

Similarly, GameSpot articles including reviews from the 1990s don't have their correct publish dates, instead displaying the year as "2000". Example: This review dated 2000 but it is actually from 1998.

I imagine (certain actually) that these were mistakenly caused by database moves/changes and upgrades over the years. I hope people are aware because an incorrect release of Dec 31, 1999 with the IGN source was given in the San Francisco Rush 2049 article, which I have corrected by providing reliable sources giving the month of September proving that "Dec 31" is merely a database error on IGN's end. Sceeegt (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally view the database reliability of video game review websites different from editorial text. IgelRM (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gameple

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

This is a Korean news media founded in 2012 that comes up frequently on Google search. I checked the website and found that:

Its About Us has no mention of editorial policy or anything useful to see how the website is managed.
It has no list of staff.
Cha Jeongseok (차정석) is both the publisher and editor-in-chief, and I can't find any record of him besides writing on Gameple itself.

Something I noticed is that the website is owned by a company named JS Media (whose president is also Cha), a fact that is strangely not mentioned in Gameple itself. I did some digging in this. JS Media is not a news media organization per se, but a consultant/web design company that help customers create a content farm, the process of which is detailed in its website ([1], [2]). I also found how it recruits authors in this page - "online citizen journalism". As in, it employs noncredentialed amateurs. In my opinion, this is the biggest red flag.

My verdict on this one is 'unreliable', due to its citizen journalism policy at odds with WP:RS and high suspision of WP:SPONSORED because of the publisher's main purpose not being news report. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback would be appreciated, as I'm trying to clean this up from BLP articles. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Info Center

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

I just recently discovered this website dedicated to Palm, Inc products. For those who don't know, Palm was a technology company that created a successful line of PDAs back when PDAs were popular. This website appears to be run by someone named Ryan Kairer. I found a Chicago Tribune article that briefly mentioned him and his website. The website last updated in 2019 and has archives going back to its founding in 1999

I'm not sure whether we would consider this website reliable. It is very niche and obscure, which could of course be of some benefit given how obscure PDAs have become, but it could also reflect this website potentially being self-published. What are your thoughts? Lazman321 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comicbook.com

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

Entertainment news website launched in 2007, formerly owned by Paramount Global. Was mentioned in a discussion about DYKG, but no conclusion was reached. Surprised no one has attempted to start a meaningful discussion about this source, as it's used on over 12,000 articles. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ ^{【=◈︿◈=】} 21:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would view these sort of online news websites, even if by mainstream media, as situational. The style appears to be only linking other things on the web. IgelRM (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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. Captain Galaxy 03:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]