Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

This talk page is for discussing the reliability of sources for use in video game articles. If you are wondering if a video game source is reliable enough to use on Wikipedia, this is the place to ask.

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

Click here to start a new discussion thread

WikiProject Video games

Main page

talk

Archives

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

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

Thrilling Tales of Old Video Games

Find video game sources: "Thrilling Tales of Old Video Games" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This is an odd one, but has some potential from the looks of things. It's run by Drew Mackie, who according to Muckrack has written for a variety of sources, and has been featured on Retronauts and The Video Game History Foundation. It also uses a professional translator, Fatimah Haji-Asiri, who lists her work history on her website. Lastly it has a copyeditor, Amy Smith, who lists her writing history on her own website. Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I've really enjoyed what I've read on this site! I think Drew has a good resume and good chops. I think it's a high-quality secondary source, since he's doing a lot of original research/reporting in these articles. It's not a tertiary source. I'd call it reliable. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a pretty strong source, judging by the pedigree. Reliable - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Drew describes TTOVG as more of a blog. Should we then follow what WP:BLOG says? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be the succesor of backofthecerealbox.com Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I feel the presence of an editor and a translator to help with the articles does push it a bit above the usual blog content.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I should clarify that I do not have any specific preference whether it should be considered reliable or unreliable. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Polygon

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

Based on recent events, it may be time to finally reevaluate Polygon's reliability as a source. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, not great, though at the same time, it's pretty clearly labeled as "Advertiser Content", so it'd be pretty easy to just section off the content with that tag as unreliable. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

As an aside, that text looks hella AI to me. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

If they're doing sponsored posts (labeled as "Advertiser Content" in that screenshot), then the Polygon entry should be updated to mention excluding those "articles" as sources per WP:SPONSORED. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Posted this in the discord, but a similar article appeared on Kotaku too yesterday, with the only evidence of it being an ad being the "PROMO:" part in the headline...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

As long as it is clearly distinguished from regular, non-promo content, its fine - our list should clearly indicate that these exist and promo content is not part of the RS of the work itself. I'm not seeing issues with Polygon's or Kotaku's not-marked-promo normal content yet to worry about any demotion or the like in the list. Masem (t) 12:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

FYI, the conclusion we seem to be moving towards is consistent with the concurrent discussion and consensus at WT:RSP#Polygon as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about CNET at RSN that might be of interest

Someone from CNET has started a discussion on RSN about the sites reliability, see WP:RSN#CNET’s Reliability Status Should Be Reconsidered Ten Months After Ownership Change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

StopGame.ru

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

Russian. Seems GR, but I'm not the person who can examine this properly. Official reviews are most likely fine, news need examination. Blogs section should be avoided per WP:BLOG. User reviews should be avoided too.

While the website is considered GR per the Russian version of VG:S, as pointed out by User:Hellknowz, "[the sources on the page] were copied from their "WP:video game articles" page where they were almost all added by a single user who briefly announced this on talk, which got 2 replies saying 'looks good, expanded version of VG/RS page'. This unfortunately means this isn't necessarily indicative of individual reliability as it wasn't actually discussed anywhere." Dabmasterars (talk/contribs) 08:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Let's Play Archive

Find video game sources: "Let's Play Archive" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo above your message.

In a past discussion, Let's Play was left as undecided. I don't work in this area (video games) but did discover that the Let's Play Archive has partnered with the Internet Archive, with the latter incorporating Let's Play's content into its database on digitized information. Thus, I suggest updating Let's Play Archive to reliable status on your source list. Rublamb (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Isn't LPA a website where anyone can sign up and make them? Or am I confusing it with another website? Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

This is currently on the inconclusive list. I am hoping to clear that up, one way or the other. From its website: "LPs show a video game being played while the player talks about what they're doing in commentary with video, screenshots or both." "All the LP threads on this website were originally posted on the Something Awful forums, in their dedicated Let's Play subforum". It looks like they originate in a self-published forum. However, I am trying to figure out if the process from forum to Let's Play Archive to Internet Archive means some of these can now be used for factual content. Or does this clear up any confusion about this content, so that Let's Play Archive can be blacklisted? Rublamb (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Here is an example of Let's Play on the internet archive. Rublamb (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable, WP:USERG. Hey, calm down! The archive is intended to be a repository of all LP threads from Something Awful. We won't disallow an LP entry into the archive based on quality. There is no editorial control beyond "it was posted to Something Awful". -- ferret (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable. It's cool that they're archiving this stuff, but it isn't useful to our work here on Wikipedia. Unless any specific let's play or individual let's player archived here were to be covered in RSes enough to be considered notable, in which case maybe a citation to this site would be justified by WP:ABOUTSELF, there's nothing usable here. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

So it should be moved from inconclusive to unreliable. Who has the authority to make that change? Rublamb (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Whoever assesses the consensus of this discussion. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Vice/Waypoint

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

I notice that Vice's Waypoint is listed as reliable under 'other', with the newest linked discussion being from 2018. Vice Media shut down Waypoint in 2023, and it was bought and relaunched by venture capitalists in 2024 with significantly worse editorial oversight. A recent example of how this negatively affected their reliability is here:

• Person, Chris (21 July 2025). "Waypoint Writers Quit Over Removal Of Articles Related To New Steam Policy [Update] - Aftermath". aftermath.site. Retrieved 26 July 2025.
• Litchfield, Ted (21 July 2025). "Australian anti-porn group claims responsibility for Steam's new censorship rules in victory against 'porn sick brain rotted pedo gamer fetishists', and things only get weirder from there". PC Gamer. Retrieved 26 July 2025.

Waypoint now looks a lot like a zombie brand or content farm. The project page should probably be updated to indicate this change. Grayfell (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't see any super glaring issues with Vice/Waypoint's recent articles prior to the incident with Ana Valens' Collective Shout articles getting taken down and triggering the departure of the majority of the editorial team under Savage Ventures. Those (stuff from last year up until July 20th) should in my opinion be allowed to be used, provided they're not used for any questionable or potentially sensitive claims (with the obvious exception of the Collective Shout situation, since that's been widely covered by multiple other RSes after the Steam and itch purges- I've got a draft article related to that in the works).

Other articles after that should be evaluated carefully, with the overall quality of the site pending further evaluation (like with Polygon and the Valnet purchase situation). silviaASH (inquire within) 01:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if it's glaring, but the prolific and shallow output of a small number of writers is at least a yellow flag.

Is there any reason not to update the page to let editors know it's not the same outlet it used to be?

Since Waypoint is no longer the same outlet, consensus for pre-2024 Waypoint doesn't apply to this new version. Explaining this would prevent confusion.

To put it another way, if this new Waypoint is also reliable source like the old Waypoint was, that's basically a coincidence. It should be evaluated on its own merits.

Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it we're basically now dealing with three versions of Waypoint- the one pre-2024 (considered reliable), the one from 2024 until the Collective Shout coverage debacle (which is probably not as good but at least situationally reliable), and the one after the departure of Dwayne Jenkins and most of the other writers (which is what I'm saying we may have to wait to evaluate properly). I think the pre-2024 and 2024 till July 2025 periods are probably both okay, the state of the publication after, we have to wait and see. That's my opinion at least. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the concerns. I don't see a direct problem with their content yet, but it's worth keeping an eye on. If someone finds an issue where using this as a source would harm the encyclopedia, I would want to know, so we can discuss. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

This article details the (lack of) editorial oversight and other issues at the 2024-present Waypoint. The new site clearly should not inherit the reliability of the old one. They're different entities, one a cynical masquerading of the other. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Mein-MMO

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

Gaming news website, available in English and German.

A lot of the sources from this website are used on BLP pages, so establishing reliability is important. Dabmasterars (talk/contribs) 08:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Great, no one's replying. I did find a mention that Mein-MMO is a partner of GameStar, which is considered GR; this was mentioned on WP:Source assessment/CaseOh, where it was the reason for being reliable. @Pbrks, who added the reliability mention, seems trustworthy enough (69k edits), so I'm adding the source to the list. Dabmasterars (talk/contribs) 18:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

My opinion alone should not be enough to add it to the consensus as a reliable source. There is no rush here. Allow users to take their time on assessing the source. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 21:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable. We can do better. Looking through their staff page, I don't see anyone with an education, training, or a background in journalism or a related field, or experience at a reputable source. (With two exceptions, the director and head of editorial, who worked at GamePro. However, neither currently write much for the site.) Unlike some of their sister publications, there's no ethics policy. They write "news" articles like this, which is based on a single Reddit thread. In addition, at the bottom of every article is a banner that reads "This is an AI-powered translation. Some inaccuracies might exist." Even if the site were considered reliable, it should only be articles in German. But as I said, we can do better than relying on a site like this—especially for BLP claims. Woodroar (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

So I guess it's situational in German and unreliable in English. Definitely not BLP worthy, which is bad, because half of the articles where the website is cited are BLPs. Dabmasterars (talk/contribs) 23:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Traxion.gg

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

What is the reliability of this source. It was owned by motorsport Games, a racing game developer until May 2024 when it was sold to Traxion.GG Ltd. The source is used 130 times on Wiki.. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Digital Foundry

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

In a nice bit of news, the Digital Foundry video channel (who was partly owned by Gamer Network and published through Eurogamer up to this point) has recently announced that they have split from IGN (who acquired Gamer Network last year) and are now fully independent, per a video released today: [1] Might be too soon, but given the number of existing citations, it's probably worth at least starting a discussion about whether the independent incarnation inherits the reliability they had under Eurogamer and how to handle coverage going forward. I'm personally leaning in favor of reliability, but I'd be interested to hear everyone else's thoughts. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Absent of any other changes, I believe it'd still be reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)