Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

How reliable is Android Police, specifically for topics related to apps and video games?

Related threads:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 12#Android Police
• Mentions and discussions at AfD:
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 38#Android Police

NewAccount7295 (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Why is this an RFC? Do you believe the current consensus assessment of Android Police on this page of unreliable is inaccurate? Has more information come to light or has there been a change that you think would materially affect the reliability of the source? ~ A412 ^talk! 22:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

They are a pretty prolific source when it comes to mobile games. Saying they are or aren't reliable has a bit of an impact of what you might cite when writing such articles. I come across it quite often, so I think it deserves more discussion. NewAccount7295 (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

But you're not providing anyone with any new information or evidence to change the status quo. What is your argument that the site is reliable? "I come across it quite often" isn't one. -- ferret (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

In reply to you and @A412: The first thread was started in 2015 by @ReaderofthePack, who stated: "Offhand this looks good. It has an editorial staff and the article was written by a staff member. I don't see anything that gives off the impression that they charge for anything, so this is likely usable."

The thread received one reply from @Hellknowz, who determined that it was unreliable due to the site's lack of an editorial staff compared to similar sites, stating more precisely, "I doubt this would be above situational." They listed it as unreliable on the source list a month later

In a December 2018 AFD, @Jovanmilic97 stated that the source should be moved to inconclusive, because they claimed it was "certainly was not a consensus in any sense".

The source was acquired by Valnet in 2021. You may view their About page here. I started a thread about it in February, which @Sergecross73 had also replied to, so I'll notify them as well.

I didn't argue in the RFC that the source is reliable. The point of the RfC is to gain a firm consensus on whether or not it is. NewAccount7295 (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

A review is below. As a source, I think it's okay. However, a more germane issue is that the site's gaming coverage seems to have been held up almost entirely by RS-affiliated journalist Tomas Franzese, who is no longer writing content for the site as of October 2025 (). That has effectively stopped the flow of gaming coverage entirely, which is no longer clearly linked in the site directory. So the utility of this site to WP:VG/S is historically useful but presently minimal.

+ Site has been present for a long time, since 2010.

+ Managing editor is Steven Winkelman (), who has a journalism qualification and is widely published in RS PCMag () and Digital Trends.

+ There is a documented staff list with tenured editors and a copy editor (). It appears news editor Chandra Steele is an experienced writer and has similarly come from PC Mag as a features writer (). Copy editor Coletta Whitehead has written web content for Lifewire and done content editing for Dotdash for years ().

+ There is an onsite review policy committing to integrity when testing products, identifying where content is sponsored, and not being influenced by companies in scoring a review ().

~ The site's editorial policies are not hosted onsite but link to Valnet's editorial standards (). Given concerns, take from that what you will.

- Site was acquired by Valnet in 2021 (): according to WP:VALNET and project discussions, this is cause for caution given publisher-wide questions about reliability and editorial standards, but should be interpreted in context of the site itself.

- As above, gaming coverage was being handled almost entirely by one person, and that person is now gone. That isn't fatal to the site's reliability, but it does suggest the site's editorial focus really isn't in the games department, and was leaning on a former staff member's expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrxces (talk • contribs) 23:30, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion moved NewAccount7295 (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• Has there been a current discussion before this RFC was created? As per the header notice and edit notice RFCs shouldn't be opened without prior discussion. If not I suggest this is closed and a normal discussion started. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:52, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Also I'm not sure what happens if you move a RFC after it's been given a RFCID, hopefully the bot will work out what happened but it might be broken. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:52, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  The two discussions linked in the opening of the RfC. NewAccount7295 (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Fair enough on the one from Feb 2026, the one from 2015 isn't relevant. Do you disagree with the comments from the 2026 discussion, and it's listing at WP:VG/S? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion moved back NewAccount7295 (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

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

I found this staff-written article while searching for sources for a potential Columbina article. The site's about us page indicates that their writers have worked for RS's in the past, such as CNN and the BBC. It frames itself as "an independent media platform where emerging voices develop the skills, confidence, and reach to shape journalism’s future." They describe themselves further as a space for new editors to publish their work and gain experience. I was unable to find an ethics policy. According to LinkSearch (results), there is a decent amount of usage of this site on Wikipedia, but as far as I know there has yet to be a consensus on the site's reliability. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 19:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

According to this page, Trill is a nonprofit platform that partners with new and emerging writers, or journalism students with partnered universities with an outlet to write pieces. It states it provides them with "structured editorial development" and "collaborative editing", although there's little information at all on editorial process or oversight. There are some basic codes of conduct and guides for contributors to disclose conflicts of interest and uphold "accuracy, fairness and ethics". On one hand, that's a noble cause; on the other, it means contributors and content are not coming into the site with conventional journalistic experience, which means editorial review and oversight is much more sensitive to scrutiny.

Putting aside the Genshin article has no author, the cited article raises a few flags for someone that knows nothing about Genshin Impact:

• What is Lootbar? The article plugs it twice and links to it: players...can stretch their budget further by doing their top up through Lootbar, the platform that offers Genesis Crystals at competitive rates ... making it the smarter call and Lootbar is worth bookmarking for ongoing Genshin top-ups. Sincere or not, linking to a site and using advertorial wording is concerning. How does this stack up with the commitment to clearly distinguish sponsored content from editorial content?
• Checking the Genshin Impact wiki, the character Columbina was playable between Jan to Feb 2026 and from July 2026. That makes it factually incorrect that the character was "now playable" when the article was published on 25 May. The article also calls her the Fourth Harbinger but the wiki says she's the Third. I don't know anything about Genshin but that makes me think there might be other factual errors in there too.

The above makes me lean unreliable. VRXCES (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The statement that she is the fourth of the Fatui Harbingers is not true (that title belongs to Arlecchino). In terms of playability, I believe it is referring to her gacha banners, the first of which ran from January-February 2026 and the second of which will run in a few days. Players who get her on her banner are able to keep her forever, as there is no way for a character to leave a player's roster once they are obtained. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 19:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I have asked them to correct the information per my above comment, as it's possible they simply didn't know the information was not true (Genshin lore in particular is rather dense and hard to understand, even for seasoned players sometimes). In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 19:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

If it takes a Wikipedia editor to contact a publication to point out inaccuracies, why would that make them reliable? That would be evidence for the opposite in my view. 11WB 💬 03:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

True, fair point. (And to clarify, I don't have any opinion on this source's reliability and was only trying to gauge what everyone else thought before considering whether to use it or not.) In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 03:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Haven't analysed it myself. I may get the opportunity to do so over the weekend. 11WB 💬 04:09, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I actually think the article has serious error as they hallucinate the relationship between Sandrone and the Sumeru storyline. Royal Sailor (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't have the chance to take an in-depth look at the article yet either, but assuming they did get that wrong then that would make the source unreliable. That being said, I'll wait till I get the chance to read it for myself. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 04:46, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

For whoever sees this, I have not yet formally voted. My above reply was just a question. 11WB 💬 05:19, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Having now had the opportunity to actually read the article, I agree this is unreliable. It reeks of AI slop, for one, and got Sandrone's role in the plot completely wrong. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 21:04, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Is the 1988 Japanese encyclopedia Terebi Gēmu: Denshi Yūgi Taizen ("Video Games: The Encyclopedia") a reliable source? It details the history of video games up to that point, covering computer, arcade, and console games, and includes interviews with industry figures, as well as a list of the "200 Best Games". It was written by future The Pokemon Company president Tsunekazu Ishihara, and apparently has some notoriety, with at least one article calling it a "masterpiece". Thoughts? Phediuk (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Reliable. Let's assess the source in its context in 1988. Ishihara was a design graduate from University of Tsukuba who by 1988 had worked in computer graphics firm Sedic, who had Fuji TV as a client, and co-developed Otocky. Fuji TV ran a program called TV, of which this guide, titled TV Games, was published by UPU, the Japanese magazine house for local versions of Esquire and i-D. It seems Ishihara composed the book with a large team of eighteen writers and contributions including Satoshi Tajiri, Shigesato Itoi, and Koichi Sugiyama, suggesting good credentials. From his industry exposure, it seems he and other writers had access to interview and written contributions from a number of significant figures, and seems to have undertaken some interviews or research overseas. This is a significant resource and time capsule of Japan's gaming industry in the late 80s and plainly reliable. VRXCES (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Reliable: I must admit I am a fan of Ishihara, he is a titan of the Japanese video game industry. This is an excellent resource. I can't read Japanese, but I would find it hard not to trust what is written by the future developers of one of the largest franchises ever. This is a clear case of reliability under the second paragraph of WP:SPS. 11WB 💬 15:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

since I was doing research for the "list of video games listed among the best" page I came across this website, I'm very curious about its reliability, since it's something we haven't discussed before, so please do some research into this website to find if it's a reliable source to be incorporated into this site, let the discussion commence. RengokuKyojuroFan (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

If you want others to participate in discussions, it's useful to do your own research and present your findings here first. WP:RS has some useful information on identifying reliable sources. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 00:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I found a masthead and editor and author bios. RengokuKyojuroFan (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to give you the link, here it is

https://punishedbacklog.com/ RengokuKyojuroFan (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• As said above, you really need to bring something to the table here and propose an outcome instead of expecting other people to do the legwork. If you are doing this to get a game or this list onto the list of games considered the best, the Punished Backlog list directly states the list is one "not that we necessarily feel deserve to be named the best ever".

I would vote situational with general reliable use where a writer has demonstrated experience writing for WP:RS although should not be used to substantiate WP:GNG. It's broadly competent and independent. One of those nominally short of reliable cases due to a lack of policy and variable volunteer experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrxces (talk • contribs)

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

Began as a podcast that turned into a website. They have a lot of reviews. Are they considered reliable? NewAccount7295 (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd say this is a case of nominally situational and not one to use to anchor notability on. Some writers including founder Kate Sanchez have good experience with RS and their articles are absolutely fine to use. But what is letting the site down is a complete lack of visibility on its editorial structure, masthead, advertising transparency or policies. I can't see WP:USEBYOTHERS. It's fine to use generally, but if the site cleaned up its transparency I'd feel more confident labelling it as a reliable site overall. VRXCES (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Vrxces Would you say that greater weight can be given to notability when the article comes from a more reliable author? NewAccount7295 (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes for use, but shouldn't be relied on to establish notability. I think it's a two-fold use case and that's why my votes can sometimes be confusing. If someone like Sanchez is writing, they're an experienced writer and editor and so their credentials support general use in an article. But when talking about use of the source as a whole - is this a WP:RS because it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? - the site is set up without policies or editorial information in a way that doesn't allow us to get there. VRXCES (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

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

This source, according to their about us page , is "Australia’s largest and oldest independent online review site which began in 2001 by co-founders Tory Favro and Andrew Bistak. Covering a wide area from entertainment to technology, Impulse Gamer expanded to the United States in 2004 and how has global readership." Currently listed as unreliable. Any opinions? NewAccount7295 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I think this should remain unreliable. I admit what has changed since last assessment is that there is now an identified masthead () with named editors. Unfortunately that masthead has little experience outside the site, including Andrew Bistak and Adrian Gunning, who Muck Rack identifies as writing most of the site's coverage (). There are some descriptions of editorial process on a recruitment page but no editorial policies visible onsite other than a commitment on the About page not to use AI. That's probably enough to justify the site at its current classification. VRXCES (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

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

(Not to be confused with the Invision Community forum software.) The website was started as a blog in 2011 but according to them they are now beyond that. They have a lot of content so I think they're worth discussing. NewAccount7295 (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable. I'm not going to assess this one in depth although other indicia fail. The feature writing is either blatant advertorialism, generic word salad for SEO, or LLM slop: take this article ostensibly about the best online multiplayer games that then pivots to crypto platforms, linking to a crypto site, writing Gamers exploring top rated eth casino platforms accepting ethereum payments are increasingly looking for provably fair mechanics and community-verified reputations, the same standards the best gaming experiences are built on. This is apparently from Alison, the "site manager of IGC and good friends of [site owner] Craig". This is egregiously poor. VRXCES (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Unreliable: Based on reading this, IGC strikes me as very similar to The Indiependent (now sadly closed), in that they are a platform where (predominantly) students can join up and write articles in an effort to step into a career as a writer for more mainstream sites or even newspapers. This does not mean they are automatically unreliable, but it does mean they provide an informal service, rather than being an actual outlet.

Their scoring policy is fine, though I have concerns about their "content lifetime" disclaimer, in which articles are "automatically removed from their systems" after five years. That is a bit strange in my opinion. They don't have a staff list, but based on their about us page, I wouldn't expect them to. Their articles seem to be attributed to Alison & Co at this time. Articles such as this one read as entirely promotional, with no disclaimer. This isn't particularly great.

I think this site presents itself as offering a good opportunity for students, but not much beyond that. This isn't a serious outlet. On that basis, I will have to assess them as unreliable. 11WB 💬 23:38, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I first learned about this source on a random talk page, apparently, it's a department store that also has articles about video games, I need someone to go through WP:VG/S to find if the source is reliable or not despite it being odd that it's from a department store. RengokuKyojuroFan (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

It can be helpful to be more precise to assist editors - you didn't learn about it from a random page, it came from this discussion. VRXCES (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I forgot, but I'm not requesting for the source to be reliable for the sake of being added to that list, I want a more in-depth discussion. RengokuKyojuroFan (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

You mentioned in this discussion that you wanted Nier to be included, which happens to be on this list. VRXCES (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

it's a pure coincidence. RengokuKyojuroFan (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• WP:VG/S#Retailers suggests that these kinds of sources are ordinarily only reliable for information about a product but this is a special case. What is unusual about Digitec Magazine / Galaxus is that it does have a genuinely separate editorial structure with employed journalists with an editorial statement of independence, and the platform seems to offer criticism of products it sells. Articles also disclose review copies. Head of Content Martin Jungfer is a credible journalist with long term experience managing a content team of 30 staff (). However, this article is not encouraging and frames the editorial operations as genuine but still ultimately under the wing of the marketing department; Jungfer offers that conflicts are solved by talking to each other, which is a curt response for a question actually about whether there are mechanisms for resolving conflicts of interest.

I think items in the New and Promotion sections are written by category management and shouldn't be used at all. Digitec Magazine articles are usable with attribution, particularly their opinion and review writing, but the publication should not be used to substantiate notability and sources without a retailer relationship should be preferred. VRXCES (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Cubed3" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Listed as situational, but the last linked discussion was in 2019. Might be worth another look. This is their About Us NewAccount7295 (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable Situational Ironically things have changed for the better since 2019: there's now an editorial structure and a review policy. Unfortunately this is still an enthusiast site of unpaid freelancers with 'avid gamer' bios: this is really the only journalism gig of founder Jorge Ba-oh and games editor Az Elias. No obvious use by others.

What's more, I'm concerned by Adam Riley's product interview series as Operations Director described as focusing more on strong relations with...PR teams where in articles like this he seems to regurgitate PR copy (The company’s reputation for accessible innovation has been shaped by milestone releases such as the NC9 and by a development approach that places user feedback at the centre of refinement...) whilst talking to marketing directors and PR staff. No matter how independent they say they are, if they're platforming those kind of staff on their site and reviewing the products (as is here: : After a fantastically deep interview with the founders, it's time to take a look at some of the company's excellent offerings...), they need an actual advertising policy. VRXCES (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Reliable: Oddly, I find myself disagreeing with @Vrxces again. You criticise the site for being made up of unpaid enthusiasts, but is that not what RPGamer does? They are reliable. Cubed3 has a respectable reviewing and editorial policy page. The PR argument doesn't cut the mustard here for me, I'm afraid. It is in a sites interest to network, so that they can review video games and build up a good reputation. Adam Riley's page says "now in the role of Operations Director he focuses more on strong relations with game developers and PR teams, finding new opportunities for the website's growth". What's wrong with that? His writing style is a bit commercial like, but it remains factual. I think we're being a bit hasty here. Definitely shouldn't be writing an entire site off as unreliable because they choose to network with game developers. If somebody can make an actual case for unreliability, such as fabrication, LLM use or something that would actually be detrimental to Wikipedia if cited, I'll reconsider. At the moment though, this site looks good in my book. 11WB 💬 15:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I should have put this to situational to be consistent with the previous discussion, for some reason I thought it was unreliable. Some thoughts:

  • As discussed here I concur with Czar that reliability sits in the editorial chain and not the individual. Where an experienced games writer is writing in an unreliable venue, that's situationally covered by principles such as WP:SPS. At the end of the day, I'm still concerned the site lacks external experience from its editors, fact checking, or advertiser policy.
  • The burden of proof isn't make a case for unreliability; WP:RS asks for a positive reputation of accuracy and fact-checking. Absence of serious issues is just an absence. Otherwise every content farm would pass WP:RS.
  • You're right that unpaid enthusiasts isn't disqualifying on its own but reliability needs a positive anchor to justify inclusion and I think that's where we often find ourselves at odds on fringe cases. I did overlook some historical staff who no longer write for the site, like Keza MacDonald and James Temperton, that moved onto senior editorial roles at RS. But that reflects on those individuals and where they went afterwards, rather than on Cubed3's editorial chain. If the chain and experience of editors was stronger in the 00s or 10s I'm happy to revisit this.
  • I didn't say that PR and networking is bad at all - my objection is structural: if a site runs interview features with marketing directors and PR with no advertising or COI policy, that is not encouraging for reliability. I know this isn't highly relevant for games coverage but does reveal an editorial issue. I'm not alleging anything wrong here, but a reader has no way to tell whether running positive reviews after positive interview coverage is paid placement or not. The review policy doesn't cover this at all. "A bit commercial like" is an understatement: the material is heavily and obsequiously evaluative in a way that blurs interview, product feature and review together.
  • Welcome any views on whether WP:USEBYOTHERS has been overlooked here - I didn't find anything outside aggregators.

  I think the 2019 discussion should stand at situational. Despite the site being completely redesigned in 2025, editors still have little experience outside of running the site, there's still not much on fact checking, corrections or relationships with advertisers. VRXCES (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Well it clearly isn't a blog, so @Czar was factually incorrect by referring to the site as such. I also need to point out that they actually do explicitly state that relationships with publishers do not influence their reviews. From the review policy: "A complimentary review copy or relationship with a publisher has zero influence on the reviewer’s opinion or the outcome of the final score. The contents of a review are never disclosed with a publisher or agency before we hit the publish button!" That is a pretty clear anti-shill policy. I'm not really sure what else beyond that is required, the disclosure should be more than enough. 11WB 💬 00:08, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Vrxces, as it's late I can't do a USEBYOTHERS search now. (Grok claims it can't find any reliable sites that cite it. I'm unconvinced.) I will have a proper look when I return later today. 11WB 💬 00:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  No rush at all. Please don't mistake my strong views for adversariality, you're one of the only other editors providing in-depth views on this page at the moment and I appreciate that. VRXCES (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Not at all! I rather enjoy this thread over other parts of the project. Discussion remains on topic and respectful. We're able to disagree, have a discussion and find a middle ground, which is the best outcome I think. It's also allowed for me to adapt the way I assess sources, as in some cases (particularly with niche sites) I've been too lax, and for more mainstream sites I've been applying stricter thresholds (when I should be assessing all sites to the same standard). 11WB 💬 00:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Update: I've finally had some time to look for reliable sources that have cited Cubed3 specifically:

• IGN cited them in a 2012 article about Left Field Productions.
• IGN Japan cited them in a 2026 article about Mina the Hollower.
• Famitsu cited them in a 2020 article about the VR title Pixel Ripped 1995. 4Gamer also did.
• Engadget cited them in a 2008 piece about Bomberman Blast.

There are others, but I think this demonstrates that Cubed3 has been a reputable site for quite a number of years. 11WB 💬 22:05, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Vrxces, PR concerns notwithstanding, I think this makes enough of a case for Cubed3's reliability. Had I not found anything, I would have been inclined to agree with a situational evaluation. Based on everything I've seen on their site however, and from other sites that mention them, I think they can be given the green tick on Wikipedia. 11WB 💬 22:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Two points from me:

• Maybe a little predictably, I'd politely maintain marginally situational with reliable use for experienced writers, supporting the 2019 position that writers with good external experience could be relied on under WP:SPS. Past reputable writers like Keza MacDonald, Martin Watts and James Temperton would be fine for this, but the current active writership has very few writers, maybe other than Lee Mehr, who have ever wrote for a reliable source, including the editorial structure for the games wing of the site.
• Some of the USEBYOTHERS is not strong evidence: the 2020 Famitsu article is a press release and the 2026 IGN article is explaining the Metascore and pulling quotes widely from sources that were aggregated. I agree the older cases are evidence of RS relying on Cubed3 for leading coverage about a subject. VRXCES (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I missed that Famitsu and 4Gamer are press releases. That is my error, apologies. I agree with that analysis: reliable with an asterisk for avoiding non-experienced writers. I've reversed the way you've worded it, but they may as well be the same thing. I'm content with this remaining where it's currently listed on the VG/S page. 11WB 💬 23:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy with that and agree the way you've worded it is functionally the same exercise as a situational source. VRXCES (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Both the name of a definitely reliable book and a podcast, both by Alexander Smith. I'm asking about the podcast. Over 260 episodes of thoroughly researched video game history. Smith's book is considered to be a seminal work by the Video Game History Foundation and he's been a frequent guest on their podcast (most recently a few months ago). The podcast is self published as far as I can tell but really high quality and much more accessible than the $50-90 book. Smith seems to me to be a subject-matter expert here, he's plenty educated for it, published, and has a decade of good will in this field. Whipmywillows (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Reliable I see a few mainstream stories that include quotes from the book, and I figure that would carry over into the podcast. The book of course is considered reliable. Masem (t) 17:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree reliable on the basis of a subject matter expert publishing a WP:SPS. Going the extra mile, Smith, who worked as a reference librarian, worked as a consultant and head researcher for the Smithsonian's Video Game Pioneers Archive, something that other sources like the VGHF have interviewed him on. That strengthens the rationale for reliability beyond an enthusiast creating a high-quality podcast. 23:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC) VRXCES (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Find video game sources: "Pixelkin" – 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 gaming website with advice for parents. I'm listing it just because they have a lot of articles that come up in searches. Information here NewAccount7295 (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable. At the very most generous, this is an WP:SPS of Watson given this masthead is currently basically a two-person operation and he has been writing everything for the past few years. But the site itself is not reliable and should not contribute to notability. Prose issues suggest the limited editorial structure and staffing isn't doing much.

+ Watson is indeed experienced. He is indeed a published freelancer for Polygon, PC Gamer, and The Escapist. The site seems to have previous credentialled guest contributors and an advisory panel, but these pages haven't been touched since 2015. I'm open to reassessing historical reliability.

+ Editorial policies are present and sound. No debate from me on that one.

~ Founder Linda Breneman, is a patron of the arts including philanthropic organisations and appears to have had a career in the arts. Her credentials as an arts reviewer or video game writer seem limited. Linda has written, but not since 2019.

- Because Watson is basically doing this solo or near-solo, the articles are riddled with errors a normal editorial layer of oversight should pick up, let's take the first few:

The first review on the page misspells Horrifed in its title, either though perk cards, more immersive and artistically pleasing that the previous D&D, players can be attacked without much they can do. Let's look at the second review: claim it with with their creatures, I would preferred more randomness. The third, firey explosion, and field of purple flowers. And so on.

VRXCES (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Listed as unreliable based on previous discussions. But since there hasn't been one in years and this is another source which often comes up in searches I decided to create a new thread and see if anything has changed. Staff and review policy here NewAccount7295 (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Unreliable: I've got to be honest, it's not great. The first news article I opened uses ResetEra (aka NeoGAF) as a source. Forums are not reliable per WP:USERGEN. I respect their anti-shill policy. Publishing positive reviews for money is never a respectable practice, so it's good they are vocal about not doing that. Their staff list is fine, but we get no information about them, and some use aliases (not a huge fan of that personally). When we do get information, it's stuff like this. I don't think "very inappropriate, probs fancies your dad" is very professional. This is not a reliable site unfortunately. 11WB 💬 22:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Agree unreliable as above, no notes. VRXCES (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I want to strongly caution "this keeps appearing in my web searches" is not a rationale to continuously reopen settled cases. You should be presenting an argument about why the consensus should or would change. -- ferret (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@NewAccount7295, you are permitted to list multiple sources in one post. They may not all be replied to, but this allows you to at least make the case for multiple in one discussion, rather than multiple separate discussions. (See this for an example.) 11WB 💬 22:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I will agree with Ferret that unless there's some real merit to re-examining a source (such as with those Korean sources awhile back that had a stronger case but just wasn't presented at the time, or if a source recently went through an overhaul), we probably shouldn't be just grabbing sources to re-examine them just because there hasn't been a recent discussion. With activity low, this just adds more bogging down.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It's generally accepted that it's on the person proposing a change to argue for why that change should happen - see WP:ONUS for the article space version of this concept.

To that extent, if you bring sources for evaluation with no new arguments, the rest of the folks here generally aren't going to do the legwork for you. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I found this source while surfing the web and relaxing, and I want someone to check the reliability of the website, I mean it has a very, very lengthy about us page that can determine if it's reliable at first glance, I'll link it here https://www.consolecrusade.com/p/about-us (also sorry about Kanobu). RengokuKyojuroFan (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable It's a gaming podcast turned games review site with three enthusiast writers with no journalistic experience. I notice this site also has a Top 100 list with games like Nier you have admitted you'd like to see listed on List of video games listed among the best. Rather than defer any and all sites that may have such a list onto this talk page, it would help greatly when raising discussions to suggest what elements of these sources you think make them helpful or reliable. VRXCES (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

no buddy, it's just a coincidence, and can you tell me the full story about the podcast. RengokuKyojuroFan (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

What? You've asked for a source assessment, that's reasonable (so long as there aren't ulterior motives). Why then do you insist on requesting information that you should already know having checked the source yourself before posting here? It doesn't make sense. 11WB 💬 14:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Never mind, I shouldn't encourage a response to that. @RengokuKyojuroFan, this post appears to be yet another attempt at pushing a listing agenda for a specific article. This would place your activity under WP:SPA, if Nier is indeed also on this site. Attempting to circumvent a consensus by opening a discussion on a different site to get a different consensus for the same end goal is disruptive. 11WB 💬 14:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

no, I swear to god, it's not about that list. RengokuKyojuroFan (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable Effectively per VRXCES. I'll add as the website for the podcast members, it's effectively more akin to a group blog for three people giving their opinions on games. Their ethics policy is nice to see, but they are not journalists, there is no reputation for fact checking or USEBYOTHERS, especially as they seem to be purely doing reviews rather than general news and journalism work. -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't plan to rehash conversations about WP:VALNET but whatever historical use Comic Book Resources had, its games coverage feels dead in the water. This coverage is republication of routine press coverage and listicles. Listicles are fine, but the way the listicles are being presented are becoming increasingly inaccurate in a way that suggests they shouldn't be used at all. These lists have manipulative headlines, are prone to hyperbole, and make sweeping statements that suggest churnalism - a source scrounging for opinions to write for the sake of it is unreliable.

Examples:

• There is a shocking lack of variation in opinion headlines and article concepts, fixated on 'best' and 'worst' rankings, suggesting a boilerplate approach. The phrases 'masterpiece', '10/10 masterpiece' and 'undisputed masterpiece' is used with extreme frequency: take all of these from the past week - .

• Lists are incoherent and walk back their premises almost immediately. 5 Classic PS1 RPGs That Are Unplayable Today - does not list any RPGs and lodges absurd complaints such as The fact that PS1's Tomb Raider found popularity at all, considering how poor the graphical quality really is, is incredible is a remark staggeringly removed from reality. Near Perfect Consoles Ruined by One Game is similarly incoherent when describing things like the HyperScan and walks back its treatment on ET for the Atari by stating it "wasn't the only game that helped give the Atari 2600 a bad name" and that "it took a slew of bad games to bring it all down". These are articles where writers are being forced to invent opinions.

I'll keep adding to this if needed. VRXCES (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

VRXCES, While I appreciate the fervor, I feel they're situational because they do work well as a secondary source for confirming things such as the definition of certain gameplay elements or whatnot. Like if there was a rampant issue where people were still trying to cite these for notability I could understand that, but to my knowledge there isn't?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

That seems like such a minor thing (the gameplay I mean). If VRXCES showed his homework on this, could you show me examples where CBR was the only usable source? Sometimes gameplay is tricky to source, but I've never found it totally impossible. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not just a gameplay thing, but an in-general thing where any statement could use a good secondary source. CBR is established as fact-checking. VRXCES's stance is regarding their opinions, which is another kettle of fish, and may also fall more on the particular author cited. Authors are likely to have very terrible opinions on things, good lord knows IGN, GamesRadar, and even The Gamer have all had repeatedly shining examples of that. But if I need to, say, cite a source that explains what an Edgerunner is in the Cyberpunk anime or a character appearing in a certain comic book, as unfortunate as it is CBR's 'death blossom' approach does indeed help there.

To my knowledge, the issue with CBR has never been their fact checking or editorial on that end, but that they're a content mill and a heavy concern that they may shift to AI editing (which, to my knowledge, never manifested). Someone dropping a terrible opinion on Tomb Raider's graphics is not a fact nor should it be, and we as editors should recognize the distinction between the two.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I accept what I'm talking about squarely relates to opinion writing. I was a little hasty to get this out without raising other concerns I was developing relating to acuracy and fact checking based on what I saw on some front page articles. I will follow up on that if sufficient to address the points above. VRXCES (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair! I'm no too concerned by what one may consider a bad take or not, but more so just like blatantly misleading information on genre sounded more like an thing that this should not really be considered a source in term of an expert opinion on video games. But also, if we're using it as a secondary source, I think seeing an example would help me understand where you are coming from. There is no rush on this obviously. Because if its for gameplay, I can't say I've ever found it too controversial of a section that requires multiple sources to clarify something. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I actually listed two examples right there, because Rebecca (Cyberpunk: Edgerunners) and Luna Snow both use them in that capacity.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I suspect the news pieces are much more accurate because they are republishing information from press releases. When editors are left to publish anything else, it always feels like there’s just something factually wrong. The below are all from opinion pieces published on CBR only from the past week and illustrated as the tip of an iceberg of casual errors of fact strewn throughout the writing:

@Kung Fu Man: This is just a loose attempt to help capture my concerns that editorial rigor and fact checking is weak across the board, not just opinions I disagree with - they're the kind of errors fact checking should identify and prevent. Happy to continue or whatever would best progress views here. VRXCES (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Well not to shift the goal post on my counterpoint, but if this is the past week, I'd consider a concern of it being now, not all the way back in 2016 (or 2014 as I'm pretty sure the original stated?). Like I think there needs to be some understanding as to what claiming 'unreliable' means especially regarding a decade of work.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

No, I agree, much as progress is being made I have only got so far as "it appears unreliable now", so is a gap to say "treat it as unreliable from acquisition" which was 2016, not 2014 as I originally suggested in error. The starting point of unreliability still needs work. Unfortunately I think it's likely to be a case of slow decline in quality rather than any one year, so welcome advice on method. VRXCES (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I feel that's a stronger argument to say they're unreliable after this point. Around 2022 they had a lot of the old staff at the helm before they were laid off (and that's where the initial AI accusation arose). However, even post firing they were putting out very useful opinion content, which rather hilariously in this case isn't even available on the site any longer. Cutting it off specifically at the Valnet acquisition may not only be a full-on baby with the bathwater scenario but cause some major damage where they're the only source acting as a good secondary.

I will say this does raise some valid concerns now, and given what else has been going on at Valnet (the way they mangled things for The Gamer), I would endorse making them unreliable post-July 2026.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Given the exercise may overly complicate achieving a simpler objective (to raise concerns current site content is broadly unreliable) I'd support wording that is something like The site was deemed no longer reliable by July 2026 observing a decline in the accuracy of content., which leaves open caution to content in the interim without excluding it entirely. VRXCES (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

That's slightly different from what you had in mind but does attempt to try and clarify nothing specific happened in July 2026, that's just the point at which the assessment was. VRXCES (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd support that, yeah. It may also behoove us to look at other Valnet sources too just a glance to ensure they're not also seeing the same rough decline.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

@Vrxces, you must be psychic. I had planned to open a discussion on this in the coming days with a full case for situational. Standby, I do have a case to make for this. 11WB 💬 20:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Before I continue, all listicles from Valnet should be written off. They only serve as supplements to reception sections and are honestly, completely based on the opinion of the writer and should be deemed unreliable regardless of site. 11WB 💬 20:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Situational, without time-period specificity: Any mention of a Valnet-owned site inevitably means the discussion strays from the specific site to the unreliability of Valnet as a whole. Valnet is not assessed as one group wholly, it is assessed on a per-site basis. With that out of the way, I'll be keeping the focus on CBR only.

Their about us page is fine. Their staff, to their credit, are also quite experienced. As an example, take Harley Whisenhunt, who helmed the student media organisation at Henderson State University before graduating. She now works as an interviewer for CBR at various events, such as Anime Expo. I think this is good, as it shows that the "sweatshop" accusations are often unfounded, as CBR employs people that actually go into the field for the articles they write and publish. Interviews, such as this one with Masuoka, demonstrate journalistic ability to ask questions that go beyond being generic.

CBR have been cited by many reliable sources after @Vrxces' proposed cutoff of 2016:

• IGN cited them in a 2021 article on DC Comics v Rihanna, a pretty serious legal battle over trademarking. When other sites such as The Independent and Digital Spy covered the story, why did IGN go with CBR?
• The Guardian (a national newspaper in the UK) cited them in a 2021 piece regarding antisemitism in Immortal Hulk. I needn't bother making clear how serious of a topic antisemitism is, yet CBR was considered trustworthy enough to cite for this.
• The Independent (a former UK national newspaper, now online only) cited them in a 2022 article on Neil Gaiman and MJ as The Matrix character Morpheus. The Independent relied on CBR for a factual claim here.
• NME cited them in a 2022 article on Vince Staples' comic Limbo Beach. This interview was cited.
• IGN Germany cited them in a 2025 article about Daryl Dixon. This interview was cited.
• Bleeding Cool cited them in a 2026 piece on Daredevil: Born Again. The interview was with Charlie Cox himself.

I think this demonstrates that CBR can be trusted for quite serious subjects, along with historic and ongoing integrity with interviews. I don't think a sweeping cutoff for unreliability after 2016 is accurate or fair, when they are cited in national newspapers four years after this and are still cited in reliable outlets as recently as this year.

Now, this isn't to say they are reliable. We can all agree that they have serious issues, which @Vrxces has quite rightly covered here. That being said, in all the time I've been editing I have never agreed with the consensus for unreliability either. I've spoken to KFM and others about this in various places, including on Discord, and there is a case to make for situational. I hope I've done that here. 11WB 💬 21:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

A missing piece to this discussion is that the relevance of CBR to this project is its games coverage, which seems markedly of lower reliability than its other coverage areas. The examples provided by users above seem to relate to film, anime and comics coverage. It may simply be their editorial structure for games is an afterthought and suffers as a result. I would be comfortable for a carve out of CBR for unreliability for its games coverage, given this is the only real use it has on WP:VG/S. VRXCES (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I would have thought their use by IGN would help alleviate those concerns. 11WB 💬 23:07, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't engage with the games coverage, which is the source of the issues raised. VRXCES (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm at the point where I think CBR should be dumped into unreliable. That PS1 RPG article clinched it for me. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

That was a listicle, right? I don't think writing an entire site off, when there is evidence of proper journalism and regard from reliable sources, is fair. I support making listicles unreliable, of which CBR is not the only site guilty of spam-publishing these. 11WB 💬 02:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I also agree that this should likely just be deemed full unreliable. Regardless of whether other parts of it are better than others, the fact we have low quality articles consistently being pushed out by a website well-known for awful working conditions and content farm/SEO publishing is something I feel we do not need to rely on as a source. We have plenty of alternatives, and traditionally all Valnet tends to be cited for is attempts at buffing reception; its use cases for being necessary to cite information are few and far between. I think as a whole it just shouldn't be used, including for video games. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Per what @Vrxces said above about the case I made constituting primarily comic related topics, I will attempt to make a case for a later cut-off date for video game coverage specifically. I don't think 2016 is the right year and I certainly don't believe categorising them as unreliable time immemorial is fair either. Serious issues began when the layoffs occurred, I believe last year. I would support a 2024-25 cut-off for unreliability across the board, but no earlier. Researching this will take some time, and I expect discussion will continue here in the meantime, hopefully with input from other editors. 11WB 💬 02:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@11WB If you can give a confirmation on a hard cut off date, I am fine for that. To be clear, at present, I nominate for post-Valnet buyout timing wise, but I am willing to go later, for now, if you can provide good evidence of where a content decline began. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

For the moment there is the case I made above for situational, but that focuses mostly on comics/interviews. I'll need to nail down reliable sites that have used CBR as a source post-2016, that are related to video games in topic, rather than comics. 11WB 💬 02:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm still of the mind for post-July 2026 myself, or even 2026 in general. If it gets worse than that we can start working backwards but I feel that'll be the less damaging outcome.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I think another major issue with "5 Classic PS1 RPGs That Are Unplayable Today" is that it includes games that are very famously not RPG games. Ah, yes, my favorite RPG is... Gran Turismo. Or Twisted Metal. I wouldn't be surprised if that article was AI generated or assisted. With this said, I argue unreliable. I'm not sure of a cut-off point (could be 2016, could be 2026, dunno), but it's obvious what the site is now doesn't meet our already low standards. Or any Valnet site for that matter but I digress. λ NegativeMP1 17:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment Not closing at all - but observing whilst there are outstanding disagreements on when it applies, if this conversation lapses it would seem comfortable to say there is some consensus current games coverage is generally unreliable at least from the time of this assessment, and I can update accordingly only in the event we get no further on this and there are no disagreements. VRXCES (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, this discussion was only opened 3 days ago, and your proposal has had reasonable resistance. I'm quite busy for the remainder of this week, but I would like to make a case for a more recent cut-off date. 2016 is too early. 11WB 💬 02:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Also with respect, I may have not explained correctly - I am observing there's at least general agreement from most participants for present unreliability from this point forward. Where there has been 'reasonable resistance' I've broadly capitulated and I'm no longer advocating unreliability must start from 2016 or relate to non-games coverage. I would consider simply stating that games coverage is unreliable by and from this point would be fine for my aims. I agree with you that any support for a specific date has not reached consensus in any way and would need much further work, but wanted to make this comment to flag I think where we're at now is good progress. VRXCES (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, I got the wrong end of the stick. I assumed you were looking to see out this discussion before a proper consensus could form. I apologise. From my side, I agree that right now, CBR falls well short of reliable and even situational. The further back you go however, the more reliable they are. 11WB 💬 12:49, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long on this. I promise I'm not stalling. Without sharing too much personal information, I'll just say it has been an extraordinarily busy past week, including the upgrading of my system (which is still ongoing). I've also had to manage a data loss which hasn't been much fun. I aim to have a case for CBR video game article reliability done by the end of this week (on the condition I don't run into any other issues). 11WB 💬 02:40, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I feel this is important to bring up, but with activity being at an all-time low here on this end of Wikipedia, it's kinda hard not to see that the page is turning into a circle of the same fistful of editors. That's not saying VRXCES, 11WB, or even myself shouldn't be walking into these conversations, it's a lot more "the point of these conversations is to develop consensus for the Video Game project", and I don't think that's necessarily viable right now with how a lot of these are going, especailly if only the same editors are usually the ones chiming in, y'know?

Maybe a better change in approach is necessary, or pushing for greater involvement from WP:VG as a whole. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. This hasn't been helped by certain individuals opening discussions on the same sites or Indeed different sites too often. 11WB 💬 21:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you KFM that for all the contributions made there have been few discussions where more than two editors have agreed on a proposal and shifted the list in some time. I agree with 11WB too. Whilst impossible to police, ideally editors should come with a reason to suggest an addition or change to consensus, be clear about what this would achieve, and provide evidence upfront, rather than here's a source I found, please find evidence telling me if it's reliable or not. I could certainly do better in that department. But yes, buy-in and involvement is the key issue here and that's a hard one to fix. VRXCES (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

It isn't right for each source to pass through the vetting of the same editors, that creates an unintentional government of consensus. 11WB 💬 23:05, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree; I don't believe or expect by being the only contributor to a discussion, that rubber-stamps it or conveys consensus in anyway. VRXCES (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Consensus caused by attrition is probably a better way to describe this (rather than my earlier descriptor). Would it be worth adding a banner to the top of this page letting editors know that activity here is low? Alternatively, and I don't think this would be great, consensus at this board could be considered less binding compared to other more active boards. I had a discussion with @Miraclepine about this not too long ago regarding Dexerto's listing at WP:RS/PS. 11WB 💬 23:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

There certainly are more folks than the super-regulars at this page with opinions on the topic - GAN source reviews and individual AFDs being some of the more obvious examples. And the more mainstream sources, when discussed here, definitely get more traction (e.g. the TheGamer topic). I think the challenge is the borderline-reliability, low-name-recognition sources that's the bulk of the threads here where there are participation issues. Incentivizing folks to participate in those is the crux of the problem. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm sorry for literally everything I did, but I propose a change that could make the page easier to navigate, we should also make unreliable sources into a tablet that explains why they are unreliable, since it might confuse some users as to why they are this way, bye guys. RengokuKyojuroFan (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

...No. Please stop opening these discussions. 11WB 💬 02:14, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

oh my god, I was merely making a suggestion, I apologized for my actions and I'm actually trying to improve the site, just because I'm very active here doesn't mean I'm a spammer, please let me be. RengokuKyojuroFan (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

the truth is, I don't really know how to edit articles, I just like communicating with others in the Talk Page to help them and me understand the site better. RengokuKyojuroFan (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Every unreliable site listed has a link to the discussion where it was decided they were unreliable. If people want to know why, they can just click the link. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

+1 11WB 💬 02:21, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

what does the number mean, I haven't seen that? RengokuKyojuroFan (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Unreliable sources. See how every single one has numbers next to them? Every one of those is a link to a previous discussion about the source's reliability. Click the numbers to see why it's unreliable. All reliable, situational, and inconclusive sources also have links to previous discussions about them as well. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

but why do reliable and situational sources have tables but not unreliable ones? RengokuKyojuroFan (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Because those sources are intended for use in articles and the page needs to present relevant information about how they should be used by editors, including any stipulations and restrictions. Unreliable sources do not need these details because they're not supposed to be used at all. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

ok, thanks, that's why. RengokuKyojuroFan (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Crunchyroll is a known streaming media website, but what about its news section? It has a dedicated gaming news category.

The most prolific writer is Joseph Luster, who also write for Otaku USA and Destructoid. Other writer, George Yang, mostly conducts interviews for Crunchyroll and has authored for IGN, Gamespot, NPR, etc. There is an About Us page here that includes non-gaming news authors. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Use for interviews is fine but this is generally not the kind of source that is used to substantiate notability. Crunchyroll is a Sony Pictures and Aniplex joint venture and publishes its own games, and they operate a streaming service for many of the licensed anime that have game counterparts, so that creates an interesting issue around independence. The purpose of the games coverage is framed in part around helping readers catch the latest releases and updates from Crunchyroll Games, although it does cover routine announcements and interviews from unaffiliated developers and companies.

Honestly, it feels like the interviews are the most valuable use case here and I could support their use as reliable publication of WP:PRIMARY material. There's editorial staff, writers with some experience, a basic corrections process and interpreters. The routine coverage is no better or worse than any situational source and a reliable one should be preferred. Due to the nature of the coverage, this isn't the kind of thing that usually establishes notability anyway. WP:A&M/RS seem not to have discussed this. If there were reviews or features being relied on for notability, I'd raise independence and lack of editorial policy concerns, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. VRXCES (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm surprised that WP:A&M/RS never discussed this, considering that it's been used in the topic area for years. I concur with VRXCES that it's okay (I've used it occasionally for routine info), but another source should be used if possible and it generally doesn't demonstrate notability. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 04:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

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

The Online Gaming Review was a games website active between 1995 to 1998 that seems to have wide and well-preserved review coverage via indexation of its 418 reviews on MobyGames. It would be highly useful for supporting game notability for mid-nineties computer software. The site was acquired in 1996 under Air Age Media who merged it with Computer Player / Computer & Net Player as OGR Magazine and expanded it briefly to print syndication in January to March 1998. Computer Games Magazine acquired it in 1998 and redirected their site to theirs. An archive of the site demonstrates a clear and substantial editorial structure with a ten-person editorial board, chief editor, copyeditor and separate advertising wing. The Wikipedia article for the site and the previous link provides wide examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS from reliable sources in the form of accolades during the 90s. In the context of 90s web reviews, this is above-average in clear editorial structure, has publisher backing, and should be deemed reliable. VRXCES (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2026 (UTC)