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

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Final Weapon

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

The site lists out a list of staff members, showing journalistic integrity. Website is split up into clear sections, and reviews are overall very in-depth. A good number of writers listed on the site have formal education in writing and general experience. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decent review ethics policy here: [1] Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - seems reliable and I agree it has journalistic integrity. Gommeh 📖/🎮 11:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So this is not archived as an inconclusive discussion it would be great to get a third opinion Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning reliable. Editorial staff looks good and reviews are featured in OpenCritic: [2] [3] etc. While the website's articles seem to be written in a rather formulaic manner (e.g. listing the staff who worked on a game or TV show in bullet points; ending many articles with Lastly, [...]), I don't see any facts that stand out as particularly unreliable. –G M 01:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable or situational at best. Final Weapon was previously discussed in May 2024 where it was deemed unreliable by two frequent editors on this talk page. From my own analysis and by doing a comparison from last year's discussion, I can gather that:

Whilst they do have an ethics policy as provided by nom, they still do not have a stated editorial policy in place. The current ethics policy mainly talks about their approach to reviews and listing that they don't use AI and will declare when provided a copy by developers.
The website has had an increase quite a bit in staff since last year, with only one member leaving. Of note out of the 13 listed staff member, the co-founder/Editor-in-Chief has experience as a freelancer for IGN for over 2 years, the Managing Editor had experience as a writer at GameRant and has degree in journalism and a senior staff writer has a bachelors in creative writing. All the rest, including the other co-founder, have had no prior experience or qualifications in journalism, which is big issue when it comes to this.
As was previously mentioned by DarkeruTomoe in the last discussion, they do have good content (although they do publish a lot of guides), get a decent amount of interviews and have a decent amount of industry access elsewhere, which demonstrates a baseline amount of integrity and rep.

Overall, definitely not a high-quality source and is likely the same status as last time, but I'd like to here what other editors here would have to say. Captain Galaxy 17:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue

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

Mostly listing as an FYI - a few former Polygon reporters have just launched Rogue (a new independently owned video game website a la Aftermath). It is early days but it might be worth keeping an eye on to see if any of their articles prove useful as reliable sources. So far the main article categories are news, editorials, & guides (also podcasts). The website includes a detailed FAQ on who they are & their editorial policies. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm incline to list this site as reliable as of now. They have viable editorial policies, their founders have had experience with a myriad of publications the project considers reliable, they have credited both Aftermath and Giant Bomb, their creation was covered by Game Developer and from the looks of it, their articles have a good editorial quality to them. To me, this site seems to match well with the other sites here we consider reliable. Captain Galaxy 20:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend giving this a few more months. There's at least two editors I recognize as reliable, but I'm also not thrilled that a "third" of their works are guide material. I know they need that for SCO and make the site viable, which is why I'd recommend coming back to this when we can judge a few months of product. Masem (t) 21:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards reliable too, but Masem's advice is intelligent. I like seeing some editorial policies at least. Let's revisit this in a few months. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning reliable as well, though I agree with revisiting in a few months. –G M 01:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GameDiscoverCo

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

Simon Carless's GameDiscoverCo Substack newsletter. (Here's their About page) WP:RSSELF states that newsletters are largely considered unreliable but that [s]elf-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
I’d like to get some opinions on whether Carless would be considered an established expert in the video game industry, and whether his newsletter might therefore be usable as a reliable source under those criteria. Specifically, I'd like to cite this newsletter in the Abiotic Factor_(video_game) article since it includes developer commentary and sales data analysis.quidama _talk 23:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, Carless and his newsletter are often cited or quoted by our reliable sources, especially when sales data and discoverability of games are concerned:

IGN: [1] [2] [3] [4]
Polygon: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
PC Gamer: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] in print: [1]
GamesRadar+: [1] [2] [3] (quoting PC Gamer)
Eurogamer: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Aftermath: [1] [2]
Wired: [1]

quidama _talk 23:59, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable. This is similar to Jason Schreier's Game On newsletter, where we have a well-established reliable author doing their own publishing, and Simon Carless is of the same class. Masem (t) 21:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ONE Esports

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

I'm considering translating zh:瑪薇卡 (Draft:Mavuika) into English and I was wondering about their use of this article from ONE Esports to help establish notability. Obviously it wouldn't establish Mavuika as notable on its own, but I feel it may at least contribute to her notability in addition to the other sources listed on her article on the Chinese Wikipedia. Additionally, I'd also like to get consensus on whether ONE Esports can be considered reliable. Gommeh 📖/🎮 16:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed as "situational" on zhwp WikiProject Video Games. Here is the 2022 discussion, translated (from 1 & 2): ONE Esports is the Southeast Asian gaming media outlet, where Yahoo News SEA's Games and Esports editor, Kurt Lozano, once served. It was founded in 2019 by ONE Championship's esports arm, has hosted local esports events, and, as a first-hand source for Southeast Asian esports news, is generally reliable. Its game coverage is also extensive, its "About" page lists a very clear editorial team, and it has 2.3 million followers on Facebook. Aside from interview content being considered reliable, the rest of its content still needs further community evaluation. SuperGrey (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source Gaming

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

Posting this here for more input, this comes from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylveon.

I found a SIGCOV article for the subject from Source Gaming which looks to be promising and would appreciate thoughts on the source's reliability. The website has a public editorial team and has been cited in several reliable sources before, mostly for their translations, but sometimes for news in general: IGN, GamesRadar+ (x2), Siliconera, VG247, Game Informer, NME, Nintendo Life (many more times). ⋆˚꩜｡ serilly! (he/him) (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that my only big concern is that they primarily use pseudonyms, which makes it hard to check credentials... But they're clearly viewed with respect in the industry with how much they're WP:USEDBYOTHERS. NantenJex, or Joshua Goldie, their editor in chief, also writes for the aforementioned Nintendo Life. He has a masters in Game Art as well. ⋆˚꩜｡ serilly! (he/him) (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cartboy is Matt Reisine according to his Bluesky, but I can't find anything about him on MuckRack indicating other work.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://muckrack.com/matt-reisine There's a little from uGames. About and ethics policy for that site here.

Worth mentioning uGames's sister site uInterview is on the spam blacklist but with a note that individual urls can be whitelisted if regular editors want to source them, so IDK what's up with that. Was requested to be removed in 2021 with no reply. Not too related to Source Gaming anyways. ⋆˚꩜｡ serilly! (he/him) (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in love with the use of pseudonyms, but the fact that the EIC works for NintendoLife and they seem to be cited a fair few times suggests at least some reliability. I'd call them situationally reliable at the bare minimum. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable I really don't see why any reputable journalistic site would feel the need to write with pseudonyms. If we are holding them to the literal same standard as the New York Times and Washington Post, then "Cart Boy" and "Wolfman Jew" (yes, I'm serious) is not going to fly as the byline. Furthermore, the description as a Nintendo fan site puts the the idea they might be unbiased into question. If they're writing about a Nintendo game or hardware, I have no real way of knowing just how influenced they are by being Nintendo fans, funded by Nintendo fans. This seems like a real stretch. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Famitsu, 4Gamer.net, and GamePro to say the least use pseudonyms. Sushi-X was a staple of Electronic Gaming Monthly and was actually several different writers. Edge outright omitted author credits in their articles. IGN used pseudonyms for some articles, and I've been able to use those at a Featured Article level. So with all due respect Zx, the use of pseudonyms in and of itself does not diminish the reliability of work.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scattered use of them in a few select cases does not equal full use of them for the entire site. Essentially everyone on that site has a pseudonym rather than their real name, so it reads more like a forum. I know that such usage was more common in the gaming magazine era of games journalism, but this is 2025 and it's highly unusual for a reputable site nowadays. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to KFM. I think I agree with Zxcvbnm on the point regarding pseudonyms. I recommend searching for previous conversations at WP:RS/N, as to my knowledge, there isn't a P&G or essay written about pseudonyms used by source authors. I have seen a preference amongst editors for bylined sources that identify the author however. 11WB (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair to say that Source Gaming is not equal to a Polygon or IGN, but I don't think fully unreliable is appropriate either. I don't think that them being a Nintendo fan site can be used against them either, as we have multiple fully reliable sources devoted to specific companies and consoles, including some produced by the companies themselves (like Nintendo Power). What's ultimately important is whether reliable sources consider them trustworthy, and they appear to. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd treat them like Shmuplations. Their translations are fine if the original source can't be located, but use the original source if it can be. The amount of citations they've gotten in RSs and the EiC working for NLife give them enough credibility from my perspective. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 16:31, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious mainly about their non-translation content, which has also been cited by GamesRadar+ and Nintendo Life on quite a few occasions. ⋆˚꩜｡ serilly! (he/him) (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Situational, with the caveat that if an article is cited, it should be with the author's real name. As pointed out above "CartBoy" for example is easy enough to properly cite as he uses his real name on social media. That should satisfy the issue with them using pseudonyms to some extent.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to comment on this. If the editor has to look up the name of the author on another website due to lack of a bylined source, then I don't think that source lends itself well to being reliable. 11WB (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I've had to do that for other websites. You're pushing a standard we don't even apply to IGN (i.e. their "Pokemon of the Day Chick/Guy/Dude" whatever). Or instances where it's just attributed to "Staff", like GamesRadar at times. The issue should be the content, the pedigree of the staff, and their editorial policy.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we don't have to agree on that specific issue. Just to re-quote what @Zxcvbnm said above, 'If we are holding them to the literal same standard as the New York Times and Washington Post, then "Cart Boy" and "Wolfman Jew" (yes, I'm serious) is not going to fly as the byline.' This comment from four years ago in the RS/N archives also supports this. The author is important, and a factor to consider when evaluating whether a source is reliable. 11WB (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man, just to take a random recent article from IGN, this one is bylined, just as I think most are on their website. This point is moot anyway from my perspective, as when 'IGN Staff' is used in an article of theirs, it is simply the IGN editorial team grouped. As stated here at the bottom of their 'Editorial Standards' page:

'IGN Staff Disclosure: Posts bylined “IGN Staff” are written, edited, and constructed by our editorial content team as a group rather than by an individual author. Most often these will be “roundup” features like our recommendations for PC games or our annual Best Of series honoring the best games, movies, and shows of the year. Any content not written by the editorial team will be labeled with one of our content disclosures.'

To sum up, those specific articles by IGN are not supposed to be used as sources on Wikipedia (as they come under WP:ACCORDINGTO), and also have no reason to be used. 11WB (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, I was referring to articles such as this which passed through the FAC process for Raichu and is attributed to "pokemonofthedaychick".

Secondly, there's no policy saying articles attributed to staff or undisclosed staff "are not supposed to be used as sources on wikipedia", nor is that the point of WP:ACCORDINGTO...in fact that's not ACCORDINGTO is about to at all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using IGN articles that are bylined as 'IGN Staff', which IGN themself described as being '“roundup” features like our recommendations for PC games or our annual Best Of series honoring the best games, movies, and shows of the year.' Those articles come under WP:ACCORDINGTO as they are recommendations chosen by IGN themself. Those specific articles would never need to be used on Wikipedia as sources anyway. That is the point I attempted to explain above. 11WB (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncommon for IGN to use, in my experience, articles written by IGN staff that don't fall under those parameters. That being said, Kung Fu Man's point about pokemonofthedaychick still stands. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The specific link that @Kung Fu Man provided doesn't even appear to exist on IGN anymore as more recent Internet Archive crawls turned up no results. I don't know why this is the case, however I would assume IGN themself either don't keep pages dated from over 2 decades ago, or they don't consider it relevant or reliable anymore. It may be that IGN had different editorial oversight in the early 2000s, whereby more people could publish content, similar to blog sites. That is the only explanation I have for someone with that pseudonym being an author on IGN (which is no longer the case now, except for in web archives). 11WB (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it was accepted at FAC, and there's no policy or guideline that articles written under pseudonyms are inherently unreliable. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That specific source either comes under WP:RSEDITORIAL or WP:RSOPINION, I would be interested to hear @Zxcvbnm's opinion on which it falls under. Either way, I would not count it as a reliable source on the Raichu article. The source is from 23 April 2003, which means this was published before even Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire were released in Europe. The actual quote it is substantiating isn't even meant to be taken seriously and has potentially been quoted out of context...

Regardless, I am amazed that this source slipped through the net at the FA review. Considering there are only 44 sources on the whole article, every source should have been reviewed. I don't conduct GA or FA reviews myself, however I don't believe one questionable source is enough to disqualify the article from being an FA as a whole. 11WB (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I realise my replies here could be misconstrued as bludgeoning, as this is a bit of a tangent to what this topic is about anyway (the Source Gaming article). I am happy to leave this discussion here and agree to disagree. 11WB (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea what point you are making by saying it was released before Ruby and Sapphire. What? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not making that clear. There is a section called 'In Battle' which is relevant only to games released before that date. This would put it early third-generation. Probably why IGN no longer host this page, as it contains very outdated information. This also goes for the other information in that article, it is extremely out of date and only relevant to pre-2003. 11WB (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm the above, it is about Raichu in Pokémon Crystal. 11WB (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...It's cited for an opinion regarding opinion on popularity at the time. It's also still on the site, just under a different link now. It was also brought up during the FAC and if memory serves, peer review process. I mean this with no offense, but you seem to be walking into the middle of all this citing policies incorrectly and spouting things as facts that aren't. In any event, none of this has any bearing on the subject at hand, or why the source was (correctly) used: that sometimes, websites like IGN use pseudoyms for staff also, and it's considered adequate to cite.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original point was on whether pseudonym-bylined articles are reliable. I agree this is a tangent, as I said above. Thank you for linking to that, I have never seen that part of their site. If you believe I am citing policies incorrectly, I will not comment any further on this thread. Thank you for making me aware of this. I disagreed with you on the point regarding pseudonyms only, the rest of the replies, including mine, were unnecessary. Thank you. 11WB (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable but I might agree with a case-by-case Situational for established authors (i.e., education in journalism and experience writing for reputable sources) without pseudonyms. I've long felt that we've strayed from WP:REPUTABLE, not only for video games but across the project, and we should tighten our guidelines. Requiring sources to be written be a demonstrable journalist (or comparable expert) should be part of that. Woodroar (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the fact that they have an experienced EIC should suffice. Would you consider it acceptable if the author is also known by their real name despite using a pseudonym for their piece? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine a case where we should use a source like that. From my understanding, pseudonyms are really only acceptable in legitimate journalism when the person's life is in danger. (For example, with Iran Window.) This Poynter article goes into some of the rationale behind that guideline. Woodroar (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable: I recused myself from !voting at the ongoing Sylveon AfD as I was the AfC reviewer who accepted the article. However, as this is regarding a specific source and whether it is reliable, I feel I can leave a proper response in this topic discussion.

I concur with other editors here who have said that sources that have authors who use pseudonyms are likely not going to be as reliable as those that do. I understand there are editors here who have the made the point that as long as the editorial policy of those websites and publications are sound, then sources that are only bylined with pseudonyms should be okay to use. I would definitely exercise caution there, and personally would say that those sources should not be used over reliable sources that are actually bylined. 11WB (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only aspect i don't see any issue with using Source Gaming is if they host a translation of an interview with a developer or anything in that nature. Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moustique

I want to see if French-language Belgian news/culture magazine Moustique is considered a reliable source, since I was looking into their 2024 top 100 games of all time list. It exists as both a print magazine and a website. It has been around since 1924 and covers both current affairs and pop culture; it appears to lean toward the latter. Home page is at http://moustique.be . Their staff list is here, though I have not seen a page that explicitly lays out their editorial policy (might be buried somewhere, since it is part of a conglomerate, but I'm not sure.). A quick Google search turns up hundreds of citations for the magazine on the French version of Wikipedia, indicating at least some acceptance there already. What do we think? Phediuk (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my limited research into this source, I have found Moustique is owned by the Belgian newspaper L'Avenir, but I haven't found any information in English on whether that newspaper is a reliable source. L'Avenir in turn is owned by parent company IPM Group [fr] (their website, for reference, is here: https://www.ipmgroup.be/). This is the best I was able to do finding information about Moustique as an English-speaker, and I'm afraid that I can't really confirm any sense of reliability using this.

I might recommend either finding someone who can speak French to evaluate the source, if there is currently someone who would be able to do so, or asking about this source on the French-language version of this page. IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Tactics

I'd like to get this one out of inconclusive one way or the other. Based on past discussions, there seems to be some positivity related to the EIC. @Sergecross73: I noticed you had concerns about missing bios in 2016, though I was able to verify that some staff were fairly experienced. Looking at Muckrack:

Nathan Ellingsworth wrote for Polygon and Nintendo Life
Holly Alice wrote for Rock Paper Shotgun and VG247
Callum Self wrote for IGN and PCGamesN

With a good EIC, I feel like it might not be the strongest source, but it's at least strong enough to be identified as reliable. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me dig further, but that's a good reason to re-evaluate this one. Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Network N site, so probably as reliable as PCGamesN. IgelRM (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable I have had previous experience with this site and have found them to be great to use. As Cukie mentioned, the staff seem to have great previous experience and they have a similar background to another reliable site. Captain Galaxy 00:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom's Hardware

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

Tom's Hardware is an Canadian website owned by Future US, who also own other RS like GamesRadar+ and PC Gamer. It has been operating since 1996. There were some mentions in WT:VG/S, but never a full discussion. It's also been mentioned in WP:RSN with no clear resolution. The site has forums, but they are automatically unreliable per WP:UGC, so only articles matter.

Tom's Hardware about page Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 10:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reliable to me. Editorial staff looks good and articles are well-written. –G M 00:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's pretty much no reason to not list it as reliable. λ NegativeMP1 05:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable I have previously used them before and found they had very good Ethics Policy and listed team. And as the nom stated, they are owned by Future US who also owns many of the other RSs we use on this project. Captain Galaxy 12:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GLITCHED.online (previously GLITCHED.africa)

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

This South African website is currently listed under "Inconclusive discussions" and the last time a discussion was had about this website was in 2023, where it was deemed too early to determine its reliability. Per WP:USEBYOTHERS I've found some sources that have cited this website since then:

Cook, James (2024). "Kingdom Come: Deliverance and the Aesthetics of Authenticity". Journal of Sound and Music in Games. 5 (2): 23–48. doi:10.1525/jsmg.2024.5.2.23. ISSN 2578-3432.: Marco Cocomello, writing for Glitched notes both perspective in his review: “Historically accurate and ultrarealistic, Kingdom Come: Deliverance is a brutally challenging, rewarding and vast open-world RPG, but it definitely isn’t for everyone. You need to have patience, a willingness to learn and face hardships in this beautiful world that Warhorse has created. You will live there, die there, and even face a lot of bugs, but the journey will be well worth it in the end.” Marco Cocomello, “Kingdom Come: Deliverance Review—Realistic, Daunting and Unforgettable,” Glitched, February 12, 2019, accessed January 3, 2024, https://www.glitched.online/kingdom-come-deliverancereview-realistic-daunting-and-unforgettable/
Kifer, Avigail; Prince, Jeffrey (2023-09-18). "Conflicts of Interest and Platforms". doi:10.2139/ssrn.4575050.: Sam Aberdeen, “The 20-Year Story of Xbox: The House that Halo Built,” Glitched, May 14, 2021, available at https://www.glitched.online/the-20-year-story-of-xbox-the-house-that-halo-built/;
Rehse, Jessica; Riemer, Nathanael, eds. (2020). "Wir alle treffen Entscheidungen im Leben, aber letztendlich treffen unsere Entscheidungen uns": Didaktische Potenziale digitaler Spielwelten (in German). Universitätsverlag Potsdam. p. 280. doi:10.25969/mediarep/20015. ISBN 978-3-86956-489-0.: Cocomello, Marco: Red Dead Redemption 2 Streamer Feeds Feminist to an Alligator - Gets Banned On YouTube, 10.11.2018, in: Glitched, online einsehbar unter URL: https://glitched.africa/news/red-dead-redemption-2-streamer-feeds-feminist-to-an-alligator-gets-banned-on-youtube (zuletzt abgerufen am 21.04.19).
The South African: [4]

Thoughts on this website as a reliable source? The articles seem well-written and its inclusion in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal as well as a book published by a university press makes me believe we can safely consider it reliable. –G M 23:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions in the sources above don't convince me as strong. It doesn't look to bad but not safely reliable. IgelRM (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LaPS4

Find video game sources: "...LaPS4..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Spanish-language video game website. Reviews are featured on MetaCritic ([5]) and have been used in peer-reviewed journals and WP:RS per WP:USEBYOTHERS:

HobbyConsolas (which is listed as reliable in WP:VG/RS): "El timo detrás de los 1.200 trofeos platino de Hakoom" : (translated) As our colleagues at LaPS4 have proven after a thorough investigation in which they reviewed this player's trophy activity, Hakoom did not achieve the 1,200 platinum trophies as cleanly as he claimed. [...] Finally, LaPS4 has demonstrated a practice that undermines Hakoom 's credibility as a legitimate treasure hunter, as the user is dedicated to "selling" trophies.
Cisneros-Quezada, Christian Sebastian; Cabrera Silva, Tatiana Alexandra (2024). "Almacenamiento de videojuegos en la big data" [Video game storage in the big data]. Journal Scientific MQRInvestigar. 8 (1): 607–632. doi:10.56048/MQR20225.8.1.2024.607-632. ISSN 2588-0659.: Villalobos, J. D. (2023, agosto 10). La PS4. Retrieved octubre 30, 2023, from https://www.laps4.com/preguntas-y-respuestas/como-se-calcula-el-kd-en-warzone Villalobos, J. D. (2023, octubre 01). LA PS4. Retrieved noviembre 08, 2023, from https://www.laps4.com/preguntas-y-respuestas/que-es-lo-que-hace-de-los-videojuegos-unaexperiencia-tan-atractiva-para-los-jugadores
Mejías-Climent, Laura (2017). "Multimodality and Dubbing in Video Games: A Research Approach". Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies. 17: 99–113.: LaPS4 (2016, October 6). Entrevista a Guiomar Alburquerque, la VOZ de LARA CROFT en España [Video file].

Thoughts on this website as a reliable source? I'm thinking that this source is reliable per the evidence above. –G M 00:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

iXBT Games

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

Similar to the discussions for GLITCHED and LaPS4 above, here are some reliable sources and peer-reviewed journals that use this Russian gaming website as a source:

Igromania (which is listed as reliable in WP:VG/RS): "СМИ рассказали о «тайной» мобильной игре авторов провальной The Day Before" : (translated) However, according to iXBT (https://ixbt.games/articles/2023/12/17/eksklyuziv-the-day-before-razrabotciki-govoryat.html), one employee did decide to take the risk and participate in the development of the new mobile game.
Budko, Diana A. (2025). "Российские компьютерные игры и государственная культурная политика: цифровизация и традиционные ценности" [Russian Computer Games and State Cultural Policy: Digitalization and Traditional Values]. RUDN Journal of Political Science (in Russian). 27 (2): 214–226. doi:10.22363/2313-1438-2025-27-2-214-226. ISSN 2313-1438.: Экшен-слэшер «Русы против ящеров» (разработчики theBratans) был выпущен в 2023 г. Agafonoff и Smola Game Studio (на 2025 г. анонсирован выпуск «Русы против ящеров 2»20). [...] Анонсирована «Русы против ящеров 2». Обещаны кооператив, сюжетная кампания и оптимизация // iXBT.games. URL: https://ixbt.games/news/2024/07/29/anonsirovanarusy-protiv-yashherov-2-obeshhany-kooperativ-syuzetnaya-kampaniya-i-optimizaciya.html (дата обращения: 10.01.2025).)
Belousov, Egor Dmitrievich; Khuzeeva, Liliia Ravilevna (2022). The concept of « Hero's Journey» in modern video games and its influence on the gamer's self-identity. Practice Oriented Science: UAE – RUSSIA – INDIA International University Scientific Forum. p. 73. doi:10.34660/INF.2022.98.88.048.: It looks like God of War on PC has sold over 2 million copies [electronic resource] – URL: https://ixbt.games/news/2022/02/12/poxoze-god-of-war-na-pkprodalas-tirazom-bolee-2-millionov-kopii.html (appeal date 04.11.2022)

Thoughts on this website as a reliable source? I'm leaning towards reliable for this website per the evidence above. –G M 01:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I should have checked the Russian WP:VG/RS before making this post; they have already deemed iXBT Games as reliable. I believe this discussion can be closed. –G M 01:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see that per @Rhain there should be some discussion in this talk page at least, so I'll leave this discussion up. –G M 02:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wireframe

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

Wireframe was a free magazine distributed by the Raspberry Pi Foundation under Raspberry Pi Press circulated between 2018-2023. Most of its issues are accessible on the Internet Archive (i.e. [6]. The magazine's editor, Ryan Lambie, has written prolifically since 2008 under RS Den of Geek ([7]) and other outlets including Film Stories ([8]). The magazine had an editorial board (see p. 114 of [9]) and contributors that turn up in other RS including PC Gamer writer Alexander Chatziioannou and Edge writer Jon Bailes, among others. The magazine featured a fairly good review section for indie games. These seem sufficiently independent of parent company Pi - I mean, as a free magazine, can't imagine how much skin in the game Pi would have as a hardware manufacturer that would compromise editorial independence compared to any Windows or Mac magazine at any rate. The magazine has received coverage from GamesIndustry ([10][11][12]). A previous discussion on the RS status of the magazine in 2018 [13] expressed one favorable view but remained without closure, so the magazine has been absent from this list to date. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've used the magazine before for a few projects here on Wikipedia and i have yet to have any issue with it. Also, the rationale you put up is convincing enough for me at least. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable. Seems like a good background to me. Woodroar (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Power Up Gaming

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

Added at the request of an IP attempting to cite them on Mega Man Star Force Legacy Collection. Has an About Page with a list of staff, but most of the team don't list prior experience outside of EIC Chris Mawson having freelanced for some other RSes. No ethics policy page that I've been able to find either. Pretty sure the site doesn't pass muster, but wanted to at least run it by some other editors to get a consensus. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the reasons you mentioned. The pedigree of Mawson is good, but there's just a whiff that things don't quite meet the standard: no policy transparency, and the About page goes some great deal into Mawson's experience in marketing and SEO, which you immediately see from the site's bizarre Useful Links section hocking casinos and the sheer glut of Wordle Answers Today type articles. One of those sites that could be borderline with material improvements, but clearly isn't there. Possibly situational but only for Mawson if you're feeling particularly generous, but this may lend undue credence to the site. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable. As far as I can tell, all of Mawson's articles at "IGN" and "GameSpot" were actually self-submitted GameFAQs articles, which we consider unreliable. Examples: 1, 2, 3. That's not a good look. (Would be glad to be proven otherwise.) Woodroar (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yikes. In that case, ignore what I said above about Mawson, this is definitely an unreliable then. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COGconnected

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

Been seeing this one pop up a lot in Metacritic review lists, and is linked over 100 times across Wikipedia, but I don't think there's ever been a firm stance established on the site (someone brought it up a few years ago and got no response). Has an about page with staff, but no ethics policy I can find. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately leaning oppose. This is a tricky one because it is in a grey area where the site is clearly rigorous and putting out good stuff. But while no one factor is strongly against, the indicia I would use to suggest against is (1) the lack of published editorial policies as you mentioned; (2) Muck Rack [14] suggests its editor and most contributors have no external journalistic experience (Newsbreak is just an aggregator), as reflected by the "game lover" tenor of the profiles on the About page [15]; (3) the site has an open offer for contributors to "write for us" [16]. Could maybe lean situational if I missed any writers that independently have games coverage in other outlets, but not seeing it from the Muck Rack listed writers. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If a site doesn't meet WP:REPUTABLE, we shouldn't be using them. Perhaps if there's an independently reputable journalist, but I'd want to see a strong background. Woodroar (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this, it looks like they have undisclosed sponsored content, but I can't confirm it since it's not disclosed. Searching for Casino or Gambling on the site shows a bunch of articles that read like ads. Many of them link to websites that have a list of gambling sites and deals. Here's one example. This unfortunately adds to the lack of editorial policies showing that they may not be following basic journalism ones.

Also, it doesn't help that the two writers I mostly frequently see writing this content on COGconnected aren't listed on the staff page. Snakester95 (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]