Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

noclip360

Find video game sources: "noclip360" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This is completely unreliable, but more here for a history of discussion just in case it persists and we get people trying to cite it. The latest venture of Mark Kern's, the site is completely AI generated, down to the comments section... Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Clearly unreliable. Good to have discussion record I suppose, but feels almost unneeded in this case. ~2026-11263-84 (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Netto's Game Room

This one's kinda interesting. Here's their about page and staff members, review scores details, and the companies they have worked with. Kazama16 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Some good content, but seems unreliable by Wikipedia standards. Can't see reliable sources citing them, no established writers, no editorial policy, accepts guest posts. TinNyanko (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

SteamDB

I am quite new to the in and outs of Wikipedia but what makes SteamDB (or any of these sites) less reliable than somebody writing an article which provides statistics? I've done a little research into SteamDB and I can see that it uses Steam's public APIs to provide live and historic player counts. The accuracy is reliable because this can be confirmed with Steam itself when visiting a game's community hub as it shows the players in-game, there's maybe a 5-10 player discrepancy between SteamDB and Steam itself in games with 20,000+ players. In terms of providing statistics without a bias it seems very reliable?

Are we saying Steam is an unreliable source for conveying player counts on Steam? Why?

I guess the question I am trying to ask is: why is an article from somebody who may or may not have a bias more reliable than statistics which are accurate and data driven? JackFrostyG (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

See the most recent discussion on it here. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Archived discussion doesn't fully answer my question. While it may not be reliable in other areas it is certainly reliable in use of obtaining a player-count for Steam as proven by Steam itself when visiting the Community Hub and checking the '___ Player's in Game'.

I also still don't understand why we would not use an unbiased Statistic from Steam's own public API for a game published on Steam when editing around player count at a minimum, but we would include an article including a figure with no source of it's own, can be biased and is less accurate. JackFrostyG (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

We don't use SteamDB for player statistics because we don't care about player statistics unless its creating noticeable impact and commentary by reliable sources. SteamDB isn't that, it's just a number, carrying no context. As for the rest, I don't think its worth getting into the "but why are unproven estimates bad when companies might just be lying anyway". SteamDB is not a reliable source. There is no verification of its figure, simply a blackbox estimate using various pieces of public data. There is no editorial process happening here. Yeah, it's probably close, but that's not good enough for Wikipedia policy. -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

It's exact reasoning is to give context. It is the base of any article and Wiki page that discusses player count on Steam and the majority of pages discuss reception, engagement or count. If this is unreliable despite being verifiable via Steam then every Wiki Page discussing these topics has no reliability unless we can see where these figures are coming from.

"but why are unproven estimates bad when companies might just be lying anyway" - Steam can be used to verify SteamDB's player count figures. Where is this quote from? Why are we now mentioning companies?

Next, by this logic, articles giving player counts are also unproven estimates and therefore unreliable as they aren't verifiable. They can add all the context they want to the subject, but if there's no verifiability of player count then we can't take the source as reliable when discussing this topic. JackFrostyG (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You're not arguing from a position of Wikipedia policy. The words verifiable and reliable aren't just common words for Wikipedia. Verifiability is essentially "Can you check a reliable source and it cites that data?" Yes. We can. When PCGamer or Eurogamer or another WP:RS as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines writes and publishes an article that states a game has sold however many copies, that satisfies WP:V. It's not "Can I, the reader, directly ask and verify this number with Valve?". It's "Do we have a reliable source to use that verifies this claim?"

SteamDB does not pass WP:RS, lacking any editorial control, using guesstimates gleaned from various public statistics (Steam does *not* publish sales figures. SteamDB does *not* have them. They estimate from other data). SteamDB does not talk to industry partners, does not report actual sales releases, does not do research or factchecking. It simply ingests various player statistics to calculate out a guess. So its figures are not usable on Wikpiedia. -- ferret (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I suppose I don't agree with the Wikipedia policy in relation to sourcing/using statistics then and that is an issue for a different page, if you are being genuine.

Other than that, we're going to be going around in circles so let's not waste our time and thank you for the discussion. JackFrostyG (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

GamerGen

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

Stylized as GAMERGEN. Their copyright information indicates they are a long running site (2005-2026). Can't find an about page or editorial policy. Unsure how to feel about this one. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• Unreliable: No editorial policies or about page. This recent "article" is a couple of paragraphs giving the price and nothing else. If this is what qualifies as "news" to them, this should probably be avoided. Especially when we have actual reliable sources that do a much better job of reporting on the same thing. 11WB (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  The comparison here is between a French website and English ones, which assumingly have different focus areas? But I don't know of anything that makes it reliable either. IgelRM (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

American City Business Journals

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

This source was previously discussed at the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Quite a few info on varies video game companies from the different business Journals (Washington Business Journal, Baltimore Business Journal, etc)

Examples. , ,

I propose we add this to other reliable sources. Timur9008 (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

What was the outcome of the RSN talks? Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

No consensus Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_485#BizJournals. Timur9008 (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I should note I've been checking these for info from 1996 to 2000. Not sure if the current stuff is reliable. Timur9008 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It's stately a business trade source, which should be viewed in that context. E.g. not giving notability, but fine corporate reliability. IgelRM (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I looked at the examples cited and I don't see any problems, seems pretty standard if uninspired type of coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Cinema Blend

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

I'm proposing this be reexamined, as I don't think the prior discussions were thorough enough to actually put it under unreliable. Looking at their about page, they indicate that they follow The Editors' Code of Practice for independent sources. I also question listing as unreliable because none of the articles identified what is wrong with their content. I mean, the content does not appear to be revolutionizing media discussion, but I have not found issue with anything I've seen. Not only that, but they're clearly not some rinky dink website; in the past week, they published 20 interviews, including of CM Punk, Paul Giamatti, and Bill Skarsgard. Looking at Google Scholars, they're also cited incredibly often; clearly, they are considered reliable enough to be cited as frequently as they are in published works.

While Cinema Blend primarily focuses on television and movies, almost exclusively, being that they cover shows and movies about video game adaptations, it makes sense to list them here in some capacity. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable: The Code of Practice seems to mainly focus on ethics company policies, which is fine. According to their about page, they cover "what fans are into" with their "own insights, opinions and perspective". They also mark advertorials and sponsored content as such. This recent article is marked as having affiliate links, with the actual article itself reading in a more informal manner. Based on these brief checks, I wouldn't say they are outright unreliable, which CB is currently marked as. Instead, I think WP:MREL would be fair, as better, reliable sources such as Radio Times and Gizmodo are available. 11WB (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Situational It's not an unusable source, judging from what I see, but it's very weak. I would not use it when stronger sources are available, but I don't see why it can't be used. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I think I recall the very old articles were particular blog-like. Perhaps improved, but these are often cited for "quick Google" convenience and not for good reason. IgelRM (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

GamersNexus

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

Saw their name being thrown around on social media recently, but I'm not fully convinced, so wanted to get others' thoughts. Not to be confused with Gaming Nexus, which is currently listed as unreliable. Has a website, but appears to be primarily video focused. Already in use on multiple articles. Includes an ethics page. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cyberlink420 If this is an example of their coverage, I am concerned. It is not signed by any person (that I noticed), uses royal "we", and they have no editorial about us or such I could find. This kind of content could be AI generated, or otherwise made up, and is no better than an anonymous blog, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Top right it has Writing, Lead editing Steve Burke, and Research and Writing Ben Benson. Steve Burke is also the presenter in all their youtube videos (there is at least a review/hardware channel, and a consumer advocacy/protection type channel). Wilbers (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Unreliable per the example coverage. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Cukie Gherkin this appears to be a mistake on your part. Their byline is on the right hand side of the page. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Generally Reliable - GamersNexus is primarily video based but has been reviving its written content in recent years. I think it's fair to say they're extremely well-regarded within the industry as an outlet, especially for hardware items, and they're pretty much my go to source for hardware reviews. They're extremely transparent in their editorial, and also keep a running log of errors and corrections on their website which is good to see. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

They are a specialized outlet for gamer hardware, which I would say is "Situational". IgelRM (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The Escapist

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

The Escapist is currently listed as Situational with content between October 2017 and July 2018 to be handled with care.

I believe newer content may no longer be reliable due to this article:

Clickout Media, owner of websites such as Esports Insider and The Escapist, has told its staff that they are being laid off. The layoffs come just a week after they began laying off freelancers and pausing all future freelance hires.

Insider Gaming understands that the company is making a heavy pivot to AI content, resulting in almost all of its editorial staff being let go.

It was said that Clickout Media will be maintaining a skeleton crew of “AI Editors.”

“Sad to say that my role at The Escapist is up for redundancy, and that means a lot of things that I’m still not quite getting my head around,” The Escapist writer Lloyd Coombes wrote, though he did not mention the AI pivot in his posting.

It’s also believed that employees being let go are being forced to sign an NDA from speaking publicly about the layoffs, at risk of not receiving their severance payouts.

https://insider-gaming.com/clickout-media-owner-of-the-escapist-pivots-to-ai-holds-mass-layoffs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinNyanko (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

unreliable per... uh... "per nom" is also a thing here, right? let's all laugh at an industry that never learns anything, tee hee hee consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable after December 2025 & situational before (they did have some decent coverage of tabletop products for a bit but I don't recall using Escapist for video game coverage). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

"Insider Gaming" is not a reliable source, so I don't think there should be changes solely based on that. IgelRM (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

GamesIndustry.biz (link) & Aftermath (link) reported on a major round of layoffs in April 2025 which impacted Escapist; A.V. Club (link) & Kotaku (link) picked up Insider Gaming's coverage of the more recent layoffs and AI pivot. Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Another Clickout Media website, VideoGamer, was caught earlier using a fake writer to create reviews. This led to two reviews being removed from Metacritic and allegedly future VideoGamer reviews not being added to the site. A former VideoGamer editor also mentioned the use of that AI writer. While this isn't The Escapist, they're both owned by the same company. This supports the statement that Clickout Media is using AI to generate content. Not to mention, they also aren't disclosing it.

I mentioned in a previous thread about The Escapist's reliability that their Managing Editor has stated using genAI to make images for another Clickout Media property as well. Snakester95 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

AndroidMag.de

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

Magazine with an editorial team. I've found reviews by them to be useful when sourcing. However, they are scarcely cited on Wikipedia. Has anyone ever used them as a source before? NewAccount7295 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Does anybody want to discuss this? NewAccount7295 (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Videogamer publishing AI generated reviews

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See this gamesindustry.biz story about their recent Resident Evil review being pulled off metacritic. Apparently they've recently layed off most of their staff. I think it should be downgraded from "situational" to "unreliable". Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion on this is bundled under the above Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#ClickOut Media (current owners of VideoGamer). Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see that I didn't read the "situational" source list carefully enough, and that it is considered unreliable since 2022, for AI stuff like this. I guess it's just a further nail in the coffin. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gamer Escape, MonsterVine, and PlayStation Country

Did some analysis on these for a GAN review, all appear generally unreliable, and figured I might as well put these here to get them marked on VG/S. (Selfish goal: I want them red on my cite highlighter in the future.) ~ A412 ^talk! 06:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Gamer Escape

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

Appear to mostly be maintainers of community Final Fantasy wikis per their About page. No evidence of staff credentialing or editorial policy, no WP:UBO I could find.

MonsterVine

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

They at least seem engaged in serious journalism. They have an editorial team and staff list. People are willing to talk to them as an outlet. What I don't see is WP:UBO, crossover with reliable games journalism, or generally evidence they have a reputation for accuracy.

PlayStation Country

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

This one has nothing. It's a WP:SPS Wordpress blog. They don't even have an about page.

ClickOut Media

I think we need to make a new subsection for sites purchased by ClickOut Media, similar to Valnet. Per this article, they have been pivoting hard to AI generated content and laid off most if not all staff. Affected sites include The Escapist, Adventure Gamers, Esports Insider, and VideoGamer [EDIT: a report from Aftermath has gone into further detail, including identifying more sites they've bought such as Esports News UK], and the results have been almost immediate: as of today, AI-generated reviews of Resident Evil Requiem and Pokémon Fire Red/Leaf Green were uploaded to VideoGamer that resulted in the site being blacklisted from Metacritic, and multiple contributor bylines have been overwritten with AI profiles. IMO, we need to clearly cordon off any sites under their ownership and establish hard cut-offs for when they were considered reliable/situational (though the replacement of the bylines will admittedly make this more difficult and will perhaps require additional vetting if older content is being cited). -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Support cordoning off ClickOut Media owned outlets in a similar fashion to Valnet. I think December 2025 as an end date for reliable/situational makes sense if the AI generated content just started in 2026 (ie. seems to have occurred following the 2026 layoffs). The rewriting of older article bylines is such a pain; probably means treating those sources as dead & using archive links. This is where I'd normally suggest making a WP:URLREQ but the editors who run that seem swamped by WP:NOMOREARCHIVETODAY cleanup so it might be a bit before an automated "mark everything as dead" solution is available. In the meantime, I'd suggest adding guidance in the new ClickOut Media section about marking those sources as dead & adding archive links. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I might even go earlier. The second Kotaku article states that social accounts for the fake writers started popping up in October 2025, so there might be some AIgen articles in there even before the layoffs. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Bummer. Maybe situational from various sale dates to somewhere in Oct-Dec 2025 and unreliable afterwards? Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we should consider deprecating - We already have a couple of individual discussions above on individual publications but I was coming here anyway to suggest we outright deprecate them given as shown with VideoGamer (genuinely depressing how far that's fallen from the 2010s when it was so truly unique, in particular its now largely wiped video content) the new owners are actively engaged in deliberate attempts to mislead readers into thinking it's not AI by generating fake social media profiles for their "writers".

I think this adds a new level of risk that goes beyond simply being unreliable so would deserve consideration of active warning and blocking that deprecating carries. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Deprecate for all content from October 2025. Even if the AI content only started this week, I feel that it is too risky to include anything from October 2025-February 2026, especially if they are trying to trick others into believing it is human work. I would also suggest adding it to the spam filter. Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd be against adding it the spam filter because it would prevent the use of archived older work which is usable. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Support/deprecate per nom. This is quite dire. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Support/deprecate. The sources of these companies are not concerned with the quality of the content, but rather with monetization. Furthermore, it is not an honest company; it tried to deceive several people with content written by AI. I also agree with its inclusion on the spam list. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support deprecating post-December 2025: I'm currently updating WP:VG/S and the cite plugins, but I fully support this. They were low quality sources before, and now they are unusable sadly. 11WB (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

IGC

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

This website primarily does game and tech reviews. I believe this may be a situational source. I cannot find an editorial policy, but i did find a scoring policy which details how they conduct their reviews. They also accept freelance reviews, of which some are completely anonymous to my knowledge (such as this), which are almost certainly unreliable, although others (like ) are not. This might just be case by case basis issue, with some authors being more reliable than others. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I would consider this unreliable. As far as I can tell, the site owner has no credentials beyond running this site. And then there's this account, "Alison", which "is being used to post news by myself, and a few members of our team". Alison who? Again, no credentials. I checked their most recent blog and there's a sketchy link to a World of Warcraft boosting service. Accepting reviews from anyone and not being transparent about who wrote content, plus undisclosed advertising, that's all a quick fail in my book. Woodroar (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable, no real vetting of authors or editorial process. Here's a review , and a quote from it: "The review was written by me and edited by my partner." Here's another , with a "Bonus Opinion from IGC's Owner". Here's their about page: , where they explicitly mention seeking inexperienced volunteer writers. I see this as a blog written by amateur writers and overseen by an uncredentialed site owner. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Slant Magazine

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

Slant Magazine covers various topics and has a dedicated video game section. They also have the usual About page and a staff list. Can they be considered reliable? Vestigia Leonis (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

This looks reliable. Plenty of use by others (Slant Magazine has examples). I checked the first few bylines in their games section; all also wrote for other publications. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Slant Magazine is a reliable source. It's fairly prominent in its niche, and their reviews often point out flaws that other reviewers gloss over. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Reliable per others. I've used it plenty of times before; they're a strong source. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

GamesRecon

This is a gaming site I used to establish notability for Pokémon Insurgence, specifically this article. This one is bylined as a staff editorial. Their editorial standards prioritise "authenticity and accuracy through meticulous research" and refer to an experienced team of gaming journalists. They maintain editorial independence, so no shill-ing, which is always good to see. They disclose COIs and are transparent about who they partner with. They also have a reasonable rating methodology, using the standard 1-10 scale.

The broccoli goes cold however when I attempt to look up their bylined writers. Bearing in mind, I went into this looking to establish this site as reliable, I can't find their authors anywhere else on the web...

WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable outlets. Fortunately, Mic and Kotaku have this covered for Insurgence. This site is a question mark for me at this time.

Find video game sources: "GamesRecon" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo 11WB (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I would consider it unreliable due to the lack of credentials. Their article titles make me suspect that they're little better than a content farm going after keywords. On top of that, their article formatting and random bolding make me suspect that their content was written by AI/LLMs. Woodroar (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Leaning unreliable per Woodroar. Not seeing strong credentials and what content exists doesn't seem particularly high quality. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Reliability of Thumb Culture?

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

I'm in the process of creating a draft for a video game article and there's a few potential sources that haven't yet been reviewed as far as I can tell that I'd like to see consensus on. The first of these I'd like to see clarified is Thumb Culture, a gaming review and news site. (I'll ask about the other sources I'd like clarification with once a consensus is made here, as to not overflow the page with questions.)

There does seem to be an editorial process with the reviews, since the review policy on the site states each article is read by the Editor-in-Chief for approval before being published.

The reviews also don't seem to be user generated. The site's about page claims the team uses a small team of writers and content creators in order to write reviews. Individual author biographies, which can be found at the bottom of the author's reviews, don't always list credentials unfortunately, but a couple of them do.

I'm not really the best at gauging reliability of currently unreviewed sources on my own, so it'd be great if someone could give its reliability (or potential lack of such) a more thorough investigation than my inexperienced self can. I would personally say situational just as a gut feeling, but again, not that experienced at gauging reliability and could be wrong on either side. ThyCheshireCat (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Leaning unreliable. Wordpress site isn't a good start, but the fact it's a small team of people who seem to lack strong journalistic credentials (At least the ones I checked at a glance) and many don't include full credits. While they aren't USERGEN I wouldn't consider this a particularly strong source. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Bahamut/GNN Gamer

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

Bahamut/GNN, although it does have a blog feature, has a page indicating that there is a process for editorial review prior to publication as an article. It was put up for discussion on the Chinese Wikipedia in 2019, and according to one editor who posted there who claims to have experience writing for them, they say Bahamut takes a few days to publish an accepted article submission, which indicates to me they take their editorial review process seriously. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 16:18, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought this is the third time it is brought up. It has already been included in the reliable source list iirc. MilkyDefer 17:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see it, or at least not the terms "Bahamut" or "GNN". It is included on the Chinese version of the list though: zh:PJ:VG/S, but not in English. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:21, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

When I first proposed inclusion I went out of my way to expand GNN into Gamer News Network and since then, nobody realize that it has already been discussed. MilkyDefer 17:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, therein lies the issue... I'll put in the abbreviation in parentheses. Thanks for clearing that up! Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

SlashGear

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

I am kind of surprised this source has never been brought up in any discussion as far as I can tell, especially considering I often see this site when looking for information on Google. From my review of the site, I wasn't sure but I think there is some promise. For context, the site focuses on technology coverage and reviews (with coverage of video games) and is owned by Static Media, who also own reliable sites such as SlashFilm and Engadget, as well as some unreliable sites such as SVG and Looper. However, according to the site's Editorial Policies page Static Media investors do not interact with or interfere with our editorial coverage decisions. [...] As such, the Static Media editorial staff are not influenced by direct sales opportunities with brands or advertisers. The page also covers the site's fact checking and ethics policy; they also have a separate Review Policy page. Their About Us page lists SlashGear's staff, which is divided between editors and writers. Whilst I wasn't able to verify every single staff member (mainly because that would take way too much time), there are a few that I found that have experience with other reliable sites such as Digital Trends, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Irish Times and Autoweek. Additionally, they also have a page dedicated to Experts they work with to verify information. Outside of this, they have at least been covered once by Polygon and does have close connection to the aforementioned Engadget. I get the feeling my review could have been done better but I would be grateful to hear what other editors have to say so we can at least mark this site as discussed. CaptainGalaxy 16:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Situationally reliable A brief glance at their coverage indicates they aren't really much of a video games reviewer, and moreso focused on other topics like cars and general tech. I don't really see anything that indicates it wouldn't be unreliable, so for now I'm willing to throw it a bone, but it doesn't seem like something that would be cited frequently given VG doesn't seem to be a main focus of theirs by any metric. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

It is worth noting that being more general tech focused shouldn't stop it from being considered reliable and should instead help its case more as we have a section on this page dedicated to more tech/computer-related sites that aren't as game focused as seen here. I would argue it is similar in this case to Engadget, GeekWire, PC World, TechCrunch etc. CaptainGalaxy 23:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

EarlyGame

Find video game sources: "EarlyGame" – 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 using this lore analysis as a potential draft on Sparkle from Honkai: Star Rail. Since we last discussed EarlyGame, they appear to have posted an editorial policy, but neglect to mention whether any of their current contributors has any professional experience, which is why I'm a little hesitant to use it as a source without first discussing it here. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 19:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Good news is I think the staff on this authors list are real, not AI. Their content lead, Ignacio Weil, has also written for MSN. The articles EarlyGame publish are in a digestible format, I'm not really sure what they could add to an article that a more mainstream source couldn't in all honestly. I'm less concerned with their reliability and am instead questioning their usability. 11WB (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

MSN is an aggregator, that link is just aggregating an EarlyGame article. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

~ Facepalm ~ 11WB (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @A412, I've struck that part of my comment. Yahoo News is an aggregator, but also publishes their own reports. I assumed, after seeing MSN listed on their Muckrack, that MSN was the same... 11WB (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

A quick check shows they've only been cited 26 times in Wikipedia article space, so I think I'm probably correct with my usability concern. 11WB (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

What about reliability though? Assuming one of their articles is usable and no other source covers something, do you think it's a reliable source? Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 15:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Kotaku - Re-evaluation in light of change of ownership

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

For those who aren't aware, Kotaku changed ownership in recent months and under new management look to be expanding their human journalistic operations in complete contrast to the previous owners wanting to AI everything that saw the downgrade.

Therefore wish to reopen discussion as to whether to return the site to Generally Reliable following the change in ownership given the positive directions they appear to be taking. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I think in retrospect the decision to classify Kotaku as fully unreliable post-mid 2023 was jumping the gun. The only AI thing that came out of it IIRC was the Kotaku Australia domain being sold to an AI content farm. But I don't think anything AI really came to the main site?

Kotaku did undeniably have a period there where their content was kind-of content farmy, but we already noted that even when they were reliable. The July 2023 cut off was 100% based on the AI thing, which did not go far. I think we should revert the unreliable classification and just go back to the "be cautious of certain types of articles" status quo that existed prior. λ NegativeMP1 00:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1 G/O Media did indeed have AI articles, to the point G/O Media staff themselves criticised it, so the reclassification in that regard was justified (and even then as said the situational nature was just G/O Media in general).

However it does appear the new owner is going in a positive direction in terms of funding their operations well, so I think the concerns for why it was reduced have been dealt with. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

If that's the case, then maybe have something where mid-2023 to late-2025 articles should be treated with extra caution to make sure they're not AI generated, but not strictly unreliable. It wasn't their entire output, was it? λ NegativeMP1 00:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The GUNREL for the latter G/O Media period was for a variety of things by the end (content farming, editorial interference by management etc), with the undisclosed AI usage being the last straw.

Like I say, I think the cleanest move would be to leave the G/O Media period as it currently stands (a slow move to generally unreliable) and then for the new ownership move it back towards reliable because it looks to have sizeably increased in quality and be getting editorial resource. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that G/O Media should be possibly reliable, as there were still staff with experience at other reliable sources doing journalism there. I think we should just advise caution, and particularly to check the author of an article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

From what I recall they published a few AI-generated articles under G/O. The main issue was that, like CNET, they weren't marking the content as AI (they simply published them without a credited author) which wasn't acceptable in our eyes. That being said, they definitely seem to have turned things around since July 2025. I'm fine with treating articles published after the Keleops acquisition as reliable, though it should still remain under the situational section due to the iffy reliability of pre-2010 articles and the 2023-2025 period where they were a clear content farm. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 10:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure it was Kotaku? I remember that a G/I outlet did, but I don't remember it being Kotaku. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

. Articles "written" by "Kotaku Bot" weren't properly marked, such as this simply not listing an author at the time of publication. Based on my look through archive.org, they still weren't distinguishing AI articles as late as May 2025, which looks to be when they discontinued it. I will note that they still are publishing a ton of promotional crap that looks AI-generated, though it's at least marked. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 17:29, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

If the time period is marked situational, it should specify that articles without author credit shouldn't be used since it is an AI indicator. Per WP:SPONSORED, as long as promotional "articles" are marked as such and you can distinguish between them & regular articles, then we don't really have to consider them when doing the evaluation. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable - I was also thinking about starting this discussion. Kotaku is now owned by the same parent company (Keleops) that bought Gizmodo; along with expanding the staff size, the new owners did away with some of the G/O Media weirdness (such as restoring the ability to comment on articles). I haven't seen any AI indicators on either Gizmodo or Kotaku since they were purchased. Keleops also "owns several French-language technology titles, including legacy brands 01net and Presse-citron"; I'm not seeing anything in the WP:RSP noticeboard archives about either of those sites but might be worth looking at to get a better sense of how Keleops manages the outlets it owns. I also agree with NegativeMP1 that Kotaku from mid-2023 to mid-2025 could be considered situational instead of unreliable. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable but with a note that mid-2023-mid-2025 should be considered highly situational per above. As of now it looks like things are good for now, but this is definitely something that can be re-evaluated later if need be. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable; it always bothered me that Kotaku had fully been considered situational when for the majority of its over-20-years span, its articles were of good quality, only tarnished by a brief period in which they could be construed as situational. I support moving the source up to generally reliable. –GM 02:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliable per above. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

reliable, but with a little prejudice to reconsidering previous consensuses (consensi?), as "reliable but watch out for geekier stuff" and "reliable when it's not ai slop" are pretty plainly the case for its states before. maybe separate it into four sections though, including that ai skinwalker that stole kotaku australia's domain consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I do agree that this re-evaluation is probably more consistent with how we've handled these situations that have been happening in recent years. (Polygon, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment - Given this seems unanimous at least in terms of it now being considered GENREL again, are there any issues with therefore closing this at least for that aspect (GENREL since ownership change) and leaving the status for previous periods unchanged given the lack of clear consensus from discussion on those aspects? Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I have no issues with closing this discussion and listing it as reliable. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

i would argue towards separating and tweaking them a bit... by which i only actually mean clarifying the situation with the kotaku times (yuck). otherwise, there's no problem with a close consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

FZ.se

Is Swedish gaming news/review site FZ a reliable source? It has been around since 1996 and calls itself Sweden's oldest gaming site. Its editorial staff are listed here. A quick Google search turns up a spate of citations on WP. However, it is not listed on WP:VG/S. Its home page consists chiefly of news, which looks typical of gaming sites, and they also publish game reviews, written by their staff. I do not see any obvious red flags here, and it seems to be accepted over at the Swedish Wikipedia. What do we think? Phediuk (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Neutral leaning towards reliable. Have any of their staff worked for other publications before? Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 20:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Reliable. I've used them in the past with no issues. –GM 20:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

YXRB (游戏日报)

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

I have used YXRB (Chinese: 游戏日报; pinyin: Yóuxì Rìbào; lit. 'Game Daily') as a Chinese source for articles related to Chinese video games, and want to generate a local consensus regarding its reliability on the English Wikipedia. According to the Chinese Wikipedia video game sources page, it is considered what we would call "marginally reliable" or "situationally reliable" there and its content should be replaced if possible.

There have been two discussions on the Chinese Wikipedia that contain more information on the source, although I can't say much to verify the accuracy of this information as I don't speak Chinese and Google Translate can only do so much. 2021 discussion; 2023 discussion. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 13:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Esports.gg

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

Esports.gg is an esports media outlet from the USA. Their website states () that they have a full editorial team. Additionally, two of their editors, Amy Chen () and XC Enriquez ( ) come from traditional print media backgrounds. The source is deemed reliable on the Chinese Wikipedia per discussion; pinging @SuperGrey: as they are the only person who participated in that discussion who has an English Wikipedia account that I can find. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 20:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

...we literally just did this one, Gommeh, and consensus was reliable. I started the discussion, it should be in the most recent archive.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Here's the discussion from last month. Doesn't look like anybody added it to the list, so it's understandable that it slipped your mind. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

GameCritics

Find video game sources: "GameCritics" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo This website has a very old consensus as reliable, from 2013 and previously in 2008 when @David Fuchs emailed them directly, responding with this. I have recently used this review from them in Paint the Town Red (video game) which is currently being reviewed for GAN. It seems Lui is still in charge upon viewing their staff list and about us page. This team looks to have several decades of experience. I think they are fine to cite, the old consensus seems to hold firm. I would be interested to know what others think. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Noting my thoughts come from the mentioned GAN, my concerns about GameCritics are linked to this discussion which is the source of delisting GameCritics from WP:RS, suggesting observations the founder and writers are hobbyists with no other journalistic experience, and there is no formal editorial policy. A quick look at the site suggests this is still the case, with a 'game review philosophy', hobbyist style bios, a call to 'write for us' indicating the site is "staffed entirely by volunteers". That suggests unreliable. As stated in the 2013 review, I could see it being situational if there is demonstrable experience, if any, of the individial critic writing the article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hideki Saito

Is this person considered reliable for articles relating to Japanese media and video games? They run a Medium page, however theirs is quite unusual in that they have an editorial policy for their posts on the site. Saito is a software engineer at Nintendo of America () and they have extensive experience as an Association for Computing Machinery life member and as an American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers writer.

I've cited this article by them in this draft. They can be added as an exception on Unseen so they are marked as reliable, however this requires consensus. They have many well written articles, the experience and employment to back it up. I think they are definitely reliable! 11WB (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I've had a look for previous experience as well. Saito formerly worked for Sega as a designer (). He is also listed as an author for the Linux Documentation Project back in 1998. 11WB (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I think this is fine for the purposes you're using it for, but maybe not a blanket inclusion under something like the list in WP:VG/S. WP:SPS and WP:USESPS apply here. Saito's Medium page is clearly self-published, no matter how much it's dressed up in an editorial policy, because he's accountable only to himself. However, as an experienced industry software engineer, he clearly has useful subject matter expertise fine for uncontroversial use where relevant to his background. But WP:SPS would suggest minimising its use where other sources are available, unless his writing really has been cited a lot by WP:RS. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

So reliable to his specific subject area? 11WB (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:SPS suggests whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, so I'm unsure about general reliability, but I don't see any issues in how you're using it in the way you've drafted it. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Adding Gameliner.nl to reliable gaming resources

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

Hi, we would like to open a discussion in regards of adding Gameliner.nl to the list of reliable gaming resources. Gameliner has been founded in 2005 and focuses on gaming news, reviews, articles and previews. The editorial staff consists of 12 actual active writers/ editors. The platform is a used as a source by both OpenCritic as MetaCritic for a longer period of time and has posted approximately 3.000 gaming reviews since its founding (all of which are still available for reading to date).

Gameliner is one of the last independent Dutch gaming media outlets and provides it's articles in Dutch, which of course would make it a foreign language platform. All additional information in regards to the platform have been provided in [games/sources]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RudyWijnberg (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Further context here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@RudyWijnberg: If you're here, then I might as well ask you a few questions. What's your editorial policy and what's your stance on AI? EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@EnvironmentalDoor Our Editiorial staff is 100% human, as well as our front- and backenders. Our bios are written below every article and every editor can be verified via multiple sources such as LinkedIn. We are a 100% independent, human and long lasting crew of writers.

I'n regards to the comment by @Piotrus regarding the mehness and non recognition of the platform. We are actually recognized and validated by Metacritic, which is I believe a very reliable source on here is it not? As a Dutch platform it is quite hard to outshine megacorps like the IGN's, Gamespot and other million dollar companies. ~2026-67876-7 (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to login appearantly RudyWijnberg (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Fair, but 1) I don't see the bios - see links below? You have a dedicated bio section in the author profile pages, but the bios are elsewhere? 2) Metacritic argument is fair and I'll wait for others to comment on whether that's enough (and if not, why - I am curious). As for other forms of recognition, as a Pole I write about Polish sources and I know sources are hit and miss, but the more important platforms like yours tend to be able to point to some mentions of them by occasional other reliable media and if lucky enough, scholars. Was your platform ever profiled or mentioned by a Dutch newspaper, magazine or such? (I did search, with no luck, but I don't speak Dutch, and I am also well aware of that older mentions tend to be not digitized).

On a separate note, I see a critical comment at nl:Wikipedia:Te_beoordelen_pagina's/Toegevoegd_20160320 by @Fred Lambert (sadly, they seem inactive since last November, so I am unsure they can stop by to elaborate). I don't think nl wiki ever had or has an article about Gameliner (which is not a strike against, notability=/=reliability, just observing). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Being in Metacritic (or OpenCritic) is not a hallmark of reliability. Huge swathes of sources in both are unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I see, the Bio on the profiles are just user pages, all of our users and commenters have those. We don't offer testimonials or former work about the editors. The "Colofon" page gives an overview of all people associated, their role and their year of starting/ ending at Gameliner.

In regards to the peer assessment, as shown in the Colofon we have both an editor in chief and a managing editor, who are in charge of checking the articles for any inconsistencies, dubious facts or speculation. Our Editorial guidelines are not published on the site itself, they are shared internally though. RudyWijnberg (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@RudyWijnberg Would you consider making them public? I don't see how it would be problematic, and would help for your case here (and perhaps elsewhere). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that should be possible. Let me make it a bit user friendly, as it is now mainly used by the staff. Should be up before the weekend. In the meantime, tried to find some noticable mentions. The NOS (dutch broadcasting association) requests our expertise on occasion Example can be found here (with editor Claudia Tjia) RudyWijnberg (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@RudyWijnberg How has this whole editorial guidelines thing been going so far? Would it be OK to provide an update? EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey @EnvironmentalDoor sure! Nearly there, currently on a small holiday break and had some other domain related updates which had to be done first. On it, though, i'll drop a note once live! RudyWijnberg (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @EnvironmentalDoor, pleased to notify you that we've just published the editorial guidelines (redactionele richtlijnen). These can be found in the header under "more" and/or by just visiting this page RudyWijnberg (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts: I cannot locate editorial policy outside information about recruitment, which itself is fine but does not suggest any form of peer review/supervision (on the plus side, there is no suggestion they use AIs - but there is also nothing saying they don't), their about us is more of a history and 'cool stuff we do'; there is no information there that the site won any awards or received any form of recognition from anyone. Team members are not anonymous , two sample bios I checked are empty , , which makes it hard to confirm credentials of their team members. So, errr, pretty meh-ish for me. They are better than a social media / AI platform, the structure is reasonably average, but there is also no evidence they recognized (no awards, press coverage reported). I can't say they are unreliable, but I can't say they are a strong source either. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems reliable now given updates/comments/discussion above. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Public editorial guidelines, no AI usage, obviously not a small team, real people... I'm entirely comfortable with marking this as reliable. EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

MetaCritic inclusion as noted by another user isn't an indicator of reliability. There are sources on there with concerns about AI, inaccuracy, and plagiarism which are listed under unreliable here. If anything it's more evidence of notability.

I'm somewhat iffy on this as a whole too as the owner of the website is actively campaigning to be added and making changes to pass reliability based on comments above. It might not necessarily be wrong, but there is a level of concern when someone is told what's wrong and what to write to pass.

What I'd want to see to support reliability are current reliable sources linking them as a source at least to a limited extent and ideally some people more familiar with the language and area to check the site over for any known reputation and quality. TinNyanko (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, I don't know any Dutch editors who'd be willing to lend a hand, but they have been cited by NOS per Wijnberg. They haven't been mentioned in PC Gameplay, but for what it's worth, they have been discussed by users of Power Unlimited in the comments section of this article. Gamer.nl redirects to Power Unlimited (it should probably be moved to Non-English defunct). IGN Germany mentions it briefly.

That's where the trail runs cold for the meager Dutch sources we have listed as reliable, so I can only turn to sources that have been undiscussed. They have been mentioned by Wikel.nl and Dordrecht.net. Users of Tweakers and ID.nl have discussed it here and here. That's about all I could find, but I'm not Dutch so I may be missing important context here. @RudyWijnberg: Could you provide some examples of Gameliner.nl being mentioned by other sources? EnvironmentalDoor (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this note pop up in the inbox @EnvironmentalDoor. There's some other mentions on other platforms as well, but none of them fall in your category reliable. It's of course up to you guys, but getting a mention of a reliable source in the Netherlands is quite impossible as links are handed out quite rarely to "competitors". RudyWijnberg (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to add in some links:

We're also quoted in press assets by publishers and devs, if that helps (although those are biased of course) RudyWijnberg (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Twinfinite (again)

I decided to look into this one, and found that the discussions deeming it unreliable have largely been based on only very few people. In my opinion, and I don't blame anyone for this, but I believe Twinfinite was erroneously labeled unreliable. There were claims that staff did not seem to have experience working on reliable sources. However, using muckrack, I can verify that to not be true. For instance:

1. Managing editor Chris Jecks: Siliconera, PCGamesN
2. Ana Mitic: Siliconera, Prima Games, The Escapist, Destructoid
3. Damiano Gerli: IGN Italia, VICE, Kotaku, PC Gamer
4. Gordan Perisic: The Escapist, Destructoid
5. Jovan Krstić: Destructoid, The Escapist, Dot Esports
6. Keenan McCall: Game Informer, Electronic Gaming Monthly
7. Maja Kovačević: Destructoid, The Escapist
8. Ben Williams: The New York Times, Nature, The Washington Post, Entrepreneur

With the website's strong fact-checking policy, corrections policy, review policy, and ethics policy, I believe that this is a perfectly acceptable entry as a reliable source. The only downside of this source is that any sourcing worth citing is basically defunct, as the site only does guide content anymore, but I believe there is nothing damaging older sources' usability on Wikipedia. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Conditional RS: Their news page has nothing from after October 2025, which is a bit odd. On that basis, they clearly aren't reliable for up-to-date news. @Cukie's comment on being defunct is accurate.

Their Expedition 33 review written by Ben Williams isn't really anything special in all honesty. I wouldn't say it is either reliable or unreliable in that sense. A GTA VI console update by Damiano Gerli is straight to the point, no extra nonsense that readers won't care about or don't need to know about, beyond the update itself. Their policies are also short and straight, with no immediate red flaggs. Twinfinite is also owned by Gamurs, who own Destructoid among other marginally reliable outlets.

Their 2017 staff appear to be completely different to their current staff. I trust @Cukie's list is probably correct, though one check for Ben Williams writing for NYT turned up with nothing. I will say Twinfinite is probably reliable, on the condition other editors don't find things that would make them untrustworthy. 11WB (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Reliable I concur with Cukie that the evidence provided is adequate for a re-approval for the website's reliability. Good policies, strong team with a background (I did find out that Ben Williams hadn't wrote for the New York Times despite what MuckRack says, but I am willing to believe that is a problem with MR rather than the actual author) and well written articles. Being apart of Gamurs shouldn't really be a problem for the site as we use many reliable sources of theirs, that said it maybe the reason why they have stopped doing anything that isn't a guide. However, I would suggest maybe listing the website with suggested cutoff points similar to Kotaku, whereby I would probably cut off past the last discussion and then maybe also suggest avoid using the more recent guide churnalism. Something like 2018 or 2019 (around the time they hired their Managing Editor) to 2024 or 2025 which is around when their news articles stopped. CaptainGalaxy 21:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Reliable - I was also puzzled on why it was labeled unreliable. Authors like Giuseppe Nelva often covered niche topics and offered insightful commentary: example Jotamide (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps the site improved, but neither spotlighting or commentary equals journalistic standards. I recall serious concerns before. IgelRM (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  Looks like there's a consensus that the site is reliable. I will add it to the list shortly. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 19:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  @IgelRM - With all respect, without concrete examples of the issues or even a link to previous discussions about them, this feels like vagueposting.

  @Gommeh - Thanks for removing it from unreliable sources. However, I feel making the jump all the way to reliable is a bit much. I think Twinfinite should remain as situational given that as the opening post mentioned, their current focus seems to be on guides over news reporting. Their newer content might need individual assessment. Thoughts? @Cukie Gherkin, @11WB, @Captain Galaxy Jotamide (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  You voted for reliable? 11WB (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  At the time I failed to consider the change in content focus after October 2025. I visited them recently and given new information I adjusted my point of view. Jotamide (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Re:re:Kotaku

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 513#Re:re:Kotaku

Topic WP:BOLD moved by guninvalid (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

"In many of these sections, the game itself is used as a source, but make sure that it is not the only source."

This is much stronger than WP:PLOTREF and MOS:VGPLOT. I think it should be changed. Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Changed to what? Sergecross73 msg me 20:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Remove the "make sure that it is not the only source" line, or rephrase it so that it's talking about the article as a whole.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. I think reading the totality of the statement helps bring clarity in what's being said here. Note that its also talking things like game settings, and it explains:

Furthermore, the kind of statements that can be backed up with a reference to the game itself is limited. For example, it is impossible to use the game itself to back up that it "... takes place in a high fantasy setting".

I think its good advice. Its not uncommon for me to find inexperienced editors to use personal observations from a game to try to cite aspects of games such as setting, art style, genre, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Blizzard Watch

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

This site actually surprised me. At first I thought it was an enthusiast's website, but on deeper digging a lot of its staff are from WoW Insider, which used to be under AOL's banner. I also recognized some writers too I'd seen at other publications, such as Polygon's Tyler Colp in this really solid article. Googling "blizzardwatch.com" also shows it's not only used in several books, but cited as a source in a lot of published papers also. So I'm curious what others think. Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man Maybe we could call it situational. I looked at a random article from their new feed but I found it gibberish-like, or at least, too arcane to be of use to anyone who is not fan of whatever game they are talking about (I couldn't figure that out). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

That's how I'm feeling about them myself. Like there are definitely some good articles but also some that are fluff-y.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Reliable Valnet writers proposal notification

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have opened an RfC at the RS/N board. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Reliable Valnet writers proposal. 11WB (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow-up on Moustique

Hi, this is a follow-up to this topic by @Phediuk;

As a native French speaker, I asked about the reliability of Belgian magazine Moustique on the French version of this page as suggested. Someone did respond, as a former reader, that this source is indeed considered "serious and reliable" but with two caveats:

1. It is a generalist magazine that covers a diverse range of topics but often at surface level;
2. They have a very limited target audience, in this case: French speakers in Belgium.

So considering these points and the multiple times it has been cited across French WP, how do we feel about its reliability? Jabberwocky7297 (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious red flags, and it seems to be accepted on the French WP. Phediuk (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts echo the above - it probably has limited appeal, but I see no issue with its use. Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

IXBT.games

I just felt like they're publishing poor quality articles (not sure), but I want to make sure that this has a proper discussion. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:21, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

We had a discussion for it a few months ago, but Russian WP:VG/RS deems the source reliable. –GM 06:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

It's still good to keep discussion going - the discussion from 2025 wasn't all that strong, and different Wikipedia's have different standards. I'm curious to hear more about the poor quality articles before weighing in further. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Some thoughts for me; I'm very unsure about this one either way but hope these reflections may help steer in one direction or the other:

• IXBT is a federally licensed publisher by the company Aspect Research and Publishing Ltd . I don't know anything about Russian media law but it does suggest an entity assuming public editorial accountability for the information it publishes.
• Other than suggesting the existence of an editorial board, the About page policies () aren't actually useful for this exercise: they're stipulating author attribution for copyright reasons and where copyright flows if an article is or isn't attributed to a specific author, not really for anything to do with transparency or editorial accountability.
• I didn't come across any obviously poor-quality articles in the Games section. There is a Blogs (Live) section for Games and the quality there seems user-generated and can be fairly poor (e.g ) however, it's critical to note that the site flags that Blogs content where it is not connected to the editorial team or that is LLM-generated. This distinction could be clearly made in WP:VG/S if deemed reliable.
• The current games editorial team seems to consist of Viktor Zaycev, Maksim Ivanov, Eduard Epshteyn and Daniil Shaepard. Maksim has notably written since 2008. They have user profiles [() ... but they seem to broadly say the same thing. That seems a little lazy, but not a particularly big deal.

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Adventures in Poor Taste/AITP

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

I've seen this come up quite a bit in the comic end of things, and with a growing overlap in video gaming and that industry I wanted people's take on the source. It is cited as a source pretty heavily by Bleeding Cool and also by IGN. They have conducted several interviews through the years, and also have had their reviews cited by several publications looking at Internet Archive's scanned media library. the Anime Wikiproject also discussed it at one point, albeit briefly, in 2016. Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Leaning situational on the basis of who's writing. Of course, decent interviews, even by unreliable sources, would still be perfectly usable in moderation as primary sources.

Considerations for:

• As you say, some reliable sources have quoted from AIPT reporting, and its breadth of subject matter and continuity of reporting seems relatively steady.
• Some writers have science or pop culture journalistic experience including George Loftus (The Escapist ) and Gary Catig (Popverse, Comicon, GeekDad), Justin Harrison (VentureBeat, Comics Journal) and Jennifer Chu (ScienceDaily, Futurism).

Considerations against:

• The owner, David Brooke, appears only to have experience with AIPT . Many of the more recent writers also lack experience based on MuckRack: Maxwell Majernik, Vishaka K, George Loftus, David Brooke, Patrick Ross.
• The site has an enthusiast bent: its About Us section says they're an unaffiliated site at first "written by a tight-knit group of real-life friends" who then expanded a platform so that "fans can share their opinions with the world".
• The site has no obvious editorial policies.

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm leaning more towards unreliable per Vrxces "considerations against" bulletpoints. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Situational for video games per Vrxces & Kung Fu Man. I've never needed their reviews of video games but I've found their comics reviews fairly good; comics, like gaming, have a dwindling amount of outlets doing regular coverage. Being cited by other outlets we consider reliable is a good sign. AITP gets a lot of comics interviews (I think a weekly X-Men interview) & other exclusives so it seems comic publishers trust them as an outlet. For me, to cross over to unreliable would be if they were making up quotes or using AI. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  I know its tough out there in 2026 journalism...but it's...slightly concerning that your standard is so low than only complete fabrications or non-human writers would deter you. We need to hold publications to a little higher standard than that... Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  My evaluation started with what I thought was good about the website & what I thought it would take to shift that evaluation. If we're thinking about the evaluation as a flowchart of what trips an outlet automatically to unreliable, it doesn't have obvious things (fabrications, AI, etc). But also AIPT in its current state isn't giving me fan blog vibes (in terms of the quality of the reviews & interviews) that would push it into unreliable. Situational for video games is mostly because their about section doesn't detail much of their editorial policies & their focus seems to be comics. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  I see now. I read it as more of a stand-alone thought. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  I will mention that sadly when it comes to the comic book end of things, stuff like AIPT is the best we've got for any instances of overlap. There's a lot of stuff on that field even Valnet doesn't cover.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, I don't usually edit in the comics area, but it seems like people have commonly complained in the past about how poor the sourcing is for comic book/comic book characters? I toyed with the idea of trying to improve the poor state of some of the Sonic comic articles in the past too, but also struggled to find sources. I guess its just a problem with the content area? Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  From the comics side, CBR's overall quality drop means editors are usually (rightfully) wary of even using their reviews at this point. The Beat is still reliable but I think most of their reviews are weekly round-ups with some additional focused articles; ComicBook.com use to do weekly round-up reviews but their current state of comics articles seems to be a lot of listicles. ICv2 is good for business & general comic updates but they don't really do reviews. I originally stumbled upon AIPT because of their interviews but I've found their comics reviews to be consistent in terms of output & quality. I like that they often do reviews of single issues & then for the same series, do a review when the trade paperback comes out (evaluates an entire run of issues together). Given that enough video game outlets publish reviews, I hadn't really considered them for this industry until this discussion. In terms of comic character sourcing, there's maybe an argument that listicles can verify aspects of character background/plot/issue numbers even if they don't add to notability; but that hinges a bit on the website's overall quality and also goes off topic for this discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  I've actually used AITP in Mauga (Overwatch) as a secondary source for plot details (they go really in depth in their reviews), but also Luna Snow for some character reception because otherwise all the commentary would be just for her game version.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Unreliable: If this is all they provide for an "about us" page, this is quite poor. I'm not greatly impressed by their bylined writers (this for example - Valnet) and the absence of staff on their meet the team page. The actual writing from what I've seen is fine, but it needs experience with that, else we're left with something not much better than a blog. A lack of any editorial guidelines, as @Vrxces mentioned, is a killer blow for me. (The site's excessive ads are irritating as well...) 11WB (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@11WB: It looks like the page may have gotten mangled during a site update, as older versions list editors and whatnot, as does this page.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for providing these. From a quick read, only Coplan, who has freelanced for Time Magazine and Complex would be what I would consider as having sufficient experience writing for reliable sources. 11WB (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Tech Times

Tech Times (https://www.techtimes.com/) is listed as a reliable source under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#General computing/technology, and I'd suggest re-evaluating that. See RSN in 2022 (three editors considered it unreliable), RSN 2024 (three more editors agreed), and this RSN thread I just posted. It posts a lot of lightly-rewritten content from other sources and solicits for paid placement in articles, and it's not clear whether they appropriately disclose paid placement. Looks like it's currently cited in about 185 relevant articles. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

That's worrisome, I'd support changing to situational. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

The concerns are worth re-evaluating this as situational. I'd encourage other editors to take a look or revisit this discussion in due time if new evidence appears. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

GamePur

Would be helpful to determine if this is reliable or not. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 25#Gamepur?

Stuff other than content:

• It's under Gamurs these days, which I guess I would describe as "could be worse", some of their other gaming publications are under reliable or situational.
• There's ...some WP:UBO. Not a ton.
• Searching for their staff shows some cross-pollination with RS. Games journalists at least considered it a real outlet to write for. (, , , , )

Content:

• They seemed to have stopped publishing reviews, features, or news after mid-2024 (and it looks like it was already greatly thinned out by 2024), switching to guideslop instead.
• They have (had?) an editorial policy.
• Their content, when they were making it, seemed of reasonable quality.

I'd give them a situational ("within, if on the outer reaches of, the orbit of online games journalism" to put it colorfully) until mid-2024, and a "not usable for anything because they no longer produce journalistic content" after that. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Can this be listed as "situational" rather than inconclusive? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I would support that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Let's say situational. We can always revisit the discussion if new evidence comes up. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Gamerszone.jp

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

Their "Writers" subpage features numerous freelancers who have worked with reliable Japanese-language publications such as IGN Japan, Automaton, GAME Watch, Famitsu, and others. There doesn't seem to be a dedicated page for an editorial policy, but Gamerszone's authors seem to be suitably qualified to merit the website's reliability. TheBrickGraphic (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

That's a plus. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

This seems like a good addition. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)