Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard


Shortcut

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

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

Click here to start a new discussion thread


Make TheGamer's situational over "generally reliable"

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

In 2021, TheGamer was marked as reliable for content published after August 2020, with this discussion, based on their then editor-in-chief having experience in other sites. "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable". But, during that very discussion, that EiC resigned, as noted by user Haleth. Despite this, TheGamer being labeled as "generally reliable" after a point has stayed, and it appears to have not come into question after all this time.

TheGamer is not actually that different from other Valnet sources, which the "generally reliable" label implies. Valnet sources are something we as a project find ourselves quite routinely discussing. They're largely low quality churnalism with occasional serious journalism. They can't be used to demonstrate notability, they can't be used in BLPs, they should be replaced with a higher quality source when possible, all that. We apply this to all Valnet sourcing, including TheGamer. Matter of fact, a major concern with Valnet's usage on BLPs came from an article published by TheGamer (see this discussion we had in 2025).

To me, a source that cannot be used in BLPs or to establish notability is, by definition, "situational". Not "generally reliable". "Generally reliable" is a label that is usually given to sources that don't have any frequent or outstanding issues. Valnet sources, with the exception of (as of now) Polygon, all have both of those two things. As such, we consider them situational, and there's many arguments to be made that even that is generous. By giving TheGamer the label of "generally reliable", we imply that those issues don't exist with TheGamer, and that they can be used to establish notability or be used in BLPs, when they most definitely share the hallmarks of every other Valnet source out there.

I believe that we should repeal TheGamer's "general reliability" note, and set it back to situational, with all considerations we have with other Valnet sources also applying to it, though maybe with notes of their brief reliability and of editor's finding their content output to be slightly higher quality compared to other Valnet sources. Nothing in regards to how the source is used would change rather than clarifying what we already know about Valnet. λ NegativeMP1 01:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't understand the point of this. There's been no problem with TheGamer as a source, if anything they've been a very usable source that's helped with both verification and reception. I've seen seen some more stalwart critics of using Valnet sourcing such as Zx have argued as it counting for notability. To my understanding the problem with Valnet sources wasn't Valnet itself so much as churnalism. But they've produced several editorial pieces, with indication that they do fact checking, and have Stacey Henley still as EIC I believe, who has some pedigree in the industry herself. I'm just a bit dumbfounded here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to a discussion where there was a consensus that Valnet sources, TheGamer included, shouldn't be on BLPs. It led to the current notice at WP:VALNET that the sources shouldn't be on BLPs. As far as we should be considered, a source that has been agreed upon to not be utilized in BLPs should be "situational". How exactly is that "generally reliable" if there is a very big line that has to be drawn for its use?
"To my understanding the problem with Valnet sources wasn't Valnet itself so much as churnalism" was there not an article published somewhere last year (or 2024, don't remember) that showed Valnet, the corporation, was actively encouraging the churnalism prevalent across all of their sites? Sure, TheGamer happens to be a bit above the rest. That still is not worth the moniker of "generally reliable". λ NegativeMP1 01:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no I'm sorry, I'm reading that discussion and seeing the usual "Valnet bad" hogwash as if every other corporate outlet isn't doing the same, and that's the extent of the argument. If we'd seen some steady decline in article quality I'd feel you'd have a case, but there hasn't been, in fact they seem to be putting out more editorial content and more actually useful opinion editorial content. We've already seen these sites for the most part operate independent of one another and don't necessarily follow what Valnet as a corporation wants. Even the CBR argument has always felt odd to me, because the claim was "they're going to use AI" and we never saw evidence of that. Instead, it was Dualshockers, and that one rightfully got slammed down.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My discussion is not on the grounds of a decline in sourcing quality. It is on the grounds of there being a factual, clear line on what TheGamer cannot be used for. Any such jurisdiction is against the very definition of "generally". I also believe I clarified that there would be no impact to how TheGamer is used, but just rather clarifying what its status actually is?
"'m reading that discussion and seeing the usual "Valnet bad" hogwash as if every other corporate outlet isn't doing the same, and that's the extent of the argument" Maybe it's because Valnet has been discussed so much to the point that I doubt people want to regurgitate the same points? There's been countless ones both here and at the Films project. Also, I don't see IGN or any other video game media company try to incorporate AI into their properties with fabricated quotes and writers that were completely made up. The decisions that happened at Dualshockers, and the planned ones at CBR, were corporate ones. The churnalism, sweatshop conditions at Valnet properties is one enforced by the corporation. There are reasons to dislike Valnet and they certainly are not defeated by a mere "other companies do the same thing". Is there proof of other companies doing the same thing? λ NegativeMP1 02:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Valnet stated in response to the accusations of using AI, I'd have to double check when but that statement came about after the CBR accusation (which was from its former EIC), that they had no plans to use it. In fact, this hiring statement on GiveMeSport here outright states they ban the use of AI generated articles at the bottom of the page, under Valnet's policy, and a similar statement from this on linkedin (basing it off google's translation in a preview) stating it was part of their contract that they didn't allow AI-generated material. So I do believe the understanding that this is a corporate stance, unless they're outright lying in the open, is a weird one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
DualShockers was proven to seemingly have AI writers or ones that were fabricated. It is not unreasonable to believe that the company that was described as a sweatshop, and consistently publishes out content with little human involvement to begin with, may have lied about their AI stance. Ultimately, it does not matter what they said; it's what they do. DualShockers, and Valnet as a whole, has a precedent in using AI. IGN and other sources we consider reliable do not have such precedent as of right do not.
Again, this "all sources do the same stuff" idea does not work. Anyways, we're getting away from the central argument. TheGamer is clearly not a "generally reliable" source. It is by definition situational. Consensus exists that there are areas TheGamer, and all Valnet sources for that matter, should not be used in. λ NegativeMP1 03:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
DualShockers appears to have acted on their own, and we have a statement from an active Valnet job offer linked above stating they forbid AI, and I'm absolutely certain a similar statement was released when CBR was accused of such I just can't find it at the moment. But again I ask, where's the decline in quality with TheGamer? Where are we seeing signs of it doing AI or putting up subpar work with poor editorial standards and fact checking? Again, the only argument is "it's Valnet".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously respect @NegativeMP1, but on this I do disagree. The "it's Valnet" argument doesn't work. The AI claim is pure speculation and is not backed up by... anything. The quality of their articles has remained consistent and they have very experienced writers. If nothing is going to change other than a classification "demotion", what is the point of this discussion? 11WB (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Once more, my argument here is not based on a decline in quality. It is based wishing to clarify an existing consensus. "Generally reliable" is demonstrably a lie.
I am not arguing about a decline in quality on Valnet sourcing, nor am I arguing for unreliability entirely. Yet, both of you and 11WB's defenses seem like ones towards the source being demoted to unreliable. Although there is certainly an argument to be had about Valnet sourcing being revisited as a whole (the longer I edit Wikipedia, the less fond I become of all Valnet sources), but that is not what I am arguing for here. I am arguing for clarification of an existing consensus.
"Again, the only argument is 'it's Valnet'" KFM, you have been editing this site longer than I have. There is very good reason why people do not view Valnet sourcing in the best light and you know that. You are framing all criticism of Valnet as if people dislike it for no reason other than "it's Valnet". λ NegativeMP1 04:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neg, I detailed it below, but I've also been around to understand what the arguments were, and that it was often seen as a soft guideline, not a full on "do not use" or "avoid". I've even discussed with with Ferret at length, pointing out that editors have used the Valnet stance as a bludgeon in AfD's without understanding it's meant to be flexible because of how badly it's worded/handled.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning toward oppose per Kung Fu Man. While content from other outlets from Valnet such as Game Rant are rightfully situational, I've used TheGamer as a source for reception and analysis on a lot of articles with no issues. Pieces from TheGamer (or maybe even other Valnet sources, for that matter) that are clearly not churnalism (however you define that) should count towards notability, on a case-by-case basis if need be. This is all, of course, assuming they provide sigcov. And as 11WB says below, TheGamer is Valnet's own creation, so it makes a lot of sense that they would put more effort into making it into a higher-quality publication than the likes of Screen Rant. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 20:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While TheGamer may have been founded with the intention of providing more in-depth articles than its sister sites, I don't think it makes sense to stick to this discrimination in the future. Valnet has become one of the most prolific gaming publishers and may be scrutinized for this. Polygon was acquired by this company too, so I could argue they put their effort there now. (Were Collider and How-To Geek considered reliable?) IgelRM (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Situational To be in line with other Valnet sources. TheGamer occasionally has some good authors coming in that could be counted as SPS's for notability purposes, but the quality most of the time is still largely the same as other Valnet sources. This shouldn't hamper the site's usage, but again per above they have published material that indicates that they're not exactly good for controversial topics, and implying they're at a level higher than other Valnet sites seems odd when they are clearly working under the same old usual Valnet policies. TheGamer falls under WP:VALNET's designation that it should not traditionally be used for notability and we should treat it that way properly in how we designate it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:48, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I agree with @KFM quite strongly on this one. TheGamer is Valnet's own creation, not an acquisition. As a result, they put more effort into it, over their other acquired sites. As @PL said above they do have very experienced writers, Ben Sledge for example, who has written for reliable sources including The Guardian. We are losing gaming sources to AI by the day at the moment, TheGamer has real writers who are publishing real human content, and it's far better in quality than the likes of what we find from Dexerto. They are a reliable source and I strongly oppose labelling them otherwise. 11WB (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "We are losing gaming sources to AI by the day at the moment, TheGamer has real writers who are publishing real human content, and it's far better in quality than the likes of what we find from Dexerto" firstly, a site having articles written by humans is not an automatic qualifier of reliability. If anything, it's the bare minimum. Secondly, once more, Valnet has precedent in their sources using AI. I am not a fan of the idea that we need to artificially inflate the reputation of subpar sources because other sources are bad. "TheGamer is Valnet's own creation, not an acquisition. As a result, they put more effort into it, over their other acquired sites" this is the first I have ever heard of this logic being used. It doesn't make sense regardless. If anything, a site being made by Valnet themselves makes it less reliable. And, cool, writers have experience. Did you see "with occasional serious journalism" and "Nothing in regards to how the source is used would change rather than clarifying what we already know about Valnet".
    You're also ignoring the existing consensus that TheGamer shouldn't be used in BLP articles. I will repeat, if a site has such a clear line drawn where it should not be used, that is not "generally reliable". Do you believe that TheGamer can be used for BLPs or to establish notability? If the answer is "no" to either of those three, then that's "situational", not "generally reliable". λ NegativeMP1 03:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point on AI usage is purely speculation, without hard proof it's not a valid reason against. As for the other points, I don't really feel the need to go over them at length. Previous discussions on TheGamer have already established these facts. To answer your specific questions, I personally don't have an issue if they are used in BLPs or to establish notability. The site comes under the general Valnet rules, so I'm overruled on that one. 11WB (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Even KFM pointed out in the discussion that got DualShockers demoted to unreliable again that there were authors there that seemingly didn't exist. That is definitely a possible sign of AI.
    "I personally don't have an issue if they are used in BLPs or to establish notability. The site comes under the general Valnet rules, so I'm overruled on that one" The exact point here is to clarify exactly what that consensus of Valnet rules is to TheGamer. Right now, we imply that they can be used on BLPs or to establish notability, because they are under "generally reliable". λ NegativeMP1 03:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I replied above, but your argument is a broad "all Valnet sites are the same". When in actuality, they aren't. 11WB (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's DualShockers, not TheGamer. So that argument has no relevance to this. Unless there is a reliable source that shows evidence that TheGamer or Valnet at large is actively, and secretly, using AI, there's nothing to prove against their reliability. 11WB (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like it should be noted that DualShockers also says they have a zero-tolerance for AI and yet let it go through anyway, which we only found about because someone talked about it. If one Valnet site decides to secretly go against what they say they do, who's to say others can't? I've encountered my fair share of bad articles from Valnet that are very AI generated in writing style. It's not exactly implausible and given Valnet's track record (As discussed here) I'm not exactly trusting them to have high quality maintenance standards. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:21, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's one site versus another. The sites are different, otherwise we would be discussing one site: 'Valnet.com'. We aren't. They own many sites and this is just one example. It doesn't mean it's happening across all of them. 11WB (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Valnet owns these sites and manages them under a uniform ownership with sitewide policies often shared, not to mention they have a frequent tendency of laying off all pre-existing staff very frequently and blacklisting people across all sites they own for the same things. They very clearly run and manage all of them. Even if they are separate sites, the leadership at the end of the day is still coming from the same place. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I may, the whole "let's get Valnet under a unified approach" thing won't really work because in all honesty it never has. Even some of the most ardent critics of Valnet have argued for the sources having some usage, especially for secondary but also occasionally for notability if it's an editorial and says something meaningful. My understanding the main problem with Valnet stemmed from two fronts:
  1. Users citing churnalism (according to users on X, etc etc or so and so fan made THING), or listicles (Top 10 Beards in Gaming) that offered no substance or real commentary.
  2. Because Valnet cranks out so much material, the risk of a subject becoming notable because say CBR, TheGamer and Game Rant all discussed it is viable, which leads to concerns that it's effectively citing one big source, even if each website has its own editorial.
  3. We have better sources in some cases. This one is slowly turning into had.
But that's in part why different websites are ranked differently; because they are independent. If we have a clear corporate mandate for them to do AI-generated content, I'd agree with Neg; burn them. But instead we have a cited statement showing the opposite as a corporate policy in that job offer page, and it's clearly under Valnet's policy not the site's. So AI concerns shouldn't be a factor here. But I don't see a necessity to drag TheGamer down to situational when it's rather unfortunately been one of the better websites lately.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've had many discussions with PL about this. I've got to be honest, I don't actually have much of a problem with Valnet in general. I'm quite familiar with Screen Rant, I try to substitute them out where applicable, but they are not bad articles. I feel like this is about Valnet as a whole, so I don't understand why TheGamer was singled out. Hardcore Gamer is also considered reliable and is owned by Valnet, for example. This discussion won't result in meaningful change. I think a proper RfC would be needed for that, with prior planning. 11WB (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Valnet and its associated sites have been criticized for a while now and with no one site ever being considered better than another except for specifically here. And, again, even if AI isn't a factor here, we still have the above issue of this not being reliable for BLPs, among any other quality issues that may present themselves. A "generally reliable" source is not one that's barred from discussing basic facts about real people, and keeping the current ranking advertises it as somehow being exempt from that. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest I'm still not entirely sure where the BLP thing got decided. I'll admit I'm not usually in the space of writing those articles, but it seems to be coming up a lot more here in this discussion than I think any of the others we've had ad nauseum about Valnet.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's really relevant. Video game specific articles do not have a BLP majority overall. I don't know the statistics but I would guess they are in the minority. 11WB (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant enough, we do have several developer and voice actors under our banner for example, and statements attributed to developers in articles do fall under that umbrella.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You participated in the discussion where the BLP thing got decided (here). Consensus there was that Valnet should not be used in BLPs. That is, definitively, not a hallmark of a "generally reliable" source. λ NegativeMP1 04:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of defense that is going into a mere clarification about a consensus is concerning. "Situational" does not stop y'all, or any editor, from citing them if they can make a case for it. You all already make a clear distinction between Valnet's usual churnalist slop and articles written by professional authors. When you cite them, you make a clear case as to why they can be cited. Absolutely nothing changes from this other than a mere clarification. λ NegativeMP1 04:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What you're proposing certainly does make GAN discussions and AfD discussions to boot that much harder. That's been one of my most significant problems with the whole "it doesn't count for notability" aspect, because it gets taken as fact and I've discussed that at least twice on here. The other issue is too I haven't seen a reasonable argument for the situational downgrade; the most applicable thing is this BLP concern, but where's the discussion showing that there was a BLP issue with TheGamer?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Valnet sources have always been questioned at GA and AfD, including TheGamer. And they should be. You can make a case of any "unreliable" or "situational" source to be usable in specific situations (e.g. author). So, what changes? Also, if something is discussed mainly in those types of Valnet articles, or the article relies on Valnet in general, then AfD is probably warranted. λ NegativeMP1 04:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have already asked this, but if nothing is changing, what is the purpose of this discussion, if not to reaffirm what we all should already know? 11WB (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is a discrepancy in how we label TheGamer and this is technically a change in how we consider a source at face value, even if largely the same. It is something that warrants a discussion. I knew that if I went into the list and made an adjustment to the wording of TheGamer's entry I would've been told to discuss it here or it'd be contested in some other way, regardless if already based on "what we all should already know". λ NegativeMP1 04:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely viable for an article from TheGamer to be one of your WP:THREE strong points to hold up notability even if you have other sources. I don't see the point in making things harder, and to boot I've been here long enough to see editors also push "well it's already situational, let's just make it unreliable" like we had one editor walk in with in one last Valnet discussion. As for the BLP issue, looking over what you linked above... I wasn't in that discussion. It also doesn't look like it fully reached consensus, just one of concern?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I must have misremembered about you being in the BLP discussion. I apologize for that. However, that was definitely a consensus. It also resulted in our current BLP note to begin with.
"It is entirely viable for an article from TheGamer to be one of your WP:THREE strong points to hold up notability even if you have other sources" yes, if done by a reputable author and of exceptional quality. I do not question that. λ NegativeMP1 04:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, looks like the discussion fizzled more to me with some agreeing because it's valnet and others wary to downgrade. I'm just not a fan of making things harder for myself or other editors, Neg. I've just experienced too many editors that use this list as a checklist and then get strict, and even at FAC that can be harder. I'll be up front too, I'd actually considered suggested CBR be pushed to situational because the AI concerns with it never appeared to actually manifest, so this throws one hell of a kink into that plan. Either way I think I've said all I can here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At GANs where I've been the reviewer I've had to explicitly state that whilst I don't mind CBR being cited, it's not considered reliable and can be removed as UNDUE. It's pretty ridiculous. 11WB (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If I have to start doing that with every Valnet owned source, I'll probably end up moving away from video game articles entirely, in all honesty. 11WB (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are larger issues at hand here if you would stop editing video game articles because of us wanting to tread caution with a specific type of source. λ NegativeMP1 05:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm making is basically the same as the point KFM made above, this only ends up making things more difficult elsewhere. 11WB (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "inconvenience" of having to defend the usage of a source or article—which is commonplace even in reliable sources, especially at FAC—really one that would push you towards quitting the video games area entirely? Again, with all Valnet sources, they should be questioned. Most of the time they already are. You just gave examples of you questioning them. Is your argument of reliability here really just because it'd be more "convenient" if the source didn't have any restrictions? λ NegativeMP1 05:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, my argument has been that it shouldn't need to be defended. You chose TheGamer specifically for this discussion, so I'll use that. There is no evidence of AI usage on the site, they have very experienced writers and the quality is high. These are the hallmarks of a reliable source. Your argument has been "it's Valnet so it can't be reliable". Put simply, it's a weak argument, regardless of pre-established consensus. 11WB (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are effectively two different arguments happening here, one of which was started out of what I can only imagine was the interpretation y'all think I am fighting for unreliability of TheGamer. I am not the biggest fan of Valnet sources, no. But, I did not plan to make that a major point in this discussion.
"Your argument has been 'it's Valnet so it can't be reliable'" Ignoring the oversimplification of legitimate critique to try and make it seem less valid than it actually is, I'm still right. I cited a discussion about Valnet sources being unusable for BLPs and that discussion had a specific focus on TheGamer. I am correct that, by definition, TheGamer is not fully reliable. A source that cannot be used on BLPs is not "generally reliable". What is hard to understand here? λ NegativeMP1 05:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with the labelling of my argument as an "oversimplification". You said verbatim: 'Again, with all Valnet sources, they should be questioned.' 11WB (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Am I wrong? Do I need to explain why the work of properties owned by a company notorious for low-quality churnalism and described as a digital sweatshop should be taken with some caution? [1] [2]
Yes, grouping up all Valnet properties is a reasonable concern both editorially and in how we characterize sources here. All of these sources are under the Valnet subsection. More discussions than can be counted have considered Valnet to be largely a landfill. And here, I have cited one such discussion multiple times regarding its use in BLPs. And this time, specifically TheGamer. It is an applicable argument.
There may have been two different arguments going on here, but they most definitely converge with comments trying to downplay critiques of Valnet, from both you and KFM. λ NegativeMP1 05:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to continue this discussion. I'll address these points when I'm back online. I imagine this discussion will have more input by then as well. 11WB (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm going a bit overboard here or mischaracterizing your arguments, then I don't mean to. But it does feel like an oversimplification to simply say that the arguments here boil down to "Valnet bad". λ NegativeMP1 05:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was pinged. I agree re "They're largely low quality churnalism with occasional serious journalism", and I am not opposed to reclassifying to situational, but I also think that the occasional serious journalism pieces can confer notability (and ditto for other Valnet sources, which, on rare occasions, do produce good content). That's the point of situational in a nutshell anyway. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have said in this discussion that "all Valnet sources should be questioned". That can quite easily be summarised as "Valnet is bad". I don't agree with this. 11WB (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's an incredible oversimplification and not at all beneficial to this discussion—it can only "easily be summarised" as such if one decides to wilfully (mis)interpret it that way. Considering we have an entire section dedicated to questioning Valnet sources, it is entirely valid for Negative to question all Valnet sources. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If this discussion is about all Valnet sources, it should have been named as such. To single out TheGamer because its consensus doesn't match the rest is silly. Hardcore Gamer is also considered reliable by consensus and is owned by Valnet, yet there has been no mention of it here. We're either focusing on one source, or all of them. 11WB (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We'll let's look at the core arguments:
  1. A discussion against TheGamer for use in BLP cites. That does add a layer of situational, though I would argue that can also be a one-off (Kotaku and IGN for example in the past have both had to issue corrections and apologies, hell I love Kotaku for sourcing and they're outright banned by some companies including Bethesda)
  2. That the website is run under Valnet, which requires extra scrutiny due to it being a content mill company that other journalists have called out. This one has some foundation, but given these sites often act independently of one another and they're hardly alone in this behavior (Gawker, Gamurs, IGN) to various degrees, that can be a bit of a pandora's box.
  3. The claim that AI generated articles were a concern due to Dualshockers. This one I would be wary on, but Neg (and no offense to him) tried to outright argue it was a corporate mandate that they start doing this, while we've got statements saying the opposite. Then again, Dualshockers also apparently had an anti-AI policy so on their end either their editorial was asleep at the wheel or they're outright lying. Either way, Dualshockers is still its own thing, and the other sites have not to our knowledge engaged in such.
  4. A counterargument, but the acknowledgement that TheGamer has not seen a decrease in quality or recurring issues to necessitate such a change. That's been acknowledged above.
Now I think that covers all the facets of this argument unless I'm missing something?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think a large issue here is that those on either side see the other side's arguments as weak from the offset. I genuinely don't see how this can be resolved, especially the broader Valnet issue, without a formal process such as an RfC. A consensus for Valnet in general will mean that, regardless of site, whether it is TheGamer or Dualshockers, will be given the same classification. At the moment, sites owned by Valnet have different classifications, some are unreliable (CBR, Dualshockers), some are situational (GameRant, Screen Rant) and some are reliable (TheGamer, Hardcore Gamer). 11WB (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a RfC is needed, I think the bigger concern is more "why now?" when nothing's been wrong for literal months. I do understand some of the concern that if it's not usuable for BLP it should be situational anyway, but I'm still up in the air on that end myself. And even when you look at the discussion for that, there's the big "it's Valnet, they're all terrible that way" belief which leads us kinda in a circle.
I think the sites need to be judged on their own merits.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've said my piece in this discussion. @NegativeMP1 definitely won't agree, but I'm (begrudgingly) satisfied with keeping the status quo, failing a formal RfC. 11WB (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the bigger concern is more "why now?" when nothing's been wrong for literal months—I don't understand how this could even be a minor concern, let alone a big one. If not now, when? There's no deadline for starting discussions, and Negative's concerns are just as valid today as if they'd been raised months ago (or months from now). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ad nauseum is starting to become literal for me, so I'm going to unsubscribe from this discussion. I'm reassured under the knowledge I'm not alone regarding my position. 11WB (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Generally reliable" is a label that is usually given to sources that don't have any frequent or outstanding issues. Valnet sources, with the exception of (as of now) Polygon, all have both of those two things. That's the exact bit that's hung me up, Rhain; it's framing the "BLP" issue as a recurring one, and as if something more recent had happened to agitate the wound instead of this one instance? Like if there's a history of that I can get it but I hear people talking about a BLP problem than seeing one, especially when it comes to this individual site.
Then we shifted gears somehow to AI and Dualshockers/CBR and using that against TheGamer (I don't see IGN or any other video game media company try to incorporate AI into their properties with fabricated quotes and writers that were completely made up. The decisions that happened at Dualshockers, and the planned ones at CBR, were corporate ones.) which is confusing as shown above their job listings forbid AI at a corporate level. In fact the CBR thing's always been weird because Popverse looked into it and could only find it was rumor with no foundation, and thus far while the quality isn't the best for most of their content they don't appear to be doing AI gen articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for elaborating. I think this explanation highlights your concerns better; I just wanted to make it doubly clear that Negative was valid in raising these concerns in the first place. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To try and reply to some of the bigger parts of the above in one message:
I still don't understand how it is not valid to question all Valnet sources, including TheGamer (thank you Rhain for helping clarify what I'm getting at). Your own sourcing standards may place them higher, but the years-running consensus, and evidence from that article published by TheWrap, is that they are not the best sources. All Valnet sources have issues. And rightfully, they are situational. The focus on TheGamer is because it is, momentarily, a baseless step up above the rest when they are still a Valnet source under their churnalist corporate policies and one where BLP concerns have still been brought up. Either way, I will still reiterate: if a source has such a big line drawn for its usage, then it is not "generally reliable".
Sure, TheGamer can publish some high quality content at times, so can any other Valnet source. All of us are already used to questioning Valnet sources and using them with caution. The reasons as to why have been hashed out many times. There's not much more to go into. Everybody in this conversation has been editing Wikipedia for longer than I have. Y'all have been here for the sourcing debates. Why do y'all think that "it's Valnet" is even an idea? Sure, it may not be a valid concern for Hardcore Gamer or Polygon (yet), but at least those are more recent acquisitions. We've gone over those both and concluded that Valnets hallmarks have not reached them quite yet. But it most definitely applies to what are the "traditional" Valnet sources where those arguments exist because of (the Rants, TheGamer, DualShockers, etc.).
The logic that has been given as to why TheGamer is seemingly above these doesn't seem fully valid at present, when the initial reasons they were even raised to reliable no longer apply and the restrictions we've gone over by this point still apply to TheGamer. Instead, this conversation has mostly had a lot of arguments made that I find highly questionable (Comments on the lines of "'Valnet bad' isn't a valid reason", "TheGamer is Valnet's own creation, not an acquisition. As a result, they put more effort into it, over their other acquired sites", "If I have to start doing that with every Valnet owned source, I'll probably end up moving away from video game articles entirely, in all honesty"). KFM's addressing of the main arguments made in the discussion are helpful, although I should clarify that by corporate mandate I was referring to their forceful output of churnalism, which we do have evidence for. I will concede there is no proof of AI use being mandated. I don't necessarily believe that they're sticking to their word and it is still a precedent to go off of, but I would not argue for that based entirely on gut feeling. Maybe I confused y'all with that part, and to that I apologize.
I am not arguing for TheGamer's flat out unreliability here. I will agree that, based on what I've seen of all main Valnet sourcing, TheGamer is generally the highest quality. But it still falls under the jurisdiction we give Valnet sources as a whole, which have been hashed out even after TheGamer's reliable label. If there are reasons to believe that the TheGamer BLP issue may have been a one off, they should still contribute to notability, and that they are treated differently from other Valnet sources, then that's a debate that we can have by starting over from the above. But at present, based on what we know and have set consensus for, TheGamer is not "generally reliable". And if it came down to reassessment, I'd still make TheGamer situational because of everything that I have laid out. λ NegativeMP1 18:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making a rationale here yet, I just want to understand this discussion better. Say we were to rewrite the "Notes and limitations" section for TheGamer on the list, would you want it to read something along the line of: "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered reliable; several editorial staff have by-lines highlighting their experience working with other reputable video game media outlets such as VG247. However, caution should be made towards more churnalism-style content and it should be excluded from BLP pages per a 2026 discussion."? CaptainGalaxy 21:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would put a hold on the mention of BLP. @KFM explained here that it is not a visible problem. We can't make stuff up about a source, when there is nothing to verify that there is in fact a problem. 11WB (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but when a company mandates their writers to produce churnalism, and multiple of their properties do have proven BLP issues, and there's at least one example of this one having issues, that should be enough to exclude it from BLPs entirely. BLPs are a area that Wikipedia should be extra careful with, and they should have high quality sourcing. I cannot consciously consider any "traditional" Valnet source high quality for the purposes of that.
@Captain Galaxy: I suppose that is a wording which can work. λ NegativeMP1 04:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neg I feel like you need to judge the site on its own merits. Have there been other occurrences of BLP issues with TheGamer or no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why we should judge TheGamer's BLP stance on its own for reasons I already went over. A site that is owned by a corporate churnalist media farm is not a high quality source for a BLP; I'm willing to bet you that if this was a discussion brought to WP:RSN the vast majority of the site would agree with me.
There might not be many specific instances of TheGamer having BLP issues, but other Valnet sources have had multiple and TheGamer has at least one. Saying that the source should be avoided on BLPs, and also contentious statements, is a rational conclusion to come to. And yes, judging these sites in one group is still reasonable for this case. Do you have any reasons why TheGamer should be deemed a high-quality source for these things? λ NegativeMP1 06:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring the point of my question: have there been other occurrences with TheGamer, yes or no? I'm not asking what the project things of Valnet, I know what it does. I'm not asking what other Valnet sites have or haven't done either. I'm focusing on facts, for the sake of this when it gets archived and referenced later. Because you keep framing it as a recurring problem, when we only have one instance with TheGamer specifically.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@NegativeMP1, what RS/N editors would say is not relevant presently. We are at the VGRS board. Drawing on what editors from another part of the project might say is not a good point to try and make. If you want their opinion, you should open a discussion there.
You've now said: 'There might not be many specific instances of TheGamer having BLP issues'. So this point, I feel, has lost any steam it might have had with that admission. Either way, it's pretty clear that myself and others are not convinced by these arguments. 11WB (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The RS/N comment there was a metaphor on how I doubt actually trying to use Valnet sources on BLPs or for contentious statements would likely not fly with the rest of the site.
"Either way, it's pretty clear that myself and others are not convinced by these arguments" are you paying more attention to my arguments or a vehement defense of sourcing? "If I have to start doing that with every Valnet owned source, I'll probably end up moving away from video game articles entirely, in all honesty". λ NegativeMP1 17:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"have there been other occurrences with TheGamer, yes or no?" is answered by "There might not be many specific instances of TheGamer having BLP issues". And that isn't the important part anyways, it's the precedent of just one that aligns it with the flaws of all other Valnet sourcing. We're going in a loop at this point. λ NegativeMP1 17:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You've quoted that multiple times now. The point I was making there, as I've already explained, is that making every source contentious just means GANs, FACs and general article creation become more difficult then they ought to be. 11WB (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I don't have a clear stance on whether to make it generally situational or reliable. I want to say that the reliability of the site should vary in accordance with each journalist. If the journalist is very experienced in journalism, for example, Jade King, Johnny Flores Jr, and James Lucas, then it should very much be deemed reliable. However, other instances where the writer seemingly is new or comes from other Valnet sources, then it should be considered situational. Kazama16 (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Having followed the back & forth the past few days, I've found Kung Fu Man's & 11WB's argument more persuasive. I think the general guidance of "if it is owned by Valnet, keep an eye out for quality to dip" is sound; in this case, TheGamer hasn't shown a level of quality deterioration so it seems to be jumping the gun to drop it from reliable to situational. Polygon is in the same category of watch & wait. I also agree that when outlets are marked situational, there is a tendency in AfDs & other similar discussions to not actually evaluate the individual source and instead discount it entirely because of the outlet. So unless there is a recurring problem with TheGamer, I don't see a pressing need to downgrade it to situational. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So you believe that TheGamer is a suitable source for BLPs and for establishing notability, which this discussion is over? λ NegativeMP1 16:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there are definitely situations where TheGamer could be used in BLPs, such as reporting on industry layoffs where you'd want to update a company or an individual's article with essentially "In Month X, Producer Y left (or was let go from) Company Z". If we're shifting towards more controversial topics, it is probably fine for basic facts (ie. "Company A announced they were no longer doing business with Person B") but anything more in-depth would need to be held to a higher standard (ie. we'd follow WP:EXCEPTIONAL but we should do that with all outlets). Are there examples of TheGamer reviews being such poor quality where they shouldn't be used for notability? Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To my knowledge, no. 11WB (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man, Pokelego999, 11WB, and Sariel Xilo: I think that what points I'm trying to get at here are either being misinterpreted or inadequately addressed. I believe I am going to be taking this discussion—though reworded to avoid the level of misinterpretation that I will admit I may have caused—to WP:RSN for a site-wide opinion. There, I will focus on the core question of if TheGamer, and other Valnet properties, are suitable for use on BLPs or contentious statements. The key pillars of this argument and why I am arguing for dropping the "generally reliable" moniker. λ NegativeMP1 16:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see this, but I did actually just make that recommendation above. However, I should warn that you can't attempt to overturn the consensus that's formed here with that of another. That would be WP:FORUMSHOPPING. 11WB (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think what I want to do is forum shopping, it's wanting a wider consensus in a place where I think I present the issue better. This debate here has been mostly misinterpretations of my arguments as if I want to make TheGamer unreliable, spiraling into debates over AI writing, threats to quit editing about video games if more Valnet sources are marked as situational, or arguments that just don't seem to have much precedent. RSN would be a way to get a more clear consensus separate from this mess, but I would note how this conversation went as existing grounds that editors can look at for their own opinions. λ. NegativeMP1 16:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thinking about it slightly more, I do not think that RSN is a needed escalation yet, and I can see that forum shopping might be a concern (though it isn't my intent). Instead, I think it'd be helpful to invite people from the previous TheGamer discussion regarding BLP usage to share their opinions on the wording (which Galaxy wrote here). @Shooterwalker, Sergecross73, TheJoebro64, LunaEclipse, Cukie Gherkin, Red Phoenix, and DarkeruTomoe:, thoughts? (Matter of fact, I actually just noticed that DarkeruTomoe expressed his own concerns regarding TheGamer's description in this comment). λ NegativeMP1 17:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those are video game editors, but this could be seen as WP:CANVASSING. This noticeboard is active, it would be better to just let editors happen upon it naturally. 11WB (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how letting editors know of a continuation of a debate they were already involved in previously, on-wiki at that, is cavassing... λ NegativeMP1 17:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:APPNOTE actually states it's okay to notify "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)", which is what I did here. λ NegativeMP1 17:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I said could be seen as such. Those are also editors that you've selected. If we are to get a fuller picture of opinion, I think video game editors such as @Piotrus and @Zxcvbnm also deserve to be pinged. (Especially @Piotrus, as they are very active on this board). 11WB (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's canvassing if there's an obvious, clear intent to pull discussion in a certain direction. All Negative did here was alert all the regulars that haven't commented yet. That should be fine. Another side note: I have no opposition to discussing at RSN, but in my experience, they can be more harsh to the video game sources than we are, so you may not get the results you want. (Not always though, that is the venue that somehow decided Dexerto was situational.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'll take it to RSN unless multiple people here want to or if its obvious there won't be a proper consensus. It's quite an escalation that might not be needed yet and I'll admit it was probably a little extreme suggesting it so quickly. λ NegativeMP1 17:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to be honest here, but I don't think this discussion has achieved anything. We're in exactly the same place as when we started, with further opposition actually. 11WB (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Being in exactly the same place as when we started (i.e., reinforcing the current consensus) is still achieving something, especially on this forum. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite my opposition to the proposal of this thread, I think there is a larger issue here that needs to be cleared up. I would be willing to work with other editors here to start an RfC asking whether Valnet sources should be assessed as one entity or on an individual basis. I think it would remove much of the headache that has been ongoing with this subject. This RfC could either be held on this noticeboard, or at RS/N. 11WB (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It'd be nice if you didn't try to force add what happened in this discussion to the page after only five days of inactivity. It takes 30 days for a discussion here to be archived. There are still arguments made here of being situational and, even from you, a general idea that the debate of this likely is not over. I don't remember what exact policy it is, but I'm sure there's something about pre-mature consensus calling. λ NegativeMP1 06:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. I would remind you to try and AGF. This discussion, based on the current trajectory, will likely end without a consensus. Many of the previous discussions have already been added to VG/S. Unless a large portion of editors come through now and support the proposal, a consensus will not form here. I don't wish to debate this with you however, so I will respect the reversion you just made. Thanks. 11WB (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    While we often have involved closes here (for mostly WP:SNOW), we can throw it to Wikipedia:Closure requests to hopefully get an editor outside the project's wheelhouse to formally decide if there is consensus. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one am completely fine with it running its course. That would give it a cleaner outcome and put more minds at ease.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand correctly, the issue seems to be the tension between long-standing concerns across projects about the situational reliability of the publisher (i.e. views on WP:BLP), the current framing in WP:VG/S and conflicting observations within this project that TheGamer is, at times, in-depth, editorial and useful, but at others, fairly unhelpful churn. I think the nomination is a fair attempt to seek a solution that can clarify this tension and emphasize attention is needed to examine the author, format and subject matter of the article to a greater standard than one would with an WP:RS. At the same time, given WP:VG/S hangs this label already under Valnet, commentary on what the issues are specific to TheGamer is a bit light. Had I not read this discussion and its persuasive rebuttals, I'd have insouciantly assumed there was already a general vibe of exercising light discretion with TheGamer, whilst nonetheless using its content to support details on reviews and gameplay. That feels appropriate for what that categorisation in WP:VG/S is trying to do, given a situational label is not a write-off for notability. Apparently that's a little more contested than I'd have assumed, but I don't see any issue in supporting in principle. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very on the fence about this one. I agree with the concerns. I agree with Kung Fu Man's response that The Gamer is still usable and is better than most. I feel that Piotr has the best synthesis of those opinions: the point of situational sources is that we use them sometimes and with caution, which describes how The Gamer is being used here. The other Valnet sources would be worse than that. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Revisited

I think given this recent Kotaku article where the writers are now being vastly underpaid and pushed to generate more clicks, I can't really defend Valnet beyond this point. Negative's also brought up that some of the articles are hard burying the lead on other branches of the site, such as this ScreenRant article that basically claimed for most of it like this Zelda fan game was an official release until the very end. This is unacceptable behavior from these companies. I don't want to say "throw them all out", but possibly for articles posted after May 21, 2026 the articles may be heavily discouraged, even for opinion content.

I will not lie, this sucks, because some stuff from these sites offer really good commentary, and in the video game character space that's been vital for not only additional perspectives but to help articles feel well rounded. But if people are actively being told "get clicks or don't get paid", that makes the authenticity of those opinions come into question.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that Kotaku article, and as long as we have confirmation that's happening, I would agree to weaking any ValNet source. Masem (t) 20:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That ScreenRant article regarding the Zelda game appalled me from the moment that I first read it. It's one thing to have a click-baity title. But to downright spread misinfo for multiple paragraphs into the page is something else entirely. It's atrocious and there is no possible excuse for what happened in that article. I was not hoping to make Valnet unreliable when I started this thread but they were extremely borderline to begin with and this is officially pushing me over the edge. I would make every Valnet source after a certain point unreliable (save for the ones yet to see a quality decline like Polygon). λ NegativeMP1 20:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We can make TheGamer and Polygon sources situational, while the others as unreliable (that includes Collider and Hardcore Gamer). We can perhaps wait for more confirmation before marking TheGamer as unreliable? Tagging Andrzejbanas also just in case since it also affects on the WP:Television. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been any change on Polygon since it was bought by Valnet? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen yet but some editors are hesitant of using Polygon since it was bought by Valnet already. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:35, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's enough to change its reliability status. If it's reporting has changed, then that'd be reasonable. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given this I think it unfortunately means making all Valnet sites GUNREL until further notice given the obvious incentives such a practice creates. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're still at situational until we see the impact of this implementation. There are reports of writers pushing back so let's see if Valnet continues with these contracts for all of their outlets or they decide to pivot. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My stance on this is already known, but I support making Valnet sites generally unreliable from this point forward (That being the date of the report). I would support further retroactive unreliability as well, but that would require wider consensus than this discussion is likely capable of doing and would require set cutoff dates and clear evidence I'm not sure is easy to obtain or discuss right now. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:28, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retroactive unreliable would devastate a good bit of articles, and I feel is too much of a nuke especially with how much they cover. As is right now if we decide to go unreliable from that date onward, I think bringing it forward to the RSN would be a good idea, to help keep the site as a whole on the same page.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of several Computec German print magazines

To encourage the use of WP:NONENG sources, which can provide some critical coverage where otherwise absent and be a solid foundation for WP:GNG, I'm proposing that Computec print magazines are generally reliable. The publisher is responsible for existing WP:RS in WP:VGS including the German imprint of GameZone, PC Games, and Play Time. I think it's appropriate to handle these in bulk where all of these share a common publisher and editors of magazines already in WP:VG/S. Examples of editors shared across multiple sources listed include Hans Ippisch [3] and Petra Frohlich [4].

This would add the following print magazines to 'reliable'.

  • Amiga Games - Amiga magazine from 1992-1996. [5]
  • Games Aktuell (formerly Video Games Aktuell) - multiplatform magazine from 2003-2023. [6]
  • Mega Fun - multiplatform magazine from 1992-2000. [7]
  • N-Zone - Nintendo magazine from 1997-2022. [8].
  • PC Action - PC games magazine from 1996-2012.
  • Play5 (formerly Play3 and Play4) PlayStation magazine from 2007. [9]
  • Sega Magazin - Sega console magazine from 1993-2000. [10]
  • XBG Games - Microsoft/Xbox magazine from 2003-2018. [11]

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, most published paper magazines are generally going to make our RS standards, so I have no opposition here. The only exception is self-published fanzine type stuff, and judging by the timeframes here (90s and 2000s) that's almost certainly not the situation here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have used Mega Fun, Amiga Games, and PC Action before. Any magazine publication is A-OK. Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize a few of these from articles I've worked on. I agree that magazine articles from this era are generally reliable. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With older magazines, getting physical or scanned access is often more of a problem than reliability. IgelRM (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a fairly complete set of French and German magazines online across a few sites. Happy to point you in the right direction if useful. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Beebom

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

Previous discussions on Beebom (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) have led to few editors offering input, and I wanted to get a local consensus on if Beebom is reliable or not. On their About Us page, they only list one actual editor and he doesn't indicate any experience writing for sources I am familiar with, so I can't ascertain their reliability ([12]). They do have a set of editorial guidelines accessible at [13], but in my opinion it could be more detailed. Also potentially of interest is their advertising page which is linked at the bottom. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 14:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some initial thoughts. I do not think this is a strongly reliable or high-quality source, but could eke out a space in the situational camp in the leagues of sites such as GameRant pending other views. Otherwise, the marketing veneer of the site and courting advertisers despite not accounting for this in their editorial policy makes me lean unreliable:
+ Founders have maintained the site for over a decade.
+ Some regular tenured game writers have prior writing experience: Aryan Singh (Dexerto), Rishabh Sabarwal (Digital Trends, Dexerto, Sportskeeda) and Aparna Ukil (GameRant, Dexerto).
~ Prior experience of regular contributors, where present, seems to be for situational sources. It's also for mostly content mill style articles: take Sabarwal's How to X in Fortnite style contributions: ([14][15])
~ The source itself has some critical reviews in its gaming coverage, but mostly a large amount of content mill style articles (How to X in Fortnite).
~ There are editorial guidelines, but they are quite sparse. There are some good signs, like commitments not to use LLMs, leverage contributor expertise, and verify content. However, despite inviting advertisers on the site, there is no discussion of editorial review or advertising independence in their policy. Also concerningly, the policy states they use rumours, leaks and speculation for their coverage and simply account for this by reflecting this in the headline.
- Founders did not have prior journalism industry experience prior to launch.
- Editor has minimal experience other than Tech Portal which has little information onsite.
- Some writers have no other experience, such as Sanmay Chakrabarti and Shashank Shakya. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning situational personally based on this. I should note however, that Dexerto is unreliable and GameRant is Valnet, so I'm not sure if experience with these sources should count towards reliability. Digital Trends is fine though. The three points you mentioned at the bottom, while concerning, aren't enough for me to say a source is unreliable by themselves; having a lack of experience doesn't necessarily mean a lack of integrity. It is, however, something that I think would prevent me from considering it generally reliable. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 15:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ZDNET Japan and CNET Japan

Per the discussion on RSN. (here), which deemed both the Japanese version of ZDNET (not listed here) and CNET reliable (both of which are owned by 4XCorp, a subsidiary of the The Asahi Shimbun Company). I think we should update the list to include a note that Japanese staff written article are considered reliable. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:50, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually seeing a minor issue here and it's that the sites don't seem to have much games coverage and don't have a dedicated section for it. Where there is games coverage, it's very often affiliate from CNET News (i.e. [16]) or things like Gamespot, PR Times or Global Information Inc. And where there is editorial games coverage for the site, what I can find feels to be press releases from Japanese companies such as Nintendo announced today they will release [product] on [date] (i.e. [17]) which really suggests they are drawing from business sources to say anything. The RSN discussion is right it's reliable as a whole - I don't have a reason to dismiss the site on reliability and I'm very happy to be shown otherwise, but it seems of limited utility to make the distinction when there's barely any original coverage these sites offer that would contribute to notability for topics relevant to the project. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Game Hotspot

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

i'm using a review of theirs for Duck Detective: The Secret Salami and want to check if it's reliable. ltbdl (skirt) 14:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks reliable to me because the good editorial experience of the owners and staff prior with Adventure Gamers gives me some confidence that any staff inexperience or grey areas in their policies could be addressed appropriately. Welcome other views on this.
+ Co-founded by Joshua Cleveland and Jack Allen, both formerly of WP:RS Adventure Gamers before sold to a new owner. Allen was the chief editor during its period as a WP:RS.
+ The site founded in 2022 after the Adventure Gamers ownership change and is still producing regular news and review content from its editorial team.
+ The site lists its dedicated staff, with an owner, two editors and 26 writers. Many writers are former Adventure Gamers writers, like Courtney Ehrenhofler, Evan Dickens, Eran Cohen, Alyssa Butler and Matt Aukamp, and some are clearly experienced, including Greg Costikyan and Laura Cress.
+ The site does have a policies page; it is somewhat light, but it does address key things we look for: commitments to fully play reviewed games, establish impartiality when dealing with developers and advertisers, not accepting outside revenue, and avoiding conflicts of interest.
~ The site invites advertisers to "promote your game, product or studio alongside our regularly updated, high quality editorial content". They also receive review codes. As said above, there is a stated commitment that this does not effect editorial opinions.
~ The site is advertising for additions to the team with no criteria or experience sought; neither good nor bad, and the site clarifies it does not want to publish guest articles.
- Quite a few writers have a little to no experience. Will Aickman, Sam Amiotte-Beaulieu, Micah Cooper, are some examples of first-time writers.
- One or two writers identify without full names, such as Beau or Chloe. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on reliable. There are also older discussions that seemed to support it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kanobu

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

This list has been mentioned here, so I wanted to know what is the consensus on this source. A quick Google search shows hundreds of mentions on Russian WP, but how do we feel on its reliability here? Jabberwocky7297 (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not confident about this one but definitely not a write-off. Some other thoughts would help.
+ Long-standing Russian gaming blog/social network acquired by Russian media firm Rambler in 2011 and finessed into an online publication. Recently acquired by IFSI and CEO Vasily Ovchinnikov, who is also the head of Russia's Organization for the Development of the Video Game Industry.
~ Has a Chief Editor, Yaroslav Golovnya. No known background. Games coverage authors are Roman Kovalev, Sofia Porokhova, Karina Paronyan, Nadezhda Vasilyeva, Maxim Isaev. Author bios suggest some writers have experience on other websites of unknown reliability. Bit of a WP:NONENG issue in assessing that.
- The site does not link to or feature any obvious pages containing an editorial policy, other than advertising. There seems to be some guides that imply that the social functions of Kanobu allowed anyone to write articles for the site a decade ago. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
‎Alright so I don't know if that matters much, but I checked Russian WP:VG/RS, which considers the source reliable, and this is what is said on the page: "Website about computer games, formerly owned by Rambler and used to be positioned as a "social network for gamers." Currently, like Igromania, it belongs to Gadzhi Makhtiev's company, TM-Media. Initially, editorial content—reviews, analytical articles, and the like—was published alongside user blog posts; since 2013, blog posts have been separated into a "Pub" section. Only editorial content may be used as sources." Sorry if this is not very helpful. IgorRoman10 (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is helpful and points to it being a source used broadly in Russia and considered reliable by the Russian Wikipedia. However, some content is unreliable and whilst it seems very likely they do have an editorial process, transparency about that process seems scarce. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Technology Review

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

Children's Technology Review is a US-based independent website that hosts an online database of product reviews, including video games. Video game reviews are often put in the lens of suitability for children, educational content, etc. The source often comes up when using the Wikipedia Library, especially when searching for sources on video games targeting children.

Their about page states that it started in 1993 "based on doctoral research". It's targeted toward teachers, parents, researchers, librarians, and publishers, who pay an annual subscription to access the database.

Their editorial guidelines state that they do not get income from product sales, endorsements, entry fees, or award fees. They also state that gifts over $50 are not accepted, and they do not attend PR events where less than 5 other journalists from media outlets are present.

They have been featured in articles from other reputable news media, including The Guardian, CBS, and MacLean's. IngeniousPachyderm (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable for what it is per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Here's NYT and NYT again. I also see academic references. The caveat is that I would compare this to Common Sense Media, in that while it's well cited and probably reliable, I don't know whether the focus of its review coverage (appropriateness to children) is encyclopedically relevant to most video game articles. ~ A412 talk! 17:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@A412 Thanks for the reply. I agree that appropriateness for children is probably not relevant for most video game articles. However, I think it may be useful as a source for discussing aspects of the Gameplay, especially when other reliable sources are not readily available. It can also be useful for verifying the game's developer and publisher. Thank you. IngeniousPachyderm (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is reliable but should contribute to notability only on the strength of any commentary on childrens' and educational software as it's informed by a methodological approach to review of software as played by, or for children. It has obvious editorial policies and a long-published resource recognised by other reliable sources. What it is evaluating is specific only to a certain type of software with a certain purpose. As @A412 stated, other applications outside kids' games or edutainment are unlikely to have strong value: not due to any unreliability but many reviews seem observational and the rubric is most interested in the play value for children. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

About.com/Dotdash Meredith/People Inc./LiveAbout

Dotdash Meredith is now People Inc. And the publication LiveAbout is basically the new version of About.com, focusing on entertainment, sports, and humor. Over at the Albums WikiProject, the consensus reached years ago was that the reliability of About.com experts should be taken on a case-by-case basis as self-published experts, because it seemed that little to no editorial oversight was provided. The new LiveAbout site seems to be different. Take a look here at the editorial guidelines. They explicitly say that all content involves multiple people, that they will post correction notices on corrected articles, and that AI generated content is prohibited. That to me suggests that this source is pretty close to ideal scenario for editorial control. This would also mean that content released under the new version of the site isn't nearly so much case-by-case. I don't frequent this project, but I'd thought I'd draw attention to it. I posted at RSN as well, linking to the discussion topic I started at WP:ALBUMS.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:20, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mothership.blog

We need to have a consensus about this if it's reliable or not [18]. Some editors said that the website has a strong editorial policy and experienced writers on board. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very strong editorial policy with experienced writers that have been contributing to reliable sources since more than a decade ago. The quality of the articles has also been quite high thus far. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Similar to Aftermath (website) & other journalist-owned independent publications (ie. created by experienced but laid off games writers, etc). Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, similar to the Aftermath case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:27, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, and comparisons to other independent-owned journalism. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper

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


Hopefully a straightforward one. Hyper was an Australian video games print magazine from 1993-2019 covering multiplatform games and reviews and the longest-running magazine of its type in the country. Publishers were Next Media for most of its life, who published WP:VG/S Australian PC magazine PC Powerplay and in 2018-19 Future Plc, the latter of which manages WP:VG/S publications PC Gamer and GamesRadar+. Authors of Hyper were often frequently writing for PC Powerplay, so the writers broadly had good experience in the Australian games journalism scene. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Looks okay for me, though I was not able to find any mentions of the magazine in other RS (I might be just bad at searching), but nevertheless, it looks fine. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GameWhims

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

I was looking for an english game review for Trickcal: Chibi Go and I found this this. they seems to have a decent editorial policy and has a clear editorial team with this guy being the chief editor. Is this source reliable? Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks unreliable:

+ Editorial policies are fine.

~ Guest contributions are openly invited.

- Relatively new site made in 2025.

- Four-person team with one editor is a very small operation with limited oversight.

- Lead editor, Daniel Nashrell, has limited journalism experience and mostly roles in marketing, branding and SEO.

- Other writers lack any sort of experience relating to games journalism for WP:VG/S sources. Peter Glitch is identified as a "freelance writer", but does not turn up anywhere.

- Authors use pseudonyms like Lilac Pixie and Peter Glitch. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Inven

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

I recently had this challenged as a source, but I think it's reasonable. We list its sister Inven Global as reliable. Longstanding publication since 2004, one of, if not the largest gaming publications in Korea. About page and Editorial policy. On the jury for The Game Awards and Gamescom. ~ A412 talk! 15:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually slightly dumbfounded Inven would be challenged as a source, just going to say it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.