Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

GameHut

Let's try something new. We usually evaluate websites here. The topic of YouTube is generally taken as "YouTube is not unreliable, per say, but just a host. The channel is what matters." I.e. IGN's official youtube should be usable, GameTrailers (which moved to YT), etc. Which are otherwise sites we've previously vetted. So, in that vein, I'd like to get opinions on GameHut. The channel is created by Jon Burton of TT Games fame. It is focusing on development aspects of early console games, which may be useful for some of these games. While the scope may be limited, and GameHut itself might not be a good fit for our list, I wanted to get some thoughts on suitability. Would it be a secondary source? Or is it primary, since they are discussing aspects of games they worked on? Will a channel like this ever be suitable and how would we evaluate it? -- ferret (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it be primary, since it's a one man "project" run by Burton? All of the videos he puts up relate to his own experiences within the games he worked on, mostly to do with the technical side of things. I'd just consider it a primary source by Burton; it being branded as something else shouldn't change anything. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• That's what I figured in this particular case, but I'm also using it as a general jumping board to discuss how to vet a YT channel in general. -- ferret (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• I think I'd handle it in accordance to WP:PRIMARY as well. Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• In addition to WP:VIDEOREF. I also notice that he created an official website for GameHut, but all the video links there don't have solid URLs (I.E., the URL doesn't change when the video does), so it can't really be used for citations. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

OpenCritic

I was just forwarded an email about OpenCritic hiring an editor. One interesting note is that they mentioned Humble Bundle and GamesPlanet are now using OpenCritic's API. Some indie developers have also been using it on social media channels. At what point is OpenCritic considered "reliable"?

To admit, I'm biased against Metacritic. I tried to get my publication listed on metacritic for years. They just blew me off up until we shut down, while publications no one has ever heard of would be accepted. I like OpenCritic because they're transparent with how they decide which publications to aggregate and their formulas are simple and easy. FrozenWasteland (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Just recently discussed in June, with a lengthy RFC with a fairly clear opposed consensus. Unlikely anything has changed. See Template talk:Video game reviews#RfC on OpenCritic and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 17#OpenCritic -- ferret (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what an rfc is, but my understanding is that it was about the template, not whether or not opencritic is considered reliable. Your own comment there even says "OpenCritic has not been vetted by the project as a reliable source" - how do we do this vetting? FrozenWasteland (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That is true. We've never really determined whether or not OpenCritic is a reliable source. Just that we're not using it. Not using it doesn't mean it is or isn't reliable. How have we not gotten a consensus on that? GamerPro64 20:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I mean, if we're not using it, what point would there be in whether or not it was reliable? Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I tried to use it and was told that it wasn't a reliable source. I tried adding a blurb for "Critics' consensus is stronger than usual" for Splatoon 2, a data point that Metacritic doesn't provide.

Not trying to start a debate or anything. I'm just confused about when I can use a source and when I cant. The discussions so far seem to be focused on the template box, which isn't what I'm interested in. Also just want to say that I'm new here and so still navigating and learning how all this works.FrozenWasteland (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

An RFC is a Request for Comment. Basically, it getting "vetted" is basically whether or not there's a consensus in the community to support or oppose something. A common way of getting people to participate in said discussions is to start up an RFC - its really just more or less a centralized discussion. And as Ferret showed in his links, in the last discussion, a few months ago, the community was not in support of adding it to video game related articles. While one could start up a new discussion, you may want to study over the last discussion, and see if there's anything that has substantiall changed since then. If it hasn't, then its probably not likely to have a different outcome from last time. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with adding OC, but the problem right now is that what content it offers overlaps 100% with the industry standard MC (in that: they have no original content outside of the formula used to aggregate). For us established editors, it certainly can't hurt to include it, but I can newer editors less familiar with our guideline to jump at using OC over MC for personal reasons. I would consider it a footnote in the aggregitator table, that if MC for some reason doesn't include it, OC can be used, but I've yet to see a case where that happens. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

How do you feel about things like "critics' consensus is stronger than usual" or "recommended by X% of critics" or "in the top X% of games"?

I think OpenCritic is so much more useful for articles because it contextualizes information in ways that Metacritic doesn't. Metacritic says "generally favorable reviews" for games with an average over 75. If you look at OpenCritic, that is more than 45% of all games. FrozenWasteland (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Isn't that more of a problem with video game critics than Metatcritic? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe so. I think it's important for us to contextualize the information for non-gaming consumers. How would a non-gamer know if an 81 is good or bad? Stating the percentile ranking adds useful context. FrozenWasteland (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I do agree, but we should be simply generalizing what the majority of critics are stating. Just putting a number, from any of the aggregators, without further context is something we should not be doing. I wouldn't be against removing all aggregator scores from the prose, and keep it as infobox thing only. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Quote: "they have no original content outside of the formula used to aggregate" I think the publications they aggregate may also be different. (I haven't checked.). The same difference as between MC and GR. SharkD  Talk  08:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well, OC just announced something it will be doing in the near future that may make me change my mind, but I'd have to see how it works. It plans to add a "business model intrusiveness" filter that reflects on games that have aggressive use of microtransactions. Right now, it simply looks to say how much things depend on transactions and the type of "loot" this merits (the difference between cosmetic and gameplay-changing), and if that's all it is, it wouldn't change my mind on the matter. But if its something more curated, that could be useful. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This seems more like something done out of spite due to the curator's personal vendetta against loot boxes/microtransactions than something neutral-headed and non-biased. Although, it may prove to be useful, I suppose? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
• I would say the site is Reliable. It gets praise occasionally in the press. SharkD  Talk  08:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• I'm sort of leaning on the reliable side, but I'm not too sure since their scores are pretty similar to Metacritic's. But there's one thing that sort of confuses me. GameRankings is usually removed since it "copies" Metacritic, but Metacritic has also duplicated GameRankings as well, so could it be the other way around? I may be wrong, but when was the consensus made that GR usually copies MC? JOEBRO64 19:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not "copying" in the sense of one site doing what the other site does. It's simply the fact that the scores are typically the same, with most of the same review sources, between the two sites, coupled with the fact that they are both CBS Interactive. -- ferret (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

They don't "copy" each other, they just use the same publications and as a result, have pretty much the same aggregated score in the end. The reason we prefer Metacritic is because its the industry standard, which can be seen in cases like this. Using GameRankings/OpenCritic, with the exception of older games, is just redundant as they don't differ at all from Metacritic. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I would have been the third person to respond this way had I come around 5 minutes earlier. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

How many sites use the Five Star system for rating games? I think a lot of the support OpenCritic gained is because Metacritic messes these up. Also, @MattEnth: posts on my wall a lot, and has said that Metacritic got caught copying data from OpenCritic. What about that? SharkD  Talk  03:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Matt's constant evangelizing and overture to sympatheic editors to push for OC to be accepted is another part of the problem. Almost everyone (not 100%) who regularly argues for the inclusion of OC (as source or template component) has been in direct communication with him. -- ferret (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I asked a direct question. SharkD  Talk  23:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

A direct answer: It's unsubstantiated claims by OC against their principal competition, with no offered evidence or even examples of what content was copied. If this was an article, I'd say its essentially primarily sourced and basically a press piece. -- ferret (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The did provide some evidence. Quote: ""For example, with PCGamer’s Blood and Wine review, we added a redundant slash after pcgamer.com. With Twinfinite’s review, we capitalized the “W” and “B” in the review URL." Link. Apparently, they seeded their data just to catch other sites in the act of doing exactly this. SharkD  Talk  12:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

So the evidence of copying is that URLs were crawled? What DATA was copied? Was some component of OpenCritics actual site content (Visible text to the reader) copied? Or just a URL that was crawled, possibly from a back url for that matter? This is pretty much how any indexing based site works. -- ferret (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose Bing could crawl Google as well, given that stance. SharkD  Talk  13:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is about the site being "reliable", not whether WPVG "prefers" to use it or not. Two separate issues. SharkD  Talk  04:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Two separate issues yes, but that doesn't answer why we should use OpenCritic alongside of Metacritic when the scores are going to be the same on any modern release? We depreciated GameRankings for this same reason. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

We didn't depreciate GR. GR is to be used when MC doesn't have a page for it, because GR goes back much earlier. OC on the other hand started after MC had been around so it is going to be ~100% duplicative coverage, presently. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Well that's what I meant to say. There is no reason to use GameRankings outside of older games where Metacritic scores don't exist, as they hold the same score for any game released in the last 10-15 years. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The previous discussion about not using GR was with regard to Template:Video game reviews *only*, not article space. There's also no Wikipedia rule that says a user can't use a reliable source in an article if that's what he/she wants to do. I don't think Wikipedia can "ban" a reliable source site-wide. SharkD  Talk  05:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we should restrain ourselves here to the question of whether or not OpenCritic is reliable, and address the other question of whether or not editors should use OC in an article, or whether it is "preferred", at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. As for whether or not OpenCritic is reliable, I will just reproduce what User:MattEnth left on my Talk page:

We've added critic pages, with over 350 critics that have signed up and customized their page. To this day, we are the only aggregator that correctly attributes reviews to their author in addition to their publication.

We also added support for embeddable scores, which are now being used by The Escapist (see bottom of article) and Lazygamer. Websites such as Cubed3 and DarkZero now link to us in their footers, and PlayStation Universe lists us on their reviews.

We've been used as a source by Gamasutra (second paragraph), GeForce/Nvidia (see last paragraph), Examiner, Forbes, and others. We've also been added to Wikipedia Portugal on many pages. In the community, we're an officially sanctioned aggregator by the PS4 subreddit, and have been used across several reddit threads, often times as the only aggregator listed now. Metacritic has even made significant score mistakes, and a few of our users noticed.

We passed 100 publications included, and added word clouds that highlight key features and themes of reviews. We continue to see more and more traction across the board. We're adding 3DS and Vita titles now, with Fire Emblem Fates' review embargo already posted. We're the only aggregator that includes publications such as Eurogamer, AngryCentaurGaming, GameXplain, and TotalBiscuit, and we're the only aggregator that maintains the original score format. We also report on the percentage of critics that recommend the title, a statistic that allows us to include non-numeric publications.

We strongly believe that we are the fastest and most reliable aggregator. We are consistently faster than Metacritic, as several critics have noticed. We've invested heavily in our technology and our presentation, and believe strongly that, while we draw on the same data as Metacritic, we offer a more complete and informed picture fo a title. As we wrap up our next few features, we're hoping to improve and, well...

...

Meanwhile, we're used in press releases, online marketplaces, community addons, publications we don't even aggregate, and studio leaders themselves.

...

Sorry for posting yet again, but just want to stress this Twitter thread: [1]

That's an editor for Destructoid, lead writer for PCWorld's gaming section, and a writer for USgamer all supporting using OpenCritic over Metacritic.

...

Included in a GameStop email advertisement today... Link

SharkD  Talk  23:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

You can't get more WP:COI than this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record, AngryCentaurGaming, GameXplain, and TotalBiscuit aren't considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, so that's probably not helping your arguments. And for Eurogamer, they no longer use a numerical rating system for reviews anymore, so that's not exactly a good "exclusive snag" there either when it comes to aggregators... Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The Eurogamer citation was as recent as 02/2017. SharkD  Talk  14:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Eurogamer's Italian site still uses numeric ratings, so its not a global across the board thing for the brand. However, OC is aggregating the primary Eurogamer site's reviews, which don't have a stated numeric value and assigning their own score to that. -- ferret (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any proof concerning this? From what I have read, they only link to un-scored reviews, they don't aggregate them. SharkD  Talk  00:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think I needed to link it, since it was in your blockquote you made. This list of Eurogamer reviews shows scores assigned to Eurogamer reviews. As of this viewing, Super Mario Odyssey and Assassin's Creed Origin are the first two. OC assigns 98 and 84 to the reviews, but on reading them, no such score appears. Mario has an "Essential" badge, and AC has "Recommended". So where did these numeric scores come from? -- ferret (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

On further pondering of the website, I finally realized that they are listing the games overall score above the Eurogamer reviews. So its just terrible UI design. Disregard my comment then. -- ferret (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Learn to read. SharkD  Talk  00:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

That's the second time in this week I've seen comments from you that are borderline personal attacks. Drop the attitude. -- ferret (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Please, constructive comments only, or don't bother. You're a long time editor, you shouldn't need reminders on the basics like this. Sergecross73 msg me 01:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'm sure accusing people of "canvassing" and being "pushers" is real courteous as well. SharkD  Talk  02:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• In which our project is yet again openly canvassed... I see no sea change to warrant revisiting June's formal discussion. czar 18:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

June's formal discussion only involved three or four people. I don't see any consensus in that discussion either. SharkD  Talk  12:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Even assuming it could be read as "no consensus", please read up on what WP:NOCONSENSUS means though. I mean, by all means, you're free to start up another formal discussion, but based on June's discussion, and this discussion, I don't know how you can realistically envision that resulting in a consensus in favor of its use. Prediction: It'll lead to weeks of arguing without any change in consensus. If that sounds like fun for you, go for it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"No consensus" does not default to not using it as a source, though, just like any other reliable source used in an article. SharkD  Talk  12:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No consensus=no change. As is, if there was no consensus in favor of its use before, then there still isn't. And "no consensus" is being generous - looking it over, you were the only person in favor of its use in that discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Neither GamerPro64 nor ferret offered an opinion in that discussion. SharkD  Talk  13:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't reply with a stance then because it was brought up alongside the template RfC, where I felt I had already stated my position clear enough. For the record, my opinion is unchanged at this time, if not more strongly opposed, especially as OC begins to talk about "taking a stand" on business practices and filtering based on controversial features such as loot boxes, as mentioned above by Masem. The VG247 article even calls this out, noting OpenCritic's role in aggregator, yet getting involved in the topic. Stances and plans like this weaken the case to include OC. -- ferret (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why I didn't comment there at all, despite being relatively active at WT:VG/S - I had just given my stance at the RFC. It didn't seem necessary to comment on its reliability when we just had a consensus at the RFC that we weren't going to be using it to begin with. If that was wrong, well, I'm rectifying it now in this discussion I guess? (and will in future RFCs.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't the RFC about the "template"? It says at the top "I would like to start a formal RfC on the question of allowing OpenCritic in this template."

I started this to look at the sole question of "is OpenCritic a reliable source?" Previous comments and threads indicated a process exists that sets aside the question of "should we use OpenCritic?" It seems this debate has focused on the latter, not the former. FrozenWasteland (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it reliable, and should (or how) we use it, go hand in hand. At this point though, opposition seems to stem both from users who don't see the need or how it would be used in a useful matter (i.e. even if reliable, we would discourage use as redundant), and those who have questions about the reliability and OC's stated plans to "stake a stand" on industry issues. I'm in both camps. The loot box/business practice stuff is concerning to me as far as using OC as an aggregator goes. -- ferret (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

There may be legislation WRT loot boxes in some countries in the near future. So, no, it's not just one guy trying to be an activist. Think of it as a new genre, or like a "Mature" rating from the ESRB. Also remember there are people who think MC's reliability is suspect, when its parent company also owns GameSpot, Giant Bomb, GameFAQs, etc. SharkD  Talk  00:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Certainly if there were ever any evidence that MC was unfairly favoring publications also owned by CBS, that would be cause for concern. Without any evidence though, it's moot. That's not really what I'm talking about though. What OC is hinting towards is different, in that they may alter scores or aggregations based on certain aspects of business model they do or do not like. As long as its nothing more than a database entry thing, it's ok for them to denote those things, but any suggestion they may let it influence the scoring is bad. We want the aggregation of the critic reviews, not OC's spin on it. -- ferret (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it will have any impact on scoring. That would defeat the entire purpose of the site. SharkD  Talk  01:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Usage

I think we've had a good bit of discussion both ways, and that can certainly continue, but we only have a few clear statements of support or opposition. Using this break to start building towards some sort of result. -- ferret (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Use - We've already got a long running, industry standard, and OpenCritic is a newcomer that is completely redundant. Every argument in favor of OpenCritic has either been thinly veiled "well I don't like Metacritic" or "well why not Open Critic?" I've yet to see a convincing argument to actually use its current form. Sergecross73 msg me 01:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  Because it adds useful context like percentile ranking, percent recommended, and degree of agreement. Because it credits authors. Because its publication choices aren't arbitrary. FrozenWasteland (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Opposed I'm not convinced anything has changed since the last discussion. The same points are being argued (And to be fair, on both sides). OC continues to match MC in almost every case, so is mostly redundant like GameRankings. I have some concerns about OC's stated goals to tackle certain industry issues which might influence how scores are presented, which for aggregation would mean that OC is editorializing. I'm also concerned that OC continues to be pushed mainly by individuals in direct contact with its founder, or with open statements that Metacritic slighted them professionally. -- ferret (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Opposed - My opinions on the matter haven't changed since the last discussions, and I agree with both Serge and Ferret's above points. There really hasn't been a valid reason to use OC at all outside of a few personal opinions, nevermind it replacing MC as the standard here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - MC is owned by CBS Interactive, as is GameSpot, GameFAQs, Giant Bomb, etc. We can't tell if this has influenced their scoring since they won't tell us how they score games. It also is unable to correctly tabulate 5-star rating systems, throwing off the scores for those sites that use them. They've been caught copying links and scores from OpenCritic, which suggests they at least consider OC reliable enough to copy from. I'm also not sure about the COI issues WRT MattEnh, considering everyone participating in this discussion has been in direct contact with him at some point or other, and he hasn't posted here since June. Further, I don't think the loot box issue is a real issue. If it's just another tag in a tag cloud like on Steam, then it's no big deal. I mean, Eurogamer "took a stand" against Metacritic by removing all their review scores, yet we still consider them reliable. Lastly, I don't think Wikipedia should dictate whether a site can or cannot be used if both or all sites in question are reliable. It should be left up to each individual editor to use whatever site he or she wants to, at their discretion. Like whether to use American English or British English in an article. If we want to limit each article to one aggregator, then I guess that's okay; but Wikipedia should not dictate which of those sites to use. SharkD  Talk  02:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  I don't agree with many of your arguments, but your latter arguments are straight up ludicrous. We come to community decisions to not use websites all the time. It's called WP:CONSENSUS. Do you realize where you're discussing right now? Because it's literally all we do on this talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 02:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  Can you name an example where a reliable source was not allowed to be used on Wikipedia? SharkD  Talk  02:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  GameRankings use was greatly restricted when redundant to MC. It's use is not allowed across many pages. There could not be a more relevant example. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  I meant an example not directly related to the current discussion or involving its current participants. One from outside WPVG maybe? (Also, it has been pointed out here several times already that the RfC involving GameRankings was about the template, not articles. Good job misrepresenting the facts and moving the goal posts yet again!) SharkD  Talk  02:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  Again, it matters not as to whether the content is used in templates or prose. I don't understand your hang up on why it would matter if the content would be enclosed by a tiny box or not. Sergecross73 msg me 02:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  DailyMail. Use has been heavily restricted based on a widespread RFC. They are not outright declared unreliable, but other sources are preferred. -- ferret (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  The music WikiProjects have a similar relationship with AnyDecentMusic, and it appears the Film project does with TV.com as well. We also have an entire Situation source section here at WP:VG, that's existed at least as far back as 2009, when you made additions to it, which is based around the same concept, but you don't want precedent from this WikiProject, for whatever bizarre reason. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  Those are good examples, thanks. SharkD  Talk  02:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Well lucky us it's not everyday a game comes out and makes the news for its high reviews, but Super Mario Odyssey is this week. Metacritic alone is mentioned in these four sources [2] [3] [4] [5], and the two mentions of OpenCritic I found were alongside Metacritic [6] [7]. MC is still the industry standard, and make no mistake that OC's primary purpose would be as an infobox aggregator. Therefore, I don't think it makes sense to discuss including OC in Wikipedia at any capacity right now in October 2017. This argument to get it passed as a reliable source just feels like an excuse to give OC one foot in the door to make it easier to overtake MC. TarkusAB^talk 03:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reading the above arguments, I now agree that OC is redundant to Metacritic. Could we perhaps close this? I think we've already got a clear consensus not to use it. JOEBRO64 00:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• What the hell are you guys supporting and opposing? This is a discussion about the website's reliability, not usage. Reliable; there is no evidence that it misrepresents the scores it tracks and its formula is, in many ways, more transparent than Metacritic's hidden formula that "arbitrarily" gives certain publications more weight. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

  Yeah, this whole policy page is a joke if they continually skirt the issue of whether the site is reliable. SharkD  Talk  04:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  Labeling a source as reliable means it is OK'd for use by WP:VG. The overwhelming primary use of OpenCritic would be as an aggregator in the infobox. To say OpenCritic is reliable but can't be used in the infobox is silly. It will provide little improvement to articles and will create much more contention in the infobox debate. It creates a WP:COI issue because I undoubtedly believe that many editors who have spoken to the site owner will start mentioning OpenCritic in prose any chance they can get to only support the argument for its use in the infobox. Then, editors unfamiliar with the issue may see OpenCritic mentioned in prose and add it to the infobox, resulting in countless edit wars. This whole reliability argument smells of WP:GAMING. TarkusAB^talk 13:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  That's exactly how I see it too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  If the site is reliable but Metacritic is preferred, why not just say so? We can make it a "situational source". SharkD  Talk  00:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  What exactly is the "situation" you're proposing though? Sergecross73 msg me 00:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  Situational for what? For times the score is higher than on Metacritic and so it can be used instead? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  Create a fourth category then. Or judge the site "unreliable". SharkD  Talk  02:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• I oppose the use of OpenCritic in articles, with my reasons stated above. I'm not sure why it's gone off topic as to its reliability, which even if we did considered it reliable (I don't even see a valid reason against it), it would just cause the issues Tarkus stated. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  At the top of this very page, "This talk page is for discussing the reliability of sources for use in video game articles." Axem Titanium (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  Incorrect. The topic of this page is clearly, "Let's defer discussion of a source's reliability on the project's own Reliable Sources page as long as we can because it gets our panties up in a bunch." Which is not WP:GAMING at all. SharkD  Talk  02:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  And comments like that violate WP:POINT. Seriously, I still don't understand how a such a long-term editor still doesn't understand that snarky comments with no constructive purpose don't help your argument. Quite the opposite, it irritates people, and bogs down the discussion channel. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• I have some thoughts, not having participated in a previous discussion.

  SharkD: Your continued participation here at this time is sinking your proposal because you're turning to WP:UNCIVIL tactics (snark and sarcasm). Back away from the issue, now, or straighten up. WP:ANI would probably find reason to topic ban you from discussions related to Opencritic because of the way you're acting right now.

  On the use by other sources argument: Use by other sources does not indicate whether a source is reliable, though it may contribute to our assessment. I am disturbed by everyone appealing to it as if it is the end-all, be-all of our judgement of a source's reliability.

  If you believe sincerely that adding this item will cause WP:REFSPAM (I WP:AGF so I assume that those REFSPAMing the site would be users uninvolved with this or similar discussions), deal with those cases as they pop up. Maybe it will be ref-spammed; maybe it won't. My bet is that it won't be--or if it is, quickly reverted. (And just for context from the page, REFSPAMing is the malicious act of adding references to a work without a care for whether that reference is warranted.)

  On a use for the site: That is not the point of this page. An argument this direction is putting the cart before the horse, as ferret previously and correctly identified in the context of the video game reviews template discussion. As an editor, so long as a source is reliable, I can make the decision to use the source. Or not use it. So let's figure out whether it's reliable or not. It's also putting the cart before the horse to say that "because Metacritic is there, Opencritic is unreliable". That's a judgement not of Opencritic but of our own use of Metacritic.

  On transparency: I actually find this argument, that the website is more transparent about its rankings, to be on the line of evaluating whether a source is reliable. To take an analogy from an actual work, it's more-or-less equivalent to publishing their editorial policy. That Metacritic does not publish their weightings is basically like saying "we have editorial policy, but you can't know anything about it", given the nature of the site as an aggregator (that said, this URL contains some info about Metacritic). I am, however, similarly distressed that OC is transparent about pushing some certain POV--but we already know Metacritic does this, we just don't know how or why. You all should be concerned about Metacritic too, not be shooting down OC.

  On our reliance on Metacritic more broadly: So far as I can tell, it's only used because it's better than the alternative that existed at the time it came to dominance (namely, GameRankings). Are we actually using it for something valuable? How valuable is the thing we're using it for? Aggregation itself? Is that valuable? I like that OpenCritic will give me an idea of the spread of the reviews. Metacritic doesn't do that. Would that be valuable in an article? I think I'd like to be able to say "the reviews were polarized" (in the sense of two poles, not in the extreme-polarization meaning more commonly intended in today's English). --Izno (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

On the topic of concerns about the discussion, I'd also like to add that SharkD seems to WP:CANVASSING - he's directly reaching out to people like Shaddim and Axem - specifically the people who supported his prior RFC on OpenCritic, while conveniently skipping over editors that opposed his stance. Singling out who you contact like that is an attempt to WP:VOTESTACK. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Izno that this attempt to get OC declared as unreliable seems to hinge on its supposed redundancy with Metacritic (every single oppose above mentions this), which I believe to be both untrue (since it provides metrics that MC does not) and irrelevant to reliability. I'm fairly disappointed that this discussion has proceeded in this direction with a bunch of established editors throwing the book at SharkD (and I'm surprised no one pinged me three weeks ago when it was just starting). Even Dissident93 "[doesn't] even see a valid reason against it" being reliable so I hope we can refocus this discussion on the stated purpose of this very page instead of going off into tangents on its redundancy. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Nobody pinged anybody, outside of SharkD's votestacking attempts. No one even seemed to want to revisit these discussions again so soon after the last one closing, outside of SharkD and the other guy with an ax to grind against MC. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This whole thing has gone off the rails. The original discussion was about OC being used alongside MC in articles, to which the majority of people were against for various reasons, me included. Then, discussion moved to being about its reliability for some reason, with suspicious behavior by SharkD. While I don't see a valid reason why OC wouldn't be considered reliable, I still think we shouldn't use it, per the original discussions we had on it. It's more of a redundancy thing that anything to do with its reliability. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The opening statement of this discussion asks about reliability, not usage, and most of the chatter before the Break concerns reliability (with many leaning toward yes, reliable, even if redundant). No one was talking about using OC in lieu of or in addition to MC. After the break, Sergecross73's bold "Oppose Use" seems to have dramatically changed ("derailed"?) the question of the discussion into usage, rather than reliability, and others followed suit. Let's assume that it's true that 99% of the time, OC is wholly redundant to MC, and should therefore not be used. What about the 1% of the time that it's not redundant? Is OC reliable? Can we use it to fill that 1%? That question should be what we're examining here. The question is "if", not "when". I think OC is reliable, given all that we know about its methodology, and if an occasion arises that makes it not redundant to MC, then it should be allowed. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I would just like to restate that I am opposed to The One Aggregator to Rule Them All attitude people here have with regard to Metacritic. If a source is reliable, then the editor should be able to decide which one to use. Previous actions in this vein on Wikipedia, such as avoiding The Daily Mail, were based on the source's reliability being in question, not because some editors were tired of typing it in their browser windows, as is the case now. Also, the previous discussion hinged on user:ferret's comment that we could not proceed because "OpenCritic has not been vetted by the project as a reliable source". That's what we're doing now! To renege on this now is dishonest! SharkD  Talk  21:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Really? You're going to get caught WP:CANVASSing, and the lecture about dishonesty? You're also doing a poor job of summarizing your opposition - many/most oppose OC because MC is a long running industry standard, where OC is a relative newbie to the aggregation world. I like and read OC. I just don't see the need for a secondary aggregate that is entirely redundant to the one we already have. Sergecross73 msg me 22:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have stated a range of concerns with this discussion and source, including some that are directly about its reliability regarding their statements on taking stands against industry practices and the like. In the end though, as a project, discussion of its reliability and usage go hand in hand. While its quite possible this discussion will deem it reliable (Or perhaps situationally due to the minor concerns), it's also clear in my view that there's a strong consensus to limit use similar to GR. I don't feel I have any new arguments or points to make though, nor have any particular posts been made that require further expounding on my position. -- ferret (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for WP:CANVASSING, I posted in all the right places, such as WT:VG and WP:VPP. To call out two individual cases is equally disingenuous. SharkD  Talk  22:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it's called WP:VOTESTACKing. You reached out to two of the few individuals who clearly supported the use of OC in the last discussion. That's a hell of a coincidence in your favor. Sergecross73 msg me 23:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I reached out to the entirety of WT:VG. This is ridiculous. SharkD  Talk  23:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and then when that didn't turn out to your favor, a week plus later you started reaching out to individuals who agreed with you, which is still votestacking. (Linked above.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I should also point out that this is not the first time this issue has been up for arbitration. In a previous RfC (this time for GameRankings) the admin User:AlbinoFerret ruled that, "There is consensus for the change. The majority opinion is that GR is mainly useful for older games and it is mainly duplication in newer ones. I do not see support for removal everywhere, more of phasing it out on newer games. It was almost clear consensus that it was useful for older games, from both minority and majority opinions. Were that fits on a timeline though isnt clear." User:Czar then tampered with the results of the RfC, changing it to, "Do not include GameRankings unless it adds value atop or in the absence of Metacritic (e.g., games that predate Metacritic)." User:AlbinoFerret then called him out on that, saying, "You cant pick and choose what part of a close best suits your position and ignore the rest. Take it as a whole, as the closer takes a look at the entire discussion it isnt based on the question itself for the most part, but the responses." User:Czar then edited one of my user pages, changing the text to what he wanted instead of what I had written. This is how the previous RfCs worked here at WT:VG. SharkD  Talk  00:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll let Czar defend himself, but right off the bat, I have doubts about the details of your story. For example, it doesn't appear that this editor "AlbinoFerret" was an Admin at any point. Sergecross73 msg me 01:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I assumed he was an admin since he closed the RfC. SharkD  Talk  01:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Re-read your own linked conversation and selective quoting to see that the change was supported and not by any stretch "tampered". Bring it up for discussion again if you think it merits revisiting, but I'm puzzled why you even thought this was an appropriate segue or venue for rehashing it. And especially because this isn't the first time, please reconsider your combative tone, which makes interacting with you very unpleasant. Looking at your recent responses on this thread... I'd consider them disruptive as an outside party. czar 02:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Returning to the original discussion, re: whether OpenCritic's summary of Splatoon 2 ("Critics' consensus is stronger than usual") is appropriate for the article, I don't see how it would be. (1) The phrase is ambiguous. I'm all for descriptive statistics in qualitative language for summarizing reception, but what is usual and what is a "strong consensus" in this case? Tighter agreement? Or generally more affirmative than split? (2) I imagine the survey above was about whether OpenCritic could be reliable for this type of conclusion. My understanding is that OC doesn't aggregate anything but very recent games, so its claims of game reception by various percentiles (e.g., top 10% reviewed) are misleading. Additionally, OC aggregates all kinds of unreliable sources that we would never give credence on Wikipedia. I don't see a case for using OC as an aggregator when Metacritic does a better job on both fronts, not even to mention its role as the industry standard-bearer. (3) Tarkus succinctly puts OC's status in context above, and I don't think it's contentious to say that OC is not widely used by our other reliable sources as a replacement for Metacritic. Similarly, I don't see what use OC provides over Metacritic. Their aggregate scores are generally close if not identical, providing no analytic value over including the simple Metacritic score. Compound that with repeated canvassing: We just had this same discussion with the same arguments—the only difference being that a representative from OC feeds every press mention of OC to select, amenable editors, hoping to re-litigate the same conclusions. It should be clear that OC is hoping to use Wikipedia as a platform for legitimizing their work, and that is not our job. If our reliable sources repeatedly affirm OC as their choice of aggregators, articles on that sentiment will follow and there would be something substantial to actually discuss. Until then, no, "Critics' consensus is stronger than usual" and OC's score are inappropriate or redundant to better sources. czar 02:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think this One Aggregator Über Alles idea is a good creed to stick by. SharkD  Talk  03:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't support reporting OC's stats in the form of "Critics' consensus is stronger than usual". In Splatoon 2's case, I would use "88% of critics recommended the game" in the same way that Rotten Tomatoes gets reported on film articles.

What's more, there is no evidence to suggest that review score distributions have changed between the games tracked by OC (which is all major releases since Nov 2013) and those that came before. This is a specious argument.

Finally, Metacritic aggregates plenty of reviews from sites not on our reliable sources list. Should we delist MC for that reason? At least OC does the work of separating out official publications and contributors into different scores.

The conclusion of the previous discussion was that it was the wrong venue for a discussion and no one had the energy to put it up here at the time. No part of WP:RS or WP:VG/S couples reliability with potential usage and I think the subtle moving of the goalposts to include the latter in this discussion is extremely troubling. This discussion should be about reliability and reliability only. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's say we consider it reliable just based on WP:RS, then what? It still doesn't change the fact it is 99% redundant with Metacritic, which is already established in pretty much every game article, and is considered the standard by the gaming industry/gaming publications. And if we aren't going to use it alongside MC, then what use does it have as an independent source? It just seems like a waste of time doing that if we aren't going to use it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Then nothing. That's the scope of the discussion. We don't deny calling things reliable because they might not be used. That has never been a reliability criterion in the history of this page. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The scope of the discussion changed after the original one regarding its (one and only) use failed. Regardless of whether it is reliable or not, the site's use in articles would still be removed until consensus on that changes, making this whole reliability argument a potential waste of time. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not this page's job to sanction usage; it only cares about reliability. If you want to argue that the site is unreliable, then fine, let's have that argument. What I won't abide by is this trojan horse usage discussion masquerading as a reliability discussion. It's not a waste of time if there's even a possibility that OC could potentially be used in some edge case in the future, which is why we're having a discussion right now whether or not OC meets the criteria for being reliable to this project. Right now, it sounds like everyone thinks it's reliable, but can't think of an occasion when it wouldn't be redundant, which to me sounds like it's reliable. End of story. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow, seriously? That's quite the jump - going from "people aren't discussing reliability enough" to "looks like everyone thinks it's reliable." What a baffling take on this whole discussion. It makes zero sense to come to both of those conclusions at the same time. Sergecross73 msg me 02:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Masem, Joebro, Dissident, and ferret have all made various restatements of the "reliable but redundant" argument above. I'm presuming that SharkD and FrozenWasteland consider it reliable. Izno expressed interest in refocusing the discussion toward the question of reliability. Other than you, that's basically everyone who has participated substantially in this topic so far. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I've seen "redundant" come up by most of those editors, but not really "reliable", so it's a bit of a stretch to come to that conclusion. (Not ciubting the supporters, of which include SharkD, the 2 people he canvassed, and Frozen, the guy who openly admits his bias because MC negatively affected his own website.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't formally consider it reliable, its just not obviously unreliable at first glance. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Scratch that, even one of the supporters, Shaddim, doesn't even address reliability at any point in his stance. Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I presumed people who have stated support here would consider it reliable. As for the others, I am merely observing that they appear to hinge their opposition in terms of the "reliable but redundant" argument, but I'll let them speak for themselves with respect to the reliability-only discussion. This section opens with a straw man (it's even titled "Usage", when that's not what this page is for) and changed the entire direction of the discussion. I took a look back at the previous RFC and the primary conclusion was a contest between those who thought it was already reliable and those who thought that its reliability should be interrogated here first, which is what we should be doing right now. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The section was titled "Break". SharkD renamed it today. The name of the section had nothing to do with the direction of the discussion. -- ferret (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

My mistake; I didn't realize. Do we have a motion to break into a new section, focused only on the question of reliability? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

support: and as this was brought up again: the idea that we are even allowed to be king maker (in this case for metacritic) by suppressing alternatives, even when by procedure significantly different & noted in reception and therefore notable (even objectively "better") alternatives exists, is highly disturbing and shows that the authorship and edit motivation seems to shift in more and more dangerous terrain away from the origins of openness and a motivation of representing the reality unbiased and its full complexity and and variety. Shaddim (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You guys can keep saying that all you want, but it's complete nonsense. Wikiproject Film has a similar consensus against excessive use of aggregators, telling editors to not use ones other than their industry standard. WP:VG has done the same with GameRankings for like the last year too. If there's a community consensus, you can do it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. I wish someone had linked to this in the first place. I thought WT:VG was doing this in isolation. Let's stick to the topic of reliability, then, and later write a similar essay about Metacritic WRT games. SharkD  Talk  13:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand the potential risk of excessive content and fragmentation (while I think it is overblown, especially against the problem the "solution" now produces). But I disagree in the solution that the answer therefor has to be a binary and predefined "one true answer" in this case "Metacritic". While this is comfortable and easy applicable rule, it takes away all flexibility and locks this solution forever, clearly against our mission representing reality, not making reality. Shaddim (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? "One true answer?" "Locks the solution forever?" Against our mission of representing reality? We're talking about whether or not to use a website for fictional media that is redundant to what we already use 99% of the time. You make it sound like we're talking rewriting world history or religion or something. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Situational

What about if we put OpenCritic (and GameRankings) in the "Situational sources" section, and add strong language to the effect that, unless the stars align and the source really adds something of value to an article (there are slight differences in how the sites contextualize the ratings), OC should not be used in lieu of or alongside Metacritic. This would bring us into parity with the Film project. SharkD  Talk  18:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to this, but how would this realistically change things? In what case would OC be preferred over MC, as the scores are going to be the same in 99% of cases? GameRankings can still be used as they have scores for retro games that MC doesn't. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably it would make no difference. But it would mean we remain consistent in how we assay websites. SharkD  Talk  20:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Well I don't object to listing it as reliable, if it indeed is. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't seem unreasonable, but, I guess I'd like to see what sort of situations you'd see as acceptable use of it? Like some practical, real-life applications? We'd probably need something like that for hypothetically writing/explaining its description for being "situational" anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and that's where I can't think of any reason to use it with our current consensus, despite its potential reliability. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Metacritic takes dozens of reviews and collapses them into a single number, which is both useful as a quick summary and harmful in the data that it conceals. Here's a good example. Take Killer7 and Lord of the Rings: The Third Age. They're both 74 Metascore Gamecube games released within months of each other. However, Killer7 has a standard deviation of 17.3, whereas LOTR has a standard deviation of 9.1. Clearly, the two scores are substantively different (the correct interpretation is that Killer7 had more "polarized reviews" than LOTR), which is entirely masked by reporting only one single number. WP:OR#Routine_calculations seems to forbid us from calculating standard deviations on Metacritic's behalf, unless we as a Wikiproject decide that that counts as a routine calculation. Thus, if I wanted to provide a citation for the statement "Killer7 received polarized reviews", I couldn't because Metacritic doesn't give us the tools to say that. OpenCritic at least gives some tools in this space with the "stronger/weaker consensus than usual" metric, which is based on standard deviation. This is a situation in which I can envision OC being useful above and beyond Metacritic. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That's still purely hypothetical though, as neither of those games have actual OC aggregates. I'm talking about some actual game applications, where you can say "Look at (Game X) on OC and MC. That's the sort game that this is acceptable for." (Not to mention, your example is way more high level than what 99% of editors are thinking about - most just want to slap a score on a review table. While it's not wrong, it not exactly conducive to explaining the concept to newbies. It's hard enough to explain WP:RS and WP:OR to newcomers writing reception sections. A long-winded explanation about standard deviations likely isn't going to be of interest or comprehension.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright fine. The Evil Within (1) on Metacritic and on OpenCritic. On Metacritic, it scored a 75 based on 65 reviews which MC declares as "generally favorable reviews". Compare that to Assassin's Creed: Ezio Collection on Metacritic and on OpenCritic. At first blush, they have the exact same score and so they "rated" the same. However, the standard deviation of Evil Within is 12.9 while Ezio Collection is only 7.2. OpenCritic says "critics disagree more than usual" about the former, which indicates that The Evil Within got very polarized reviews, some rating it very high above the mean and others rating it very low below the mean. This is completely obscured by only reporting the single metascore number. It's borderline irresponsible to treat the two scores as the same because it misrepresents the actual data that the aggregate score came from. Explaining that very weak critical consensus means that the reviews were polarized (rather than middling, in this case) actually aids in comprehension, whereas hiding that information simply makes the reader's understanding of the score worse. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Except that the industry rarely acknowledges the variance in review scores. Publishers look at one number, the MC average, not the spread. Now, we do try to capture this by making sure that the scored reviews we include in the table capture that spread if it is significant. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

But we're not publishers. We're editors trying to convey information to the reader. Publishers may not care about variance in review scores, but we can (and should) in order to aid the reader's understanding of how well a game was reviewed. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

In addition to Masems concerns, I'd again say that, again, the example is more complicated than the concept. If a newbie came to me and said they didn't understand when it's appropriate to use OC, I don't feel like reciting that would clarify things. Sergecross73 msg me 23:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So, don't. Push them off on Axem. Or we can put it in a guideline for usage. Then you just point them there. :) --Izno (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Be happy to draft up something that tries to explain this in clear language. I don't think we should tolerate imprecision just because it might be hard to explain otherwise. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Just expand this to cover games as well, then link to it. SharkD  Talk  00:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should revive a years old essay about usage of aggregators for film. It doesn't seem to have been meaningfully maintained since 2013. Anything we do should be added to our own guidelines, which are higher than essays. -- ferret (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll let someone else in the future argue about whether there is a good enough reason to use OC in an article. I think there is, but I'm done arguing. Regardless, you can make the language as strong as you want if consensus is against [ed] behind it. SharkD  Talk  21:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Tentatively ok with this concept, if WP:VGAGG is encapsulated in it and it essentially rolls OpenCritic under the same rules around GameRankings, i.e. use as a supplement only where Metacritic is missing or significantly different. I still have reservations on the reliability of OC itself (Not sure why people seem to suggest otherwise about my position) and their "stance taking" on industry issues, so in that regard a "Situational" label may work. It should not be used in the place of MC, but in addition to or in absence of. When would GR be preferable over OC, or vice versa? Draft the language first and I'll give a firmer stance.

Let's also keep it focused on the basic score for now, regarding the discussions above about standard deviations. That needs to be brought up as a new discussion later on. If we're going to crack the door, let's start under our currently accepted limitations and see how things go. Then we can discuss how or when standard deviation statements based on OC are suitable, or whether to revisit the template discussion, etc. -- ferret (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Here's my first stab at a draft, which would theoretically replace the second paragraph of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Review sites. The "narrow situational use" is to distinguish between "mixed reviews" and "average reviews", which is explicitly pointed out as a problem at WP:VG/MIXED. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• I can't really endorse the first draft. It spends a lot of time talking about how Metacritic does things, such as "unlike other aggregators it is weighted", without providing any sort of relevance to the guideline or usage. Why does the guideline care? It doesn't inform on the usage, so let's not expound on it: it strikes me as trying to cast Metacritic in a poor light. Additionally, it takes a fair amount of time explaining the idea of std divs and review spread, and links OC's usage to that, which is basically the opposite of my position for a tentative ok. I understand your view here, but that is too wide for my support right now. -- ferret (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Seconded. Axem, your explanations and guidance on usage continue to be far too convoluted to be explained or enforced. Sergecross73 msg me 01:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• What about it is convoluted and how can I explain it better? My intention is to illustrate and motivate the purpose of using an aggregator in the first place that goes beyond "because we've always done it this way". I was also asked to find that 1% "situational" case in which OC might provide additional information and so I did my best to explain that in clear, non-technical language. If that's not what you meant by "tentatively ok with this concept", then I must have misunderstood your intentions and would love a clarification. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I was replying to SharkD's proposal, at the top of this section (Which is why I didn't indent to the discussion in between). SharkD's proposal made no mention of std div. In recognition of the discussion hanging on Dissident's response, I added that I didn't want to explore std div at this time. I'm not sure how it wasn't clear. -- ferret (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Okay, let's look at a GaneRankings example, to illustrate what a simple example looks like. Again, 99% of aggregate usage is just slapping a number in an infobox. So naturally, that's the sort of example/usage instruction I've been asking for. Sonic 2. We allow for both MC and GR because they represent different aggregate scores (86 vs 82) from a very different set of reviews. That's it. The End. Something as straightforward as that, not a sprawling paragraph about standard deviations that's never going to be written in 99% of articles to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 03:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• @ferret, it seems I misunderstood the antecedent to "this" in "this concept"; I thought it was in reference to the discussion directly above it, rather than the top comment. I also avoided talking about standard deviation; the current proposal only distinguishes between obvious cases of "everyone thinks this game is mediocre" and "some people think this game is brilliant and others think it's trash". It addresses a gap in our existing guidelines which specify to "avoid summative claims that cannot be explicitly verified in reliable, secondary sources". Under existing guidelines, it's impossible to provide a secondary source that declares a game's reception as "mixed", only "mixed or average" which is two completely different concepts mushed into one.
• @Serge, three sentences are hardly a "sprawling paragraph". The rest of the sentences in that paragraph are basically unchanged from the current guideline. In practice, it would be a short sentence at the beginning of a reception section that says "OpenCritic notes that critic reviews were more divided than usual", which can be used to open a section about how polarized the reviews were. No need for sprawling anything. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• I understand you didn't mention std divs directly, but you still touched the concept and of using OC to note when critics have a wide spread. Bottom line, I'm not in support of seeing OC used that way currently. Let's crack the door and treat like GR first, and see how things go. We can loosen restrictions later. -- ferret (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Then I share Czar's sentiments as well - I'm neither sure its necessary to try to elaborate on "how divided critics are", nor am I sure that a new website who's only been doing this for a few years of a decade spanning industry, is in a place to make such a claim. (Meaningfully, anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• If that's the case, then it would seem that OC should just be treated as "situational" in the same way that GR is currently treated, and there's no need to modify the language in the guideline at this time. Whether that means placing them both under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Aggregate_sites or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Situational_sources is up to consensus. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Which comes back to the original argument, in that there is almost no valid case for using this. I still worry about it being officially "situational" is just going to cause people who prefer it to use it over Metacritic because of a personal bias. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• I just described a case that I think would be valid to use it, above, even if there isn't consensus to enshrine it in a policy statement yet. If I were to write The Evil Within's Reception section, I would WP:IAR to cite OC's "more divided than usual". Do you or do you not agree that "mixed/polarized" reception is different from "average/mediocre" reception? Are these two things in fact different? I've not seen any evidence that they are misrepresenting the reviews that they aggregate. I don't see any world in which OC is deemed "unreliable" because they're simply not wrong about their own review aggregation. If it's not unreliable and you guys are loathe to call it reliable, the only bucket left is situational! At worst, you might find a handful of cases where both MC and OC are used in a redundant way and you can just revert those. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The original poster did just that, and that's why it was challenged and brought to consensus here. We have no basis to call OC trustworthy for its "than usual" claim. OC has no reputation for being used for such stats, just as many other video game stats (esp. sales stats) sites also lack editorial oversight or widespread acceptance to warrant our trust. As for "situational"—that designation was invented by this talk page and doesn't mean anything more than unreliable (usually primary) sources used as a fallback for minor details. Either a site is trusted for its editorial reputation/pedigree or used under the limited self-published/expert source guidelines. The former is finite in count and the latter is infinite (and need not be enumerated). We're essentially waiting on someone to boldly deprecate the use of "situational". But back to the point, I think we need a moratorium on OpenCritic discussions until someone can raise evidence from our mainstream, reliable, secondary sources that acceptance of OC has materially changed in the industry, which is how this should have been handled from the start. If any editor is in regular touch with OC or is being fed every minor update direct from the company so as to influence our practice before that of our sources, now would be the time to cut off that communication if you don't want to be treated as canvassed in subsequent discussion. czar 04:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Is Ziff Davis / IGN not a reliable source? As I stated in my original post, it looks like Humble Bundle is using OpenCritic. Searching on Google News shows numerous reputable sites that have cited it. They seem to be alongside Metacritic in prominent publications.

Reading through all of this, my main contention is that the comparisons to Metacritic seem unfounded. Does opencritic need to pass Metacritic to become acceptable? Does it need to be 25% of Metacritic?

They might have useful features someday. They already have one that I feel is useful (when critics agree or disagree more than average).

Perhaps I'm just in a bubble, but while opencritic is undoubtedly not as prominent as Metacritic, they do seem to still be prominent to me. FrozenWasteland (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

While I do agree that the MC naming conventions could be more accurate, I don't think that we should OC in place of that just because one part of their naming scheme happens to be "more accurate", as this would only be used for games that end up in a certain scoring range. In addition to what Czar wrote, are there any more valid cases to use OC in place of MC? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

FrozenWasteland - The constant comparison to Metacritic is due to, as explained before, the fact that Metacritic is the industry standard. It literally affects the industry and company's business decisions in the industry. Perhaps examples are necessary. Look over this article by Kotaku - it collects/compiles a number of examples I've come across in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Industry standard feels more like an opinion than fact, and I do not believe that an industry is limited to only one standard. Credit rating agencies are all standards and all give extremely similar ratings.

Humble Bundle is a major industry retailer, and they use opencritic. Reliable sources frequently cite opencritic.

I won't contend that opencritic and metacritic are on different levels. I do think that opencritic should be noted as reliable, and I do think that, for industry enthusiasts, opencritic meets the subjective bar of industry standard. Perhaps it does not meet your standard, and I can respect that.

That wasn't the conversation I was hoping to have, however. I wanted to discuss reliability so that when opencritic does interesting things (like when consensus is stronger than usual), we can use it. I tried adding it to the Splatoon 2 page because I thought it was an interesting feature - it was the first edit to wikipedia I've made in years. I thought it was useful, and the answer I got was "OpenCritic isn't on the reliable sources list." If that's the reason, I think it should be changed. FrozenWasteland (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point - did you read the article I linked you to? Whether the label "industry standard" is subjective, objective, or whatever, the point is, the industry makes decisions based off of it. Company's literally use it as a metric for business decisions. They don't do that for Open Critic. With the two being largely redundant in what they track, it makes sense to use the one with relevance in the industry. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

While it's not limited a single standard, the fact is OC is new on the scene and hasn't overtaken MC as the primary one (yet, if ever). Since it basically uses the exact same publication list as MC, scores are going to the same (within a point or two) and therefore redundant. And even if OC was to be considered situationally reliable, what's going to stop you (and a few others) from replacing MC with it on articles? There needs to be a clear set-in-stone guideline for OC usage, and nobody has, thus far, presented a valid enough reason for doing so outside of personal bias. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Serge, it's an industry standard for business decisions, not Wikipedia reliability. We don't base our reliability criteria on whether or not a publication is "industry standard", we base it on whether or not they are reliable. Dissident, I've clearly outlined a possible use case, yet you keep insisting that "nobody has presented a valid enough reason" without responding to my proposal. Is it because you don't think it's a "valid enough reason"? If so, say so; don't just ignore it. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has gone on for far too long, so I must have missed it in the process. Was it about the "more divided than usual" thing? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

We can keep arguing circles, but its pretty well established in the prior community discussions related to MC and GR that MC's role in the industry was a reason to favor its use on Wikipedia - whether you find it important or not, there's already consensus and precedent on this point. That's why its been brought up over and over again in these discussions. And I could be wrong, but I assumed that Dissident was alluding to the fact that you haven't garnered any consensus towards any sort of practical use for OC so far. You've proposed things, they just haven't garnered support. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

PCGamesN

Find video game sources: "PCGamesN" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo There's been past inclusive discussion with PCGamesN in the past, but I think over the last couple of years, the site has made key strides to be reliable.

They have a full editorial staff, and they are part of a larger network that includes Blue's News. I know there was concern they would have user-generated content mixed alongside main news ones that would not have a clear distinction but that never came to be. They seem to have a good enough in with the industry to get exclusive interviews at media events, and other sites seem to recognize these are key interviews to site them (eg search "pcgamesn -site:pcgamesn.com") They are principle UK based making it a good voice from that angle (eg particularly European-based news). Having tracked the site for a few years, I have not seen any nonsense or the like come from it. Thus, I think the issues from past discussions are no longer applicable. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

To also add, but I'm having problems accessing it (MVCUK's domain is not resolving right for me lately) , but a recent coverage of PCGamesN's strive to be reliable from this year. (ETA [8] Google cache of that article if you can't get to MCVUK) --MASEM (t) 15:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I could have sworn it was recently discussed and stated to be reliable, but I can't find it. Generally agree with Masem. -- ferret (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Same. I think it either didn't many participants or wasn't on this page or something, but it was discussed, and didn't really have any dissenting opinions. I support its use as well. I've been using it in articles and AFDs without any issues/opposition either. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I come across this site often in source searching and haven't see any obvious signs of unreliability. Since you guys seem to support it, I do too. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A lot of our other reliable sources have taken their news from PCGamesN in the past, showing that the website is trusted within the industry. ~Mable (chat) 19:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't change my opinion, but other RS have also taken info from places like Wikipedia and NeoGAF too, so that alone isn't a good argument. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It's more than other RSes take PCGamesN's interviews with key people in the industry as the sign towards reliability, showing that their reputation to get these inteviews to be important. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well I agree in that case. It's just I've seen some RS take info from Nintendo Everything and other places that are considered unreliable here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Pokemon Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon

Hello guys! So I wanted to add some information to Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon, but I don't know if this is reliable. Some people recommended that I talked here about reliable sources, so here's my source It seems like a good news site, and has some seemingly credible information, but I don't know if this is good enough for this article. WikiBrainHead (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable. There are hundreds of these Nintendo<some word>.com blog like sites. Most of them do not have clear editorial policies or even identify the authors (For example, using game or forum handles instead). This one is no different. Another recent discussion about nintendo<word>.com blogs: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive_17#Nintendo Life. -- ferret (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, unreliable. They don't appear to be professional writers with credentials or editorial staff. They look like a bunch of Nintendo fans that started up a blog. Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Side note: Is this really an issue worth documenting? Ultra Sun/Moon has a 86 Metacritic score. There's a difference between big controversies (like No Mans Sky) and some picky fans whining the game isn't as good as they hoped. This feels like the latter. Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I feel like it's important. There are a lot of articles that have fan's receptions in them, and USUM is by far the most controversial in the series. There are many people supporting it but equally as many people who hate it. Even after the game is released it's still really controversial in the community. Though if I can't find a reliable source I might just let this slide WikiBrainHead (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"There are a lot of articles that have fan's receptions in them", if they aren't noted by reliable sources, then they shouldn't. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The website NintendoSoup isn't old enough to have built up any kind of repution, and the staff is fully anonymous (The editor-in-chief being called "Iggy"). They don't describe their editorial policy, so there isn't any more I can review here. About page. ~Mable (chat) 19:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Difference between list of reliable sources and checklist

I see RPGFan is listed as reliable according to the discussions linked in the checklist, but it isn't in the actual list of approved sources. Maybe there are other discrepancies. Is there a reason for that? I guess I don't understand what the checks are for if we also have the main list. Is there a difference? Popcornduff (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that they were temporarily added below and were simply forgotten to be added to the list at a later time. Perhaps its time they are? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Popcornduff It doesn't matter whether the source is in the list or the check list - either way, its usable. I think it's just a matter of practicality - so many sources have been added over the years, I think it'd be too overwhelming to add every single source from the check list and put it on the list. That, and/or that no one's bothered to do such mundane work as to transfer them and fill out the table for each entry. Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much this. We should at least add some of the more major/commonly used ones however, if anybody is up for it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I might edit the page a little to make this clearer. Popcornduff (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Some Metacritic sources that should be vetted

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

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

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

Find video game sources: "...Comics Gaming Magazine (CGM)..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Metacritic lists these sources a lot, so I think it’s best we vet them in order to clear up any confusion as to the reliability of these sources. If I find any others that haven’t been vetted, I shall include them here.Dohvahkiin (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Metacritic uses a LOT of sources we don't consider reliable. We shouldn't be carte blanche reviewing anything on Metacritic, someone should make a case for each first. In effect, do a bit of research before posting. -- ferret (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, to expand on what Ferret is saying, while its fine to ask about sources, you're more likely to get more participation and feedback if you try to evaluate them a bit yourself, and not list too many at once. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Unreliable Digital Chumps doesn't have any about, editorial or staff pages that I can find.
• Probably unreliable Video Chums about looks good [9] and has author pages, but then again they seem to hire writers with no credentials [10].
• Unreliable DarkStation doesn't have any editorial or staff page and about is bare bones; no author info.
• Probably reliable CGM has nice policy [11] pages; unclear who authors are. If we are to go in-depth, then CGM is probably the best candidate. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Digital Chumps - unreliable. No "about us" page. No staff page. No editorial policy. I literally couldn't find anything about any writers other than their names plastered on the top of the page of a given article, of which had no link to any more information about said writer. Only be around since 2016 according to bottom of article, so no real history with the industry either. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Dot Esports

Find video game sources: "Dot Esports" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

(As a prelude, in preparing a draft for the first season of the Overwatch League, I'm seeing a rather low number of eSports sites, I think we want to be explicit on these)

Dot Esports was previously associated with the Daily Dot, but they sold that off to Gamurs (a larger network of eSports sites), keeping the "Dot" identity; Gamurs subsequently moved all their content under the Dot Esports label. They have a reasonable editing staff, and I don't see any user-contributed content to worry about. Scanning google news hits, the site is referenced with some regularity from established RSes ("According to Dot Esports"). --Masem (t) 00:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I've seen it around and have at times wished to use an article of theirs for cases related to Dota 2. Is anybody willing to vet through a few more of these and potentially create a dedicated eSports section on the list? There are many of these dedicated eSports sites now that would serve a niche, but helpful purpose, and knowing which of them is actually reliable or not would help a lot. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

We definitely should compare their reports (particularly stuff that would be more "insider" information) to what reliable eSports sites already produce, like Polygon (and its dedicated sites) and ESPN. I haven't seen an iota of anything wrong in what they've said, we just don't have our (wp editor) rigor of checking them yet. --Masem (t) 15:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

At least in cases of Dota 2 related articles, they were accurate enough that I could have used them, so I wouldn't say they are known for reporting rumored or false info. That being said however, the more major eSports news is either usually covered by the general gaming websites, or by ESPN and Polygon's eSport network like you said. Websites like this serve a very niche purpose, and that could be used as an argument against any future use of it as a RS. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I might be trying to get too far ahead, but I'm looking at specifically when the Overwatch League season, how sites will cover it. Dot eSports seems ready at the bit, but I'm not 100% about ESPN or others. My thinking, and I already have it in draft, is that we can treat that league with seasons like MLB/NFL as long as the coverage is there. I consider this like using Touch Arcade to cover mobile, that even though most RSes touch on it, the depth is not always there. --Masem (t) 20:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of Geimin.net

Is geimin.net, a site that apparently has a bunch of sales data on Japanese releases, reliable? As far as I can tell, it doesn't have any citations of its own to verify everything it's listing. Pinging @AnAtelierFan: who supports the use of this website on the List of Japanese role-playing game franchises page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It just reposts Famitsu and Media Create numbers, particularly the latter from what I've noticed. The numbers themselves should be reliable for that reason alone. AnAtelierFan (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Then shouldn't they be sourced instead? Anybody can create a blog that reposts reliable info, but that doesn't make that site itself reliable. What shows the reliability of Geimin outside of reposting existing information? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

First of all, let me be clear: I didn't even add that cite (just moved it up the page); you're the one who failed to read half the citations on the page (there's 80+ hits for Geimin -- whatever you think of it, Geimin is part of the page's convention), then deleted a single citation without a care as to what you were breaking. THAT was my problem with you. The site claims to have permission to repost these numbers, and that's all I frankly care about. If you want to cite the original sources instead, be my guest. And if you want me to give you some Wikipedian style Why This Site Is Reliable explanation, I'd suggest you ask the people that actually put it on the page instead. AnAtelierFan (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing source reliability, not continuing content disputes. If you don't have an "explanation" on the sources reliability, as you outright state your refusal to do, no further responses are necessary here. Sergecross73 msg me 05:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I'm more peeved about this than I need to be. I removed most of it, but of course it'll be on the history. I'll butt out now. AnAtelierFan (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Im not familiar with the website, and it's not in English or translating for me, so it's hard to research, but I've never heard of it, or ever seen a reliable source ever cite or mention it, so it doesn't really seem likely... Sergecross73 msg me 05:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Hmm... I've seen this site used before. The problem I have is, if all they have is reposts from Famitsu and Media Create, shouldn't we just cite them instead? JOEBRO64 20:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• They are cited by other sites we consider RSs: Kotaku, Siliconera, GameZone, Eurogamer, Wired.--IDV^talk 21:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The same thing happens to random Reddit/NeoGAF posts though, so I don't think that helps for this site's reliability. JOEBRO64 22:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • That helps set notability at least, but unless the sales info from Famitsu is private or otherwise inaccessible to the general public, we should still be citing the original data from them, if possible. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
    • While modern Famitsu sales numbers are frequently reported on by English RSs on the internet, Geimin goes much farther back in time, so if determined usable as a source, it would be useful for pre ~2010 games. It'd be hard for us to get hold of Weekly Famitsu issues from 2003 or whatever.--IDV^talk 16:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
      • True. I suppose it doesn't make sense for them to just make up sales number for some obscure game from 2005 and include that on their site. Other (English) sources should still be preferred over this if possible, but as long as the info is both correct and verifiable (my original doubt in the OP), it should pass as a situational RS. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC on Additional Voices, and on self-published announcements of works and roles

We have two RFCs going on WT:ANIME:

• The first is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Should additional voices be included in filmographies? concerning whether Additional voices are notable enough to include in filmographies.
• The second is whether self-published announcements of works and roles are acceptable as a reliable source. There are typically in the format of "Catch me on show X as role Y". Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Are self-published announcements of works and roles (e.g. Tweets, Facebook posts) where the content is in the lines of "Catch me on show X as role Y" acceptable as a reliable source?

Thanks in advance for your input. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

esportsearnings.com

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

I'm curious if there's a good reason to cite esportsearnings.com, which was just used as a source on Scarlett (StarCraft II player). The site has open registration although they ask for reliable sources on every edit. However, on their entry on Scarlett they've allowed primary sources like SK-Gaming's profile page on her and sources that we consider unreliable, like GosuGamers. My opinion is that esportsearnings.com is unreliable although they may be a place to find sources that are reliable. Thoughts? Woodroar (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Unreliable. "The accuracy of the website is only as good as the people willing to help out." In other words, WP:USERG. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Unreliable Nothing has changed since the last time this was brought up. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if this has been discussed previously. I searched and couldn't find anything. Would you mind pointing to that discussion? Woodroar (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like while it wasn't directly discussed, it was included in the checklist as unreliable due to lack of an argument for it. The site is still community driven with no supervising staff, and shouldn't be used per WP:USERG. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. And thanks for the link! Woodroar (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well I was the one that cited esportearnings. Most of the pages on essportsearning cite wiki.teamliquid.net as a source. At times I edit liquipedia(wiki.teamliquid.net) and was once told by the wiki admins that most of the numbers on esportsearnings come from from their site. I felt it would be a tad dishonest to cite a source (liquipedia) on wikipedia where people would have to get their calculators out to check if the information is accurate. Opposed to one where the information in the article is visible right away. Would in such cases a double citation be acceptable? liquipedia for reliability and esportsearning for clarity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachtkap (talk • contribs) 23:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Despite being the primary source for eSports results, Liquidpedia is also considered unreliable per WP:USERG. But I do think there is a case for changing that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Meaning that I should start making a case for it? Where would I do that? Only teamliquidpro is being mentioned alongside evilgeniuses as a teampage. I dont see any of the of teamliquid sections(?)(teamliquid.net, liquiddota.com, liquidhearth.com, liquidlegends.net) being mentioned as either reliable or unreliable. Is there a reason for that besides simple oversight? IMO the most visible parts (featured article and community news) of the two sections I frequent all have some level of editorial control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachtkap (talk • contribs) 00:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You would just make a new topic on it. And it's considered unreliable by default as it's a user-generated Wiki, which would fall under WP:USERG. A reliable source normally requires a dedicated editorial staff with a history of fact checking, which is what makes them reliable versus some fan-run blog who can post anything and spread misinformation. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Unreliable per WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

XBLA Fans

Find video game sources: "XBLA Fans" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I think this site needs to be re-evaluated. The magazine Gamesauce has never actually had a consensus on whether or not it's reliable (and the last discussion on it looks like it was closer to "unreliable") and, to be honest, the XBLA Fans site looks like another one of those fanmade blog sites like MyNintendoNews. Thoughts? JOEBRO64 01:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• As a former XBLA Fans staffer who pulled for them before becoming part of their staff, they did get the scoop on several XBLA games which later became verified elsewhere, such as Gotham City Impostors. That being said, I have no qualms about marking this as unreliable. The Gamesauce relationship did not take off as it was supposed to, nor did Gamesauce itself get the notoriety it was supposed to. --Teancum (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. They don't have an article so I think they can go. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Patent Arcade

Find video game sources: "Patent Arcade" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

While a blog and in self-published territory, it is maintained by Ross Dannenber an attorney from a Wash DC lawfirm. The blog covers all sorts of issues related to video game patents and case law (of which Dannerber is an expert). The site is mentioned enough in other RSes and books related to legal issues on video games. --Masem (t) 14:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Situational sounds good. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

MMOExaminer

Find video game sources: "MMOExaminer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo I'm interested in using this source, but I'm not sure of the site's reliability. What does everyone think? About Us page. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• They seem to list writers by aliases, which is something that is usually considered undesirable for reliable sources. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Which isn't necessarily a deal breaker, but its usually not a good sign. But yes, looking at a few bios, it's mostly just "I've loved video games for 12 years now" stuff, no real credentials. Their about page mentions having writers from other MMO websites, but 1) They don't say who or from where specifically and 2) I don't believe we have many MMO-centered websites on WP:VG/S, so while that may be meaningful to them, I'm not sure itd' be meaningful to Wikipedia's WP:RS standards... Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's disappointing. I guess I'll wait until this gets archived and then add it as "unreliable" on the checklist. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to rain on your parade. I'm open to other stances if you've got a counterpoint to what I've said above. Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Articles like this filled with blatant referral links does not inspire confidence. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)