WikiProject Video games
Main page talk
Archives Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175
Guidelines Manual of Style talk Article naming talk Sources talk Search engine Templates Wikidata Guide
Departments Assessment Reference library talk Newsletter talk Current issue Draft
Articles Article alerts Deletion discussions Essential articles New articles Popular pages Vital articles Recognized content Good content Featured content Requested articles
Task forces Esports talk Indie Nintendo talk Sega talk Video game characters talk Visual novels talk WikiProject Portal talk Project category talk Project cleanup talk Traffic statistics talk Article statistics talk List of active editors
Project watchlist view talk edit changes

Articles related to video games need reliable sources like any other Wikipedia article—content must be verifiable. Due to the nature of video game journalism, however, editors writing articles within the scope of this project may encounter problems finding or citing sources. This guideline aims to discuss some of the most common problem areas. None of the following directions apply in every single instance so always use reason and common sense when citing sources.

Because the fields of video game journalism, research, criticism, and commentary are relatively new compared to similar coverage of traditional media, traditional sources can be somewhat rare. In addition, the simultaneous development and expansion of Internet-based sources alongside the modern video-game scene has led to a much higher degree of exclusive online coverage than is the case with other media. These factors make the determination of reliable video-game sources a complex issue.

To address this problem, this guideline provides a few general rules of thumb and presents the current consensus regarding the reliability and usability of specific video game-related sources. Any questions regarding specific sources not covered in this guideline may be directed to the talk page. Remember to search the talk page archives before starting a new topic. New sources should not be added to this page until the talk page discussion has been archived.

• The Internet. One of the first places that many editors look for video game sources is the internet. After using one of several search engines to locate information on a subject, the search results must be scrutinized for reliability. A list of sources that have been identified by the WP:VG community as reliable appears lower in this page at the Sources list. This list is neither complete nor can it be used as definitive proof regarding a listed source's reliability determination, but it provides a good rough guide on which to base the scrutiny of sources for reliability.
• Custom Google search engine. Tools are available to filter search results to target reliable sources. Editors can use Reliable Sources for Video Games (list), a custom Google search engine focusing on the below-listed reliable sites and filtering out many bad or non-RS sites. A second custom Google search engine, Situational Sources for Video Games, is also available to search for reliable sources on a topic. There is no guarantee a specific source is reliable even if it is listed in the search engine. Forum posts, for example, are usually non-reliable. Also, be sure to take note of the conditions and limitations required for proper use of all sources (as listed in the tables below) before relying on them. The template {{find video game sources}} also includes a link to these custom search engines.
• The WP:VG Reference Library. The WP:VG reference library can provide access to print-based video game reference material and include indices of covered video games. Editors listed as contacts at the Reference Library have volunteered to make information from these magazines available on request, which can be used to reference claims in articles as well as to verify references and to establish notability. The Wikipedia Library provides a similar function.

For many of the articles under the aegis of WP:VG, sources are plentiful and easily located. Because not every source needs to be cited, editorial discretion will play a part in the exclusion of redundant and unnecessary sources. A few of the more important considerations when reviewing sources for inclusion are listed here.

• Negative as well as positive reviews - It is exceptionally rare for a video game to receive universal critical praise or condemnation. For this reason, reasonable efforts should be made to reduce undue bias by presenting both perspectives on the game. For the few cases where reception is universally slanted in one direction (either positive or negative), remember that exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing.
• Contemporary as well as modern coverage - As a general rule, reviewers of video games are inextricably tied to their temporal vantage point and because advancements in video game technology increase by leaps and bounds every few years, it is unfair to review a game in light of the game scene 20 years later. Likewise, hindsight can lead to revisionist reviews and nostalgia may lead to unduly positive scores. An effort should be made to include contemporary coverage of games if available in order to maintain a neutral point of view untainted by modern perceptions.
• Domestic as well as foreign coverage - Because video games are cultural artifacts, when a game comes from X country, then reviews from X country can provide cultural insight that might escape foreign reviewers. Relatedly, when a game depicts Y country or aspects of it, then reviews from Y country can provide reliable, detailed, and direct reaction to the depiction. At the same time, however, when a game comes from Z country, reviews from X and Y countries will help to reduce POV and to provide an international response thereby eliminating systemic cultural biases.
• Metareviews as well as individual reviews - Although metareviews tend to provide an average and roughly neutral review for games, the specific views of influential and/or well-respected individual reviewers may be of equal importance and should be presented with proper attribution despite the probability of containing a POV-heavy review. Care must be taken to avoid skewing the apparent reception by presenting disproportionate numbers of positive or negative individual reviews.
• Reviews for multiple different platforms - When video games are released on more than one platform, reviews of all different versions allow readers to gain an insight on the differing perceptions of the game within different gaming subcultures. When games are rereleased or remade for later systems, reviews of all different versions allow readers to grasp the degree to which later ports and remakes were successful in evoking the original. Efforts to report reception in a due manner can often be enhanced by using a prose format to explain why scores on one platform are lower than those of another.

The above considerations should also be taken when seeking out sources to add content such as reception sections to video game articles.

Print sources can improve coverage dramatically, but are often difficult to locate for video game topics—especially true when searching for sources covering the pre-Internet period (generally prior to 2000) before online sources became as established and reliable as they are in some cases today. Although it is incorrect to uncritically assume reliability for a source simply because it exists or existed in printed form, print sources cost money to produce and are therefore likely to make more of an effort at quality and accuracy than most low-cost fan sites. As the length of time a print source remains in continuous publication increases, the source gains in reputation, goodwill, and brand strength, which tends to indicate that longer-lasting and more-established print sources are more likely to be accurate than brief fly-by-night operations. Internationally registered periodicals (as identified by an ISSN number) are generally preferred over unregistered journals.

While there is no proscription against hard-to-access sources, the fact that print sources are more difficult to verify means that it is often a good idea to include additional web-based reliable sourcing if it is available. Editors adding print-based references should also make an effort to substantiate or at least double-check their claims if they are challenged.

Many video games have sites devoted to them that are not affiliated with the developers or publishers. These fansites enable fans to read about and discuss the game. When checked against Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:Reliable sources#What is a reliable source?, these fansites usually do not qualify as a reliable source. They frequently have little or no editorial oversight, and may be self-published (i.e., the person hosting the website is also the one writing its content). Fact-checking is often of lesser importance than publishing the latest rumours. Quoting the rule of thumb: "...the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."

Some fansites provide forum excerpts by developers from the game's forums. Favour citing the forum post itself over the fansite's article and commentary about it. When citing a forum post on a fansite's own forum, special scrutiny is advised. Make it clear that it is the post that is cited, not the thread or forum in general. Consider forum posts like journal articles, except that in this case the "journal" is unreliable (see WP:SPS), but the "article" may be, because of its author. Use real names over forum nicknames where the real name is available.

Tools: {{cite web}} and {{citation}}

In articles about video games, citing the game itself is often attractive. Wikipedia favours secondary sources, and the use of primary sources should be minimised. Games are primary sources in articles about themselves. Whether it is good to use them as a source varies by perspective, subject and game. For a reader, it is usually very hard to use a video game to check facts. Provide transcripts wherever possible, and enable readers to check the facts themselves by noting which area, level or episode is cited. Using the later levels of games with a linear level progression as sources (without transcripts) should be avoided. The same applies to bonus levels or easter eggs.

It is very hard to find proper sources for sections about the plot or setting of a video game without using the game itself. In many of these sections, the game itself is used as a source, but make sure that it is not the only source. Furthermore, the kind of statements that can be backed up with a reference to the game itself is limited. For example, it is impossible to use the game itself to back up that it "... takes place in a high fantasy setting".

Statements of a technical or critical nature should never contain references to the game itself. Technical details (like the type of texture mapping used) are impossible to discern for the layperson. Using the game itself as a source for critical content is original research. Criticism should not be the editor's own, but for example a reviewer's.

However, instruction booklets, player's guides, and other game-related publications may be cited as normal.

Tools: {{cite video game}} and {{cite AV media}}

The most important sources for most video game articles are the reviews of the game itself.

Aggregate review sites such as Metacritic and GameRankings are useful in the critical reception portion of a video game article, as these list numerous reviews for a game, more than can readily be included in Wikipedia. Aggregate review sites should be handled carefully. Individual reviews should cite their original publication, not the truncated aggregator summary. Because aggregators choose which publications to include in their score, they often include reviews from less reliable sites. Additionally, the score is averaged between reviewers without regard for the different rating systems used.

Aggregated user-submitted content (e.g. "user scores" and "user polls") available on Metacritic, GameRankings, and other aggregators is not considered reliable because it is susceptible to vote-stacking and demographic skew, and because the general public has no proven expertise or credibility in the field. Similarly, sites allowing users to submit content, like Wikipedia itself, are often not independent, and are not reliable because they have not been checked for factual accuracy by an editor. It is also important to make a distinction between review sites and directory listings. The latter often repeat information from press releases and the game's official website, and do not constitute a reliable source for establishing notability. Their use should generally be avoided as well.

The review table template allows for an organized presentation of all relevant review scores. Only include reviews in this table if they are cited within the text.

Retailers are only considered reliable sources for games that have already been released, and even then, only for information regarding release dates and the existence of games on a particular platform. However other secondary or primary sources should be used if available. Retailers posting future dates for games not yet released raise a red flag as to the legitimacy of the statement, and should not be used unless confirmed by a more reliable source.

In video gaming communities, the adjective "official" is often used to describe information released by the game developer. It denotes that the information is definitive, reliable and sometimes important. This is without regard to whether said information is deemed canonical.

Merely being "official" does not guarantee that information is usable under Wikipedia's editorial standards. Information deriving from official sources but published in generally unreliable ones such as blogs, fansites, or forum posts is likely unusable. Much of what is called official often stems from primary sources such as the game itself, which should largely not be used (see above). Additionally, not all reliably sourced official information merits inclusion, and in fact the bulk of the article may be unofficial. An example of this is the release date: when the official date is at 1998 according to accurate but unreliable (by Wikipedia policy standards) information, but a reliable source writes that it is 1999, Wikipedia should include the latter. Even if one has the knowledge of memory or the word of a trustworthy individual, original research is off-limits.

The crux is that "official" is not relevant to Wikipedia standards. In fan communities, all information released by the game developers is official and important. In a Wikipedia article, information released by game developers is no different from any other reliable source; in fact, it may be less reliable under possible interpretations of the policy regarding self-published or primary sources.

Interviews from any source are typically allowed as a "self-published source about self". As long as the interview's authenticity can be reasonably ascertained, we allow the developer's own words as a primary source when the claims are (1) not exceptional, and (2) about the team or individual making the claim. Greater claims require a secondary source with a reputation for editorial quality. Whenever possible, prefer the editorial distance of a reliable, secondary source over a primary source interview.

When citing a print magazine, the name of the magazine should be written in italics. Likewise for the video games themselves. The usage of italics for an online source depends on the nature of its content, and is detailed in the Manual of Style. When citing a particular article published by a magazine or website, or when citing a chapter within a video game, the title should be surrounded by quotes. The various citation sub-templates of {{cite}} handle this sort of thing for you automatically.

The following is a list of sources that have been established as reliable in the field of video gaming per past consensus. If you know of a source that is not listed and you cannot find any previous discussion regarding a source's reliability, start a discussion on the talk page before adding them below. Remember to examine the limitations listed for each situational source in the tables below. "Media" refers to the publication's principal means of content delivery.

This list is not meant to be exhaustive and only covers works that regularly report on video games and the industry. Sources that otherwise are considered reliable sources in general, such as newspapers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, magazines like Time and Fortune, and news networks like BBC and CNN, are also reliable for coverage of topics related to video games when they do report on these topics. Video games may also be discussed in peer-reviewed scientific papers; editors should review details of identifying appropriate journals for natural sciences and, if involving human health, accurate information for medical sciences.

Consensus can change, so any sources on this page may be upgraded or downgraded based on further discussion.

General gaming