Wikipedia:WikiProject Xbox/Sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page.

Shortcuts: WP:VG/S WP:VG/RS

WikiProject Xbox
This box: view • talk • edit
Main pages
Main project	talk
Talk page archive	talk
Project category	talk
Portal	talk
Pages of Use
Templates	talk
Newsletter	talk
Collaboration of the month	talk
Assesssment	talk
Sources	talk
Categories
WikiProject Xbox articles	talk
WikiProject Xbox members	talk
WikiProject Xbox templates	talk
Xbox stubs	talk

Articles related to Xbox and Xbox 360 need sources like any other Wikipedia article. Content must be verifiable. Editors writing articles in the scope of this project, however, may encounter some problems when finding sources, or citing them. This guideline aims to discuss some of the most common problem areas. None of the below is applicable to every single instance of it—use reason and common sense.

Contents 1 Fansites 2 Video games 3 Review Sites 4 Official information 5 List 5.1 General 5.2 Games industry-related 5.3 Platform-specific 5.4 Genre-specific 5.5 Aggregate sites 5.6 Blogs 5.7 Modifications 5.8 Other 6 Notes

[edit] Fansites

Most video games have several fansites devoted to them. These sites enable fans of a game to read more about the game, and to discuss it. Fansites play an important role in video gaming communities. Editors of articles about video games in Wikipedia are often part of these communities, and sometimes use fansites as sources.

Fansites usually do not qualify as reliable sources. Wikipedia policy on what constitutes a reliable source is scattered, but the guidelines in Wikipedia:Reliable sources#What is a reliable source? provide a good summary. When checked against the requirements there, fansites do not pass. They have little to 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."

A notable exception to this rule exists. When a fansite is publishing third party information that is reliable, but is not available elsewhere, or only in video or audio format, it may be cited. For example, a transcript of the text of a cut scene may only be available on a fansite. In this case, cite the video game (see below), and include a link like "Transcript" to the fansite containing the transcript. Do not cite the fansite itself as source. An example from Characters of StarCraft :

Blizzard Entertainment. StarCraft. PC. Level/area: Episode I, mission 2: "Backwater Station" (in English). (1998) Transcript.

Other 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. An example from Supreme Commander :

Ables, Jeremy (2007-07-30). Patch notes build 3260. Gas Powered Games. Retrieved on 2007-08-06.

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

[edit] Video games

In articles about themselves, citing video games is often attractive. Essentially, they contain all information needed for the article. Wikipedia favours secondary sources, and the use of primary sources should be minimised. Games are primary sources in articles about themselves. Whether it is a good thing to use them as a source varies per 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.

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

[edit] Review Sites

The most important source for most video game articles are the reviews of the game itself. These reviews come mostly from reliable sources (such as the ones in the list below), but be aware of less reliable reviews. Many sites allow users to submit content, like Wikipedia itself. These reviews are often not independent, and are not reliable because they have not been checked for factuality 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 be avoided in general as well.

Aggregate review sites such as Metacritic and Game Rankings are generally useful to include in the critical reception portion of a video game article, as these sites provide links to numerous reviews for a game, more than can readily be included in Wikipedia. Data from these aggregate review sites should be handled carefully. There are two primary issues with these sites. Firstly, the site webmasters are free to include or ignore any review source they choose. While these sites will typically include major English gaming review sources, they can (and do) also include less reliable sites. Secondly, the sites average the scores between reviewers without regard for the differences in the rating systems used. Furthermore, video game reviews are not meant to be used in comparison with each other. A reviewer who gave two games both a score of 90% might prefer one above the other, but this does not show in the scores.

[edit] Official information

In video gaming communities, discussing unreleased games or expansion packs, the adjective "official" is often used. It denotes that certain information is definitive, reliable and sometimes important. This section uses the word in that sense—it should not be confused with the use of "official" to denote whether certain information is canon or not.

Information that conforms to Wikipedia's standards is often, but not always official. Some official information should not be included in a Wikipedia article about a video game. It may not be relevant to an encyclopedic treatment of the article's topic, or it may not have been published in reliable sources (for example, only in a forum post by a dubious author). Likewise, some information should be included, but may not be official. An example of this is the release date: when the official date is at 1998, but a reliable source (say, GameSpot) writes (convincingly) that it is 1999, Wikipedia should include the latter.

The crux is that "official" is not automatically 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, because it is self published.

[edit] List

It is often difficult to gauge whether a source is reliable or not in the area of video gaming. The following is a list of sources that have been established as reliable in the field of video gaming per past consensus.

This list may never be considered complete, nor does a listing here entail any kind of endorsement by Wikipedia or its video games project. List new items in alphabetical order. Do not include external links.

• Game publishers only in articles about games they published, unless noted below.
• Developers only in articles about games they developed, unless noted below.
• Websites of print video game magazines

Items marked with * are deemed reliable, but constitute trivial coverage and should not be used to establish notability.

[edit] General

[edit] Games industry-related

[edit] Platform-specific

[edit] Genre-specific

[edit] Aggregate sites

[edit] Blogs

[edit] Modifications

[edit] Other

[edit] Notes