Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources

Let's discuss

Let's start with these 5. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, I am inclined to consider sources 1, 2, 3, and 5 as unreliable. Could you please tell me on your views after reading my replies, and I believe these are probably all marginally reliable to unreliable, though I could ask at RSN if there are debatable sources.

Ref 1. In Archive 371, I did a discussion, which had input of two/three editors (including me) on the reliability of the first ref. I believe this to be unreliable (Option 2-3).

Ref 2. GeekDad is equally well-known, and won several awards for best blogs. But it's about page doesn't have much info of any editorial process as far as I am concerned. The website design too feels to me outdated, though some reviews are very in-depth. Considering that it's well-known, I think that it's probably marginally reliable to generally unreliable (Option 2-3).

Ref 3. On the editorial page, I could see several editors, but there are no specific info on the editorial process or whether the editor-in-chief has appeared in RS. I further couldn't see expertise among the associate editors, including one who is a "stay-at-home dad". Their reviews, though, are well-written, but I don't see much evidence to consider this better than a self-published source (Option 2-3), that could be used occasionally, but it is not notable.

Ref 5. This is a Youtube channel and podcast that I think I subscribed to some time ago (probably?). I'm not familiar with this, but it's very popular on BGG. Just looking at the website though, it's very outdated in design, and there isn't much editorial policies that I can find. It also reviews thousands of games, many of these not notable. IMO it is probably Option 3, since it seems to be self-published, but their reviews are quite popular.

I don't really know much about the fourth one, would need to have a deeper look. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I mostly agree although I do wonder is sources at WP:VGRS are not held to lesser standards? In either case, I suggest adding unreliable sources to an unreliable section here, just like at VGRS. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we differentiate between game reviews and news? The former requires very little fact checking, and only a reading of the game's rules. The latter requires fact checking and possibly further investigation. For gameplay, I think sites such as Board Game Quest and Meeple Mountain meet the reliability criterion (especially when used as supplementary sources) as they seem to be independently operated, but other types of articles on those sites may not meet that criterion. Mind matrix 19:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most board game news are announcements that are not like investigative journalism, although I would think that they are needing as much fact checking as reviews. But I disagree on the reliability of Board Game Quest and Meeple Mountain. They review lots (see an example) of non-notable games, without many supplementing sources. IMO consider the lack of editorial control, I would support considering the refs as marginally reliable for basic information, but does not contribute notability and should be generally unreliable for other information that would require better-quality refs (e.g., two reviews from Board Game Quest and Meeple Mountain could support uncontroversial game information and designing credits, but if they give positive reviews, the reception couldn't be said to be generally positive as they are too unreliable for insiginficant claims). Still, I don't think that these self-published like refs should be considered generally reliable, and even at best (i.e., if the article is written by more reliable contributors), considerations still apply. Also, if an article is assessed to be C-class or above, I would support these refs be removed, they should only be present in start or stub articles, and does not show notability IMO. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: @Mindmatrix: Would it be all right if I add refs 1, 2, 3, and 5 as generally unreliable? If you disagree, please state your opinions (generally reliable, additional considerations apply/marginally reliable, or generally unreliable). Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to classify GeekDat as reliable or in between. As you say, it won awards, which IMHO makes it a website written by recognized content experts. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: All right, will add Meeple Mountain and The Dice Tower as generally unreliable, Geekdad as marginally reliable (I said that it is "Marginally reliable to generally unreliable blog, with no clear editorial policies, but also won several awards. Reliability depends on the expertise and background of the author" on the source page). If there's only one Geekdad article, I don't think it determines notability, but could you comment if you agree?VickKiang (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I missed The Dice Towers. Didn't it win some awards as well? I mean, they are well known, popular, and give out their own awards: https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/The_Dice_Tower_Gaming_Awards . To consider them unreliable just like some minor blog would be again puzzling. I'd classify them just like Geekdad. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks! Do you agree with the following:

The Dice Tower is a popular Youtube channel and online blog. Their coverage is considered routine, generally unreliable and does not indicate notability, but their gaming awards are considered as marginally reliable.

DT covers thousands of games. If we consider it as situational, then many stub articles could be created. Plus, most are just (opinion?) videos, the web content isn't really good enough, without editorial policies. But their awards are all right, they could be included as it's quite significant. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, no. Although I consider myself more of a deletionist than inclusionist, I think we need to be more open to new media in some venues, and coverage of board games is one of them. I don't think their coverage is "routine, generally unreliable and does not indicate notability". They do cover most high profile games, not sure if this is "routine" or not, but their reviews are considered reliable as far as I am aware, and indicate notability (if a game has been covered by TDT, it is a good sign for those familiar with the board game scene). I'd say instead: " Their coverage is considered routine, and jut like their gaming awards is considered as marginally reliable." If you disagree, I'd suggest asking at WP:RSN, see if we can get a WP:3O (or more) there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I totally understand (and mostly agree with) your point. WP is restrictive in its inclusion of board game refs. Consider the article I asked for Ark Nova, probably the most popular game of the year (ranked 7th! on BGG), which is only a start article, but it's very significant IMO. Like said before, I subscribed to DT, SUSD and Watch It Played, and like these, they are just not really reliable, especially when other refs exist. But considering the lack of refs for the BTG Wikiproject, would it be needed for us to lower the bar on board game related refs in general? Otherwise, I don't think much articles for 2021 and 2022 board games could be created. Still, DT and Geekdad is still far better than most blogs, and the former is popular and influential for board game reviews. IMO, DT is Option 2-3, and so is Geekdad, but I lean slightly towards the latter, and there are lots of niche coverage (see here for a game without any reviews elsewhere). Though, IMO a discussion of RfC on the RSN is preferred. Also, should we have a unique notability guide for BTG? Many thanks for your insight and replies, please reply on which format would be needed for a better discussion. VickKiang (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lowering the bar is tricky, but subject-specific areas do have their own criteria. Sometimes they can be challenged by the community, sometimes not (for an example of unchallenged criteria, I can think of WP:ACADEMICJOURNALS, where we accept catalogue entries on many journals as long as they are well-indexed) . Although as I said I am more del then inc these days, I'd support being a bit more accepting for the "best" blogs/video reviews in the Board Game Scene. Another reason is that in the past, we had more print media, which often went out of business these days. For example, in Poland we had Magia i Miecz, these days we just have online blogs and like. I'll ping User:BOZ and User:Guinness323 who often work on articles on older games and reference them with those old magazines, for their thoughts. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: @BOZ: @Guinness323: I have pinged some editors to ask on their input, but I agree that determining reliability in borderline cases or lowering the bar requires a whole discussion on the RSN or even an RfC, so do you think we should have one? A lots of past great board game refs are not active now (though the recently created Dicebreaker is excellent), and Ars Technica, which used to have a lot of coverage, isn't really active for its tabletop coverage now. So a possible solution is to allow less reliable ones for uncontroversial details (gameplay or release details), and I could see GeekDad (or possibly even the Board Game Quest) do so, though, I don't feel as well with DT, and they can't decide GNG IMO. So should we have a RSN discussion or RfC? VickKiang (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We probably need to distinguish sources we accept as reliable for content and sources that demonstrate notability. For the latter, I'd have a higher bar. WP:VGRS is a good model to keep in mind too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though IMO a further query on general reliability is probably better for Geekdad and DT, if you agree, I will add a further discussion. I am personally proposing this, but it's subjective, so an RSN might be needed if we disagree:

The Dice Tower is a popular Youtube channel and online blog. Their coverage is considered routine and usually does not indicate notability. Their reliability varies, and they are marginally reliable for mundane claims about the game's rules and release (though the official rules may be cited instead), but other reviews are subjective and generally unreliable, but could be used provided that there are few, but enough refs to show notability, and it is not the only reference present. The gaming awards are considered as generally to marginally reliable, and are quite significant. VickKiang (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with this with minor tweaks to the language here and there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I’ve added DT both in the situational section (for mundane details and awards), and generally unreliable one (for subjective reviews and opinion), like some other entries at RSP. Please reply on whether you think that’s all right, thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang I think double listing is confusing. Why do you think DT should be in both, but GeekDad only in one? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 4 July 2022

@Piotrus: Will put GeekDad in both also. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep both in just one. We could really use a wP:3O here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I merged these in one but... oops- I used another slow mobile device, and tried to rm the info in the generally unreliable section into the situational one, but the device lags, so you might see a couple of incorrect edits. Applogies again for my mistake. VickKiang (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion on refs

@BOZ: @Piotrus: @Guinness323: @Mindmatrix: What do you think on whether these sources (which are listed as needing discussion in the source section of Wikiproject BTG) are RS?

1. CBR (Comic Book Resources)

2. Pyramid (magazine)

3. Arcane (magazine)

4. Techraptor

5. Abstract Games

Note: I am pinging participants of the previous discussion, and also BOZ and Guinness 323, who I believe have access to older magazines that will be discussed. Many thanks for your help and time! Also, I listed Dicebreaker at RSN due to a dispute, some editors have already commented, if you could do so that would be great! VickKiang (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO (I am not familiar with ref 2, 3, and 5, as I don't have subscriptions, will cover ref 1 now and ref 4 later.

Option 2 for CBR. the editorial policies are middling, and articles are poor. The about us page relies on several editors, but the managing editor only wrote 1 article, I couldn't find him writing in RS. The correction policy and fact-checking are okay, but I am concerned by this: Interested In Being A Writer For CBR? We are always looking for strong passionate writers who are motivated to develop and write engaging content. We are looking for writers who can produce in-depth premium content with expert knowledge in one or more of CBR’s featured categories. So the requirements to contribute isn't clear IMO. Note the publisher is Valnet Inc, owning the marginally reliable Screen Rant. Its content is to me superficial, such as this one, it describes Scythe Rise of Fenris as The Rise of Fenris changed everything by including an entire campaign in the box for gamers to play through, complete with secret boxes to open and huge surprises. Players were extremely pleased with expansion's modular content and it is now one of the highest-rated board game expansions to ever be released, which reminds me of Screen Rant and Game Rant covering movies based on IMDB scores. Another one on board games also seems poor IMO, with sensational headlines (Adding a twist to media adaptions, popular video games are transforming into table-top experiences sure to excite long-time fans and newcomers alike). I think that these isn't matching their editorial disclaimer: We do not post clickbait. Our headlines might be bold - but we don't throw out broad statements just to sound bold. It has to be accurate and fact-checked, I am sure there are more examples. Overall, I find lots of the lists possibly positively biased. Other news articles (such as this) are all right, but I don't think their "top ten" lists are useful or reliable. Though, it won a couple of awards, but I think the issues are too much for this to be Option 1/generally reliable. So IMO its news articles are Option 1-2, but their listicles are poor and probably Option 2-3. VickKiang (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @VickKiang I concur. This was rather short, but I think we should distinguish their normal articles, passable, and the concept of listicles, which are much less so. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: IMO, their news are Option 1-2, but listicles are at best Option 2. CBR's news are decent at best, but I don't think the listicles are much value, they are at best sesnsational and doesn't add much value. VickKiang (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would check with the comics wikiproject on CBR, as I believe they have already resolved that. I would expect that Pyramid and Arcane are RS for games - Arcane is an independent publication and Pyramid should be independent for any games not published by Steve Jackson Games. BOZ (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arcane was an independent UK magazine published by Future Publishing, with no ties to game companies. It is a valuable RS for information about role-playing games, fantasy fiction and the RPG world of the mid-1990s. Pyramid is a publication of Steve Jackson Games (SJG), and was started in the era when the house magazines of all RPG publishers freely reviewed and commented on other publishers' publications. It is also a valuable RS about board games and RPGs, obviously with the exception of articles about SJG products. I am not familiar with the other ~~two~~ three publications. Guinness323 (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that the listicles are only ok and usually not good, but when they do an analysis of a series or something, the articles can be good, although that doesn't happen that often unfortunately. Historyday01 (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: @Guinness323: Thanks for your replies! So do you agree that Arcane should be considered RS, and Pyramid also except for Steve Jackson Games? If so, should they count towards GNG (do they meet the indepedent criteria)? If possible, could you please also link me the discussion on CBR in the comic WIkiProject? Many thanks for your time and help! VickKiang (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know when (or admittedly if) the comics project may have discussed CBR, but they do have an archive that may have that info. BOZ (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: @Guinness323: @Piotrus: I've added Pyramid to generally reliable, with the caveat: Pyramid is a generally reliable source for board games, card games, and RPG related content. Apply additional considerations for games related to Steve Jackson Games, as Pyramid is not indepedent and possibly biased to the publisher, could please clarify it if needed? I've added Arcane, but I think there needs to be more discussion on CBR. Where do you think it should be (possibly situational)? Many thanks for your time and help! VickKiang (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for CBR, I would either post a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics to see what people there have to say about that source specifically, or just post a notice there to point people back here to this discussion. As for Pyramid, I think that's a bit too verbose on the last sentence, you could simply tack something like "it is not an independent source for any games published by Steve Jackson Games" on to the first sentence and skip the second sentence altogether, since we know that automatically as they published the magazine as well. Pyramid should be a reliable primary source when talking about SJG publications (basic descriptions, publication information, etc) but it does not help for notability on their own games. BOZ (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ: Done. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CBR: pre-August 2016 content is reliable, post-August 2016 content should be avoided or treated with care. The site was formerly known as one of the best comics-focused websites on the internet before they were acquired by Valnet and slid into churnalism. So I'd say that anything published prior to the Valnet acquisition is reliable and anything after it should be taken with a pinch of salt. JOE BRO 64 06:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a concern regarding Pyramid's "capsule reviews". They seem to be very short, snippet length, and as such, may fail wP:SIGCOV. I have seen such short reviews in other contexts; has this ever been discussed by other projects? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Noted, will add it to summary also. In another article, I think I saw a couple of very short capusle reviews from older magazines. Not sure about Pyramid as I don't have subscription, but I will add your comment as a caveat to generally reliable. Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On CBR's reliability

@BOZ: @Piotrus: @TheJoebro64: @Historyday01: So far, lots of solid discussions, is there agreement that CBR is a situationally reliable source, with their reviews being generally to marginally reliable, but careful consideration must apply to: a) listicles (which are generally unreliable), b). post-2016 content? VickKiang (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes re listicles, no opinion on 2016. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this:

Comic Book Resources (CBR) is considered to be marginally reliable. There is consensus that reviews and news from CBR are generally reliable, but more reliable secondary sources should be used if possible. However, the listicles are usually short, superficial, do not count towards Notability, and is marginally reliable to generally unreliable. Some editors also suggest additional caution for post-2016 content, please clarify if possible. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't rely on post-2016 CBR for anything other than reviews or content by Brian Cronin. Any editorial/news content they carry can be found elsewhere. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CBR is not listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but its sister site Screen Rant is there. Both work similarly, so the same thing would apply to both. "There is consensus that Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source. It is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons." Cambalachero (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What happened in 2016? Cambalachero (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The website was founded by Jonah Weiland in the late 1990s and was a high-quality news source that won several industry awards. He sold it to the parent company of Screen Rant in 2016, and it quickly switched to click-bait material and top five lists. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I think there is consensus for caution for post 2016 content, many thanks!VickKiang (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability Dicebreaker

@Piotrus: @Sam Walton: @NeverTry4Me: I updated the entry for Dicebreaker. The first discussion had a clear consensus that it's generally reliable, but the second discussion is less so. One considered it generally unreliable, two considered it to be generally reliable, and one said it was generally reliable but with a caveat (and sometimes could be situationally reliable). So overall, I put its entry in GR still, but with the following caveat: However, some editors expressed concerns on Dicebreaker for exceptional or controversial claims, and due weight should be considered. I think that this is a fair assessment of the latest RSN discussion. VickKiang (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Reliable sources

And use the "reliable sources" as the name of the merged article. I.e. what we have here is better, but we should move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Reliable sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I support a merge, but of course this version is better. Though, its awards section is interesting, I think we might need to discuss what's a "major award" and does a win of the SdJ, Golden Geek... count towards notability for board games? VickKiang (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang Right. We also should discuss the sources under 'Online sources considered reliable', which frankly don't all look very reliable to me, at least at first glance. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Totally agree. The list has a dated looking Olympiad site, a publisher's site, Scribd (which the script from Headbomb says is generally unreliable) and an SPS that can't be opened. Which of these, or none, do you think are RS? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that not only is your newer page more robust, but it probably already has the correct name... since its ambition seems to be not only to list Reliable Sources, but also to list and evaluate other levels of sources all the way down to Unreliable. I say move a couple links over to your new page and make the old Reliable Sources into a redirect. Phil wink (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: @Phil wink: I've merged the article, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang I'd suggest we move Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources (current page) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Reliable sources (now a redirect). WP:RM, technical section, might be required. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Maybe, but the VGRS page is also titled Sources instead of only RS, but either way I don't feel the title matters too much. VickKiang (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. They do use RS in the abbreviation. I'll suggest a name change there. And for now I'll create WP:BGRS and WP:RSBG aiming here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

boardability

First we have the website of the Mind Sports Olympiad, boardability.com. The event is seemingly notable but niche, their website looks amateurish and about us does not provide any information about any editorial process. It is used as a source, for example: https://web.archive.org/web/20171009202048/http://www.boardability.com/game.php?id=entropy (seems no longer available live) for Entropy (1977 board game), https://web.archive.org/web/2/http://www.boardability.com/game.php?id=continuo for Continuo (game), https://web.archive.org/web/20170722193652/http://www.boardability.com/game.php?id=abstract_games for Abstract strategy game. Two pages (for individual games) link to Wikipedia, without saying whether it is a source or not. I'd say the website is reliable for claims about itself (its tournaments, and winners). As for the description of the game, hmmm. Common sense it is probably ok (if we assume its curated by an expert or experts), but I do worry about the possibility of them using Wikipedia as a source - but I have no proof this happened, so... AGF. Is being recognized by MSO an indicator of notability? I guess. Probably reliable if we agree MSO is a reliable, expert organization. Obvious COI related to itself, of course. Shame their website seems to be falling apart, most of the links we have need deroting.

PS. Pinging the two past contributors there (sadly, seemingly inactive): @Thesteve and Tetron76: _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: The reliability on this is probably debatable. It seems from the WP article that they have two websites, including a newer, better one. Sadly, the newer one doesn't have much editorial policies, but it has been mentioned a lot, and its article is probably poor on WP, but is C-class. I think the older website looks very amateurish and is probably less reliable. So I think the site could be used for claims about its tournaments, in which it's reliable, but I don't think a event of a game played counts towards GNG. I disagree with Shame their website seems to be falling apart, the older website is horribly dated (and probably marginally reliable to generally unreliable), but the newer one is... all right? But I don't think this should be generally reliable given the lack of editorial policies or fact checking, so it's probably Option 2 (marginally reliable), reliable for its claims on its own tournaments, but doesn't show GNG. VickKiang (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

studiogiochi

Italian website, owned or at least siginificantly related to this individual: Dario De Toffoli. Used as a source only a few times, and frankly, since it is in Italian, I don't expect to see it pop out much. Here's their about us, they have an extensive list of contributors although I can't find anything about their editorial practices. Borderline reliability, obvious COI related to Dario De Toffoli. Their website is also affected by link rot (some links we use as sources are 404 already). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Option 3. I agree with you mostly, but I find it to be worse than borderline notability. I'm confused by why these sites are added as reliable sources, perhaps these were somehow considered an RS back then? But looking at this now, it's a very dated looking site, with about us page looking questionable. The team of authors or editors looks okay, and the editor-in-chief, Dario De Toffoli, seems qualified and has an WP article, so is Leo Colovini, who is a well-known designer. But what about the others? The descriptions seem to me that the contributors don't have any qualifications, such as [meticulousness], versatility and seriousness have earned her a place in the enigmistic editorial staff. She uses to spoil the team with delicious treats… that's why she has become their mascot. I would probably put this at marginally reliable, but I am concerned by the articles (see 1, 2, 3), they are short (some of these has a single sentence, but sometimes they say it's playful journalism, see here, obviously flawed with COI, so most are ad-like are superficial. Per the arguments above, I don't see much use of this to WP. I would say generally unreliable, treat as an SPS, can be reliable for attributed comments about itself, but notability of the coverage must be considered. Many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards view that people hired as staff for such outlets, which can be seen as trade journals and can be assumed to have some standards (higher than blogs etc.), qualify as journalists for borderline reliability/notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A-to-Z-of-Dice-Games

Some book by "Spellman"? Whatever it was, copyvio was removed froms Scribid and I can't even figure out what book was copyviod here. Since the original creator of this wiki resource coulnd't even provide a properly cited reference, just forget about it and move on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mia

Dead website: [3]. Rules for some dice game? https://web.archive.org/web/20100626031622/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/dice-play/Games/Mia.htm . No evidence of reliability, obviously whoever added this didn't fully grasp the point of creating a resource for RS. Not reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I agree that it’s very clearly unreliable, it’s dated, defunct, and lacks any editorial policies, so I would put it at generally unreliable (but given its obscurity should it be added to the frequently used sources list)? VickKiang (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have to mention it anywhere except this mostly pointless discussion :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Games Awards

Section split and moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games/Notability.

Is Lautapeliopas an RS?

@Piotrus: @BOZ: @Guinness323: Pinging previous discussion members. Is Lautapeliopas this an RS? Its prose seems above average (see 1, 2), it is fairly comprehensive in its coverage, and its about page is... probably reliable (or marginally reliable) but not the best. The editor-in-chief appeared in lots of refs and seems qualified, but the assistants are questionable, but it has detailed policies. I guess this is probably generally or marginally reliable, and if it is an RS, then it could be used for lots of articles, but I am not sure if it counts towards GNG. Note in a previous AfD discussion it was closed as keep, and this seems to be one of the better refs. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's reliable. Let's add it. Not that I expect it will come up much, beeing Finnish. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this: There is weak consensus that Lautapeliopas is generally to marginally reliable. Its editor-in-chief appeared in other publications, and it has some editorial policies. Nevertheless, more reliable secondary sources are preferred whenever possible, and cation should be applied for exceptional or controversial facts. Reviews for games should preferably be accompanied by other more established references, and due weight should be applied. VickKiang (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Books online

In case it's useful: a quick list of books available at Internet Archive. I've only included RS's that include a broad survey of games. These of course mostly cover historical games, which may not be your chief focus. Still, maybe nice to have links. I've included personal observations on a few.

Bell, R. C. (1979). Board and table games from Many Civilizations (Revised ed.). Mineola, NY: Dover. ISBN 0-486-23855-5. Definitely a RS by Wikipedian criteria, but note that the years have shown this to be much like Wikipedia itself: a good place to start, but you should back up anything you find here with another source. Beyond the fact that knowledge grows over time, Bell's aim is often to concoct a playable game, which can conflict with the transparent presentation of his source information, which is what we might have preferred. Also note that since this is a republication of 2 separate volumes without re-pagination, all page references must also specify volume (e.g. Vol. 1, page 63).
Culin, Stewart (1895). Korean Games, with Notes on the Corresponding Games of China and Japan. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania.
Culin, Stewart (1898). Chess and Playing-Cards. Washington DC: US National Museum. All of Culin's books are old but still foundational. They consist chiefly of ethnographic descriptions, still of use. On his elaborate and somewhat philosophical historical speculations, however, note that later scholars have called into question our ability to assign historical precedence among randomizing activities such as divination, impartial decision-making, gambling, and game-playing, and that elements of his monolithic genealogy of games have been called "absurd".
Culin, Stewart (1907). Games of the North American Indians. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
Finkel, Irving, ed. (2007). Ancient Board Games in Perspective. London: British Museum Press. ISBN 978-0-7141-1153-7.
Murray, H. J. R. (1951). A History of Board-Games Other Than Chess. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Parlett, David (1990). The Oxford Guide to Card Games. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-214165-1. Many more of Parlett's books are available from the Internet Archive; these 2 are almost certainly the most significant and useful for WP purposes.
Parlett, David (2008). The Penguin Book of Card Games. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-103787-5.

Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil wink Thank you. That would be good to add to the main page (instead of talk page). Can you move it there? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Can do. But given the discussion above, do you want it at the old Reliable Sources or your new Sources? (Per my own note above, I'd be inclined to keep it at Sources.) Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil wink Both pages will be merged shortly, so I don't think it matters where. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shut Up & Sit Down

@Piotrus: @BOZ: @Mindmatrix: Pinging previous participants. What's the reliability of SUSD? Like The Dice Tower (DT), it's a Youtube channel turned website without editorial policies, but is well-known, and was apparently cited by NY Times Wirecutter: [to] get an idea of what makes two-player board games successful, I reviewed lists and articles from board-game review sites like Shut Up & Sit Down and Dicebreaker. I think this one would be frequently used and suggest we put them in situational or unreliable like DT. VickKiang (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do hear it mentioned every now and then. They have some visibility, yes, but they have any editorial policies? I can't even find their 'about us'. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Yes, that's odd, and technically except for a terms and conditions, there's no about us. So generally unreliable or situational? I might prefer the first one, but given the low thresholds for BTG related refs due to a lack of them, the second is also one I proposed. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine attributing their reviews, but given the lack of 'about', I'd say no for establishing notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Times

I stumbled upon what seems like a good source (2O needed). Rebel Times was a magazine published (for free) by the Polish board game company, pl:Rebel. It was printed but entire archive is digitized ([4], hope the link doesn't rot). Sadly, it does seem the publication ceased with the linked issue 147 in 2019, after a decent, ~10 year long run. For reliability, as a magazine, it had (in the issue) information about the editors. It published many reviews of board games, and I think the reviews are reliable and probably an indicator of reliability (although note Rebel is a board game publisher, so there's the issue of them being possibly biased towards games they published). Thoughts? Ps. Since it's in Polish and in pdf, to read it in English I recomend feeding the pdfs to Google Translate, which offers pdf translation service. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick glance, this seems RS, and I translated snippets of text, it looks all right, but I would probably need a further look. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang I'd like to add this source to our reliable list, or maybe you could do it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Added this as generally reliable. VickKiang (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical card game websites

I thought I'd float these 2 or 3 (depending on how you count them) sites:

McLeod, John. "Card Games". www.pagat.com. Retrieved 20 July 2022.
Parlett, David. "Historic card games described by David Parlett". www.parlettgames.uk. Retrieved 20 July 2022.
Parlett, David. "Skat introduced by David Parlett". www.parlettgames.uk. Retrieved 20 July 2022.

pagat.com

John McLeod (the site's editor) is a published expert on historical card games; beyond several articles in The Playing-Card; he is the coauthor, with Michael Dummett, of the magisterial History of Games Played with the Tarot Pack (Volume 1 at Google Books and Volume 2 at Google Books). His site, has an editorial policy, though not to my knowledge a board of any kind. David Parlett, writing in a RS, has high praise for the site and its editor (2008: xii). Personally, I think the site should be considered to be as reliable as any printed "Hoyle" -- with 2 exceptions: 1) all pages falling under the directory Invented games should be explicitly blacklisted as definitely unreliable sources. 2) Because McLeod's goal is essentially to document all card games (my words, not necessarily his), this may forfeit its use in establishing notability. Phil wink (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a fair analysis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, let's add it soon. VickKiang (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. John McLeod is a recognised card game expert, a regular contributor to the journal The Playing-Card and his website has been acknowledged as the best card game website on the internet. He always states the sources for his information, which is more than most books. However, I agree the caveat that the "invented games" section should be excluded and it is good that McLeod has clearly labelled those. Bermicourt (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus, VickKiang, and Bermicourt: I've added Pagat & the 2 Parletts to the main page. Note that I've slightly reconsidered my approach to Pagat notability, and included such language in my entry. I expect you all have deeper understanding of notability/reliability issues than I, so if you disagree with my suggestion, please feel free to alter it, or make me come back and discuss. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parlett's sites

Parlett describes his Historic Games pages thus: "These pages, covering timeless classics and treasures now forgotten, present (a) histories of classic games such as Poker and Euchre and (b) details of historic games, such as Gleek and Quadrille, that are now only museum pieces. [...] Some of the descriptions first appeared in my Oxford Guide to Card Games (1990, republished as A History of Card Games in 1991), but I've since been revising them in the light of further research and discoveries." That is, they are in part based upon, and in part supplementary to, a RS that he himself wrote. To me, this argues for these pages being reliable themselves. Obviously they have gone through none of the review that a book published by Oxford University Press would (but how many statements of fact did that review really alter?). On Parlett's Skat pages: Parlett is founder and current President of the British Skat Association. Phil wink (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that meets WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Parlett is another recognised expert in the field. For example, he advises film and TV companies on the correct portrayal of historical card games. The descriptions of individual games on his website also lists his sources clearly and professionally. Bermicourt (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

salondesjeux.fr

I'd like to propose Philippe Lalanne's salondesjeux.fr website as a RS for historical French card and tables games. Not only is he referred to as an authority by McLeod, but he meticulously cites his sources for his information. I have looked up many of them (mostly online too) and they check out. Bermicourt (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical game compendia and treatises

I have lists of historical references of games compendia and treatises on individual games in English (both American and British sources), French, German and the Scandinavian languages, many of them available online. There are probably two or three hundred of them. I'm very happy to list them here but they would swamp this page. Perhaps they could each be listed on a separate page and linked from the main one? Bermicourt (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

reich-der-spiele

I believe that in discussions (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeoneer (game) and Talk:Dungeoneer (game)) User:VickKiang thinks this site (https://www.reich-der-spiele.de/) is reliable, I concur with his analysis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, generally to marginally reliable, but needing more reliable secondary refs if possible.VickKiang (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

jedisjeux.net

I believe that in discussions (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeoneer (game) and Talk:Dungeoneer (game)) User:VickKiang thinks this site (https://www.jedisjeux.net/) is NOT reliable, I concur with his analysis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

esensja.pl

Link. This is an old Polish geek (sf, fantasy, horror, games) zine: pl:Esensja (est. 2000). It sometimes publisher board games reviews too. It has an editorial team ([5]). It won a bunch of awards, or was positively reviewed in its first years of existence (their award/mentions page seems to to have been updated since 2004/2005 or so, https://esensja.pl/_redakcja/info/tekst.html?id=1297 ). They are obviously notable (based on said mentions, the pl wiki article is meh). For example, in 2003 Polish sf/fantasy magazine Nowa Fantastyka, considered reliable, wrote about them that "I don't think I have to introduce "Essence" to anyone - it is one of the best Internet magazines in terms of content." The are open to submissions but those are presumably reviewed according to criteria listed here: https://esensja.pl/_redakcja/info/tekst.html?id=1315 _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

gameby.pl

This is a minor Polish portal (about gameby, reliability is borderline IMHO, it's a minor website (they call themselves a blog, but have a team of dozen or so, so really, it's borderline with regards to what distinguish a blog from a non-blog zine or such these days). They have unclear editorial policies (i.e. they don't talk about fact checking, but claim they are professional, buzzword etc.), they also admit elsewhere they publish "promotional articles"; those are tagged and listed here but don't appear to be indicated as such in the article itself. Now that I wrote so much I'll toss this to WP:BGRS talk page... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I know this's harsh, but I'd say it's generally unreliable, at best marginally reliable. The about us page is sketchy without any editorial policies. Second, its article seem to be poorly written (might be because translate issues, as I assume you speak Polish, what do you think of the prose? Many thanks!), such as this. For example, I don't know what else, I can say about a party game that I like in my company. Times up is a well-known and successful game where you need to know passwords, describe them accurately and have a good memory. Play puns on steroids and have fun with Times Up, which I recommend for any occasion. I like. This doesn't look like the staff are professional. Plus, I searched up the editor Kamil Wilk, listed here, and he didn't appear in any RS. Anyway, their reviews are positively biased and promotional. Looking at this, the Klask review, and this, they are very positive, and maybe a bit too much (of course, this is my speculation). But given a) no editorial policies + sketchy about us page, b) editors not appearing in RS or seem qualified and c) poor prose, I'm not convinced on that this is an RS. If you disagree, let's discuss, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Looking at their current website, all recent articles appear promotional. Maybe they tried harder before, but as you note, it was never good enough, and now they are even worse. I'd say marginally reliable at best, and probably not at all. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

www.gamesfanatic.pl

This one may be more reliable (about). Est. in 2004, calls itself the oldest and biggest Polish board and tabletop games portal. It Awards the Gra Roku award (separate official website, BGG page 1, BGG page 2, pl:Gra Roku, which I can confirm (as a Polish board gamer) that it has some visibility (it's commonly featured on Polish editions of winners/nominated games, for example). This is their list of current and past authors. They invite people to send them an email if you want to join their team, they do not discuss fact checking, and they do admit they started as a blog. They have a very big website, with hundreds/thousands of reviews, numerous essays (on game design, on history of Polish board games, etc.), they are big enough they are co-sponsoring some events in Poland, etc. PS. Past name/domain https://www.gry-planszowe.pl/ (now redirects to gamesfanatic forum). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Świat Gier Planszowych

pl:Świat Gier Planszowych. Defunct Polish magazine about board games (lasted from 2007 to 2013). Probably reliable as it falls under the magazine (with editorial team, etc.). Here's their about from 2013 (their website is now offline): [6], team. I was able to find some archival content at [7] (links to first 15 issue at https://www.gry-planszowe.pl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=19268&p=1489512#p1489512 ), table of contens for other issues are in the IA at previous links. PS. With some effort, it would be possible to create a list of games reviewed by them. Complicating factor is that many game titles are translated to Polish. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More on Pyramid and associated publications

See here. It seems that content from 1998 to 2008 is poorly digitized and currently not available. Does anyone have acesso the stuff mentioned there? Ping User:BOZ. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RPGNet

User:VickKiang recently said: "I also rm the RPG Net ref, it's like an user generated site without any editorial policies". I have also been under the impression that that site's reviews are just forum posts, like in BGG, with little control (that said, on BGG, where I have written some reviews, there is a process of mod acceptance, and low quality reviews are rejected). Anyway, we probably should discuss BGG forum reviews in a separate thread, but for now, I note that RPGNet reviews are used about ~100 articles and they may need removing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's a very poor, dated site, with no editorial policies whatsoever, and support its rm and listing as generally unreliable. It's similar in Board Game Geek, and it could be argued that there's a Geekmod for the latter, though the standards are very low, and there's no fact checking, the low quality reviews have to be very, very poor to be rejected. So IMHO all BGG user reviews are generally unreliable or maybe even worthy of deprecation, but I don't think the BGG site should be said as so, the rankings are probably marginally reliable, whereas IMO the Golden Geek ones are generally reliable and should be included, but whether these contribute to GNG needs another discussion. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Artstation an RS?

@Piotrus: @Blue Pumpkin Pie: @BOZ: Artstation is used in Scythe (board game). Is it RS (IMHO probably no, but it's branded as a magazine)? VickKiang (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm: https://magazine.artstation.com/ I can't find information about it. The main website is a portfolio host; it has a seprate bolog section. The Scythe article is credited to a writer but there's no bio of her ([8]). Google doesn't return anything useful, there are many people with this name. Given we can't confirm editorial oversight etc. I'd say unreliable. Second opinion at WP:RSN could be asked for, not sure if anyone else will comment here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Online website for The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction

@Piotrus: @BOZ: This is an online version of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which won a Hugo Award. Editorial standards seems very good, about us page has loads of entries on editorial policies. I've used it for The Resistance (game) and Coup (game). Given that it won a prestigious award and has policies, I am quite sure it's a RS, should we list it as reliable? Pinging Piotrus and BOZ. VickKiang (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://sf-encyclopedia.com/ ? Of course. I use it a lot for my sf articles. I do admit I am surprised they cover some board games, in particular, The Resistance and Coup, which are not very SF-related, IMHO (as in, it's just a theme, they could have been fantasy or whatever themed). https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/board_game does make for an interesting reading, nice find. There is also https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/card_game , https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/gateway_game , https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/role_playing_game , https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/wargame ... huh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll add it soon to the page! VickKiang (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly! I have used this for articles as well. BOZ (talk) 03:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Menendian

From Talk:Magic: The Gathering rules#August 2022:

@Mindmatrix: Thoughts on whether this is a reliable source? Even if it's self-published, it seems to meet when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, assuming that claim that [he] has written nearly 500 strategy articles for [...] Inquest Magazine, which I haven't tried to check, is true. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

After a quick skim, I would say it marginally satisfies the criteria assuming the claims are true (I checked a few issues of Inquest from the early 2000s - issues 79, 80, and 88; none of the article were written by him) and that not most of his articles are on primary sources (he lists magicthegathering.com and starcitygames.com as 'media' for which he has written). You may want to get a second opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources. Mind matrix 20:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Wargames Illustrated

What do you guys think about the reliability of Wargames Illustrated? According to the wiki page, it has 'both paper and digital editions and maintains editorial, design and administrative staff in Nottingham, England.' It seems to have been running since the 1980s. If reliable, could we add it onto the list? Keeper of the Queen's Corgis (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. It's been around for ages, has significant distribution, and it's a proper company. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tor.com, Techraptor, Player Elimination, Space-Biff, Senet

Tor.com: I think this should be situational; board games are outside its area of expertise. Unless the article's written by someone who's published in something reliable, I don't think it's really reliable.
Techraptor: Has a big About Us page [9] with plenty of information on their staff and guidelines. It seems reasonable to call it a reliable source.
Player Elimination: Self-published, but WP:RSSELF states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Theel has been published by Polygon[10], Dicebreaker[11], Ars Technica[12], all listed green on this page, plus MSN[13] and IGN India[14].
Space-Biff: same rationale as above. Thurot has been published in Dicebreaker[15] (green on this page) and Senet[16]. Perhaps it should only be reliable for posts from after the Dicebreaker post.
Senet: Looks like it should be reliable, and the editor is an established journalist[17], but there's no information about the team or guidelines online. Has anyone bought a copy?

CohenTheBohemian (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another writer per RS:SELF; Thomas Wells, mostly at Meeple Mountain ([18]). That's listed as unreliable, but Wells has also been published at Dicebreaker ([19], [20]) so work after March 2020 seems to fit the guidelines. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Analog Game Studies

Any opinions on Analog Game Studies ([21])? Seems to be a very plentiful resource of journal articles about board games, written and edited mostly by those with PhDs. JamJamSvn (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a proper academic journal with an editorial policy. Stanford University [22] recommended it on their website and it used to be affiliated with Carnegie Mellon [23]. Seems to fit.

CohenTheBohemian (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Times - how to access

Not sure who else cares outside me (since this is in Polish) but it is a good source for board game reviews from c. 2007 to 2019; unfortunately in some cases names were localized so a simple search may not find a source despite a rough table of contents being searchable online. Best - ping me if you need help:

The official catalogue page is down, but it can be seen from IA: https://web.archive.org/web/20220814110606/https://www.rebel.pl/rebel-times/147-grudzien-2019.html

The files can be access directly by modifying URL at https://www.rebel.pl/repository/files/rebel-times/Rebel-Times-126.pdf or from IA. Some links in IA are broken but the files live at web (pdfs) seem to work. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]