# Talk:Lego Island

Hello @Cyberlink420,
I can understand your hesitance in removal of external link to the documentary, but your edit summary for removal is unfair. Per Wikipedia:VG/RS, there are included credible sources listed as solely youtubers/youtube channels that can be considered reliable sourcing.
While the youtuber who created this documentary, which is heavily detailed in the creation of LEGO Island, using primary interviews with development teams and citing sources from autobiographies of some members, I feel it is disingenuous to discredit the work as "random youtuber", especially since said youtuber is a primary lead in the decompilation and preservation of the original LEGO Island software, seeing as it was intended for hardware long since lost.
Per VG/RS, there is an incomplete, and therefore non-comprehensive, list of sources that have been evaluated. Per MOS, I know Wikipedia favors secondary sourcing and tries to minimize primary sourcing, but in the case of a documentary for a niche topic, that can be hard to come by, especially getting an aggregate or big source to cover a documentary for a very niche topic
Any meaningful time put into the background research of the "random youtuber", who is the director/writer/creator of the documentary, would prove otherwise, especially with his work regarding preservation of otherwise lost media. There could be an argument made that sure, he's like most content creators, the videos are made for monterary-value, but that shouldn't subtract from the nature and substance of the content created.
Finally, while this is long-winded and seemingly pointed, I just want an open forum for discussion of this topic, because at a niche level, sources like these are monumental to come by. Especially regarding VG/RS's incomplete nature regarding "accepted" sourcing. Thanks! ChemicalBear (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate the intent and willingness to actually discuss things, let me explain: I'm well aware of MattKC's contributions to the Lego Island scene. I've watched his videos and used his tools to get the game running on my machine; he does incredible work. But unfortunately, YouTube channels are generally considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards. Per VG/RS guidelines:
[YouTube is] User-generated content, so normally most content is inappropriate as a reliable source per WP:SELFPUB as well as often issues with copyright concerns. However, videos that are posted by sources who are confirmed as a reliable source listed on this page (such as IGN or Eurogamer), or as a reliable source in general for Wikipedia (such as CNN and BBC) are considered to be appropriate sources that can be used. Game developers' YouTube channels, such as Jon Burton ([1]) and Masahiro Sakurai ([2]), may be used as long as use aligns with Wikipedia's policy on primary sources. See {{cite video}} for appropriate citation templating. by virtue of being user-generated content, which we shy away from using in citations. Generally the only permissible channels are those tied to other reliable sources (Game Informer, GameSpot, etc.), or instances where they are a primary source (the developer's official channel, members of the dev teams' personal channels, etc.).
Yes, there are some YouTubers listed as credible secondary sourcing on VG/RS; However, those YouTubers have been put through a community discussion by the community to give them that status, and they are the exception, not the rule. In the case of this video, the archived interviews and autobiographies themselves would likely be preferred sources over the video resharing them. We also have to be a little picky about which sources to use on this page, or else we risk losing the "good article" status.
Again, I think the video is incredibly informative, and I would love to use it as a source, but I'm not the one who decides what is and isn't acceptable to cite on Wikipedia. If you're determined, I would suggest raising a discussion about it at the main video games Wikiproject to get more eyes on it. If you can get multiple regular editors to support its inclusion, I'm more than happy to restore it. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough! Glad to see another niche topic enjoyer! Again, no ill-will, just prefer to not let things die in darkness! Thanks ChemicalBear (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I've started a discussion here FYI, so you can follow along with the discussion that may/may not occur and such ChemicalBear (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)