This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Support They are the same magazine, with only the name and design differing. Do magazines need new articles when they get a format change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Support Now that Games for Windows has been folded into the 1UP website and ceased production of the print magazine, this issue should be revisited. Computer Gaming World lasted 25 years, Games for Windows a year and a half. Despite having different names, it was the same magazine. They were not seperate entities, nothing changed but the title and a few extra pages of Microsoft sponsored ads. Two separate articles are unnecessary. Two extra sections can be added to the CGW article, one for the GFW name change, one for the cancellation. - (Satertek (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC))
Oppose Although they are the same magazine in spirit, they are completely different and one of the articles would be undermined by the other. Userpie 01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose They are not the same magazine with just different names, they are different entities. Keep them separate. -- Grandpafootsoldier 00:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose As others have stated, they're not the same, quite simply. Same staff, same company, different magazine. Just by looking at both it's obvious. Enfestid 05:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose They're related, but different incarnations. They deserve separate articles. - MSTCrow 22:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose They are not the same magazine. They deserve separate articles. Balok 00:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose It deserves a separate articles. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose A different magazine. patsw (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose They're flat out not the same magazine. Just because they're related and from the same company doesn't mean they're the same thing. This certainly deserves its own article. Brianreading (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)