Talk:Tornado (1993 video game)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tornado box.jpg

Image:Tornado box.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is 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 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

DS Game

There is a DS game called Tornado as well. Here is the Amazon page. agahnim 19:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

2016 re-release

Has there been any sort of official announcement of the upcoming re-release? Or do we only have a rumor from a fan forum? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Magazine citations

Please note that I have removed the |url= params in the magazine citations. The magazine itself is a reliable source. If copies can be found from a reliable online source, like from the publisher or a well-established archive (i.e., not purportedly scanned pages uploaded to a personal blog), please link to them. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Not helpful removal of mirrors for sources for readers due to misinterpreted / excessive applied "reliability" criteria. Shaddim (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Shaddim: Actually, the requirement for reliable sources does apply to mirrors—see this helpdesk discussion. And since you appear to be the only established Wikipedia editor to hold the view that our standards for sources are unreasonably high, you’ll forgive me if I dismiss it as a fringe view. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

First response on your question by an established editor was "go for it" ("I do not see why not."), other responses mentioned their "stomach" ...so to call a position in this not clearly decided situation for WP, a "fringe" position is a stretch by you. Please cite policies which forbid mirrors, to the contrary, they are encouraged by our "verfiability" goal. Shaddim (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Shaddim: Sorry, maybe I should have been more clear: I was referring to the discussion about scanned magazine pages, which was not the original topic of that discussion. It shows a consensus that images hosted by unreliable websites, with no guarantee that it’s even a real scan, are not reliable sources. (Contrast this with websites like Wayback Machine or Google Books which have built a reputation for faithfully preserving the source material—which is why they’re considered reliable.)

Complaining that something is unreasonable or excessive is meaningless when you’re the only one saying it. If you believe there is a wide consensus that links to unofficial, self-published scans of print sources are acceptable, then please prove it—start a centralized discussion about it, or provide a link to a past discussion that shows such a consensus. So far, we only have the one I’ve offered that came down against such links, and I’ve seen nothing in policy or other discussion in favor of them. If you don’t think your fellow editors would agree with you, we’re done here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, there was no mention of “stomach” in that whole archive page. If you meant “gut feeling,” that was in the very same response as “I do not see why not.” Which, again, was before the topic of scanned images came up. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added {{Verify source}} ({{vs}}) to these sources. If you have access to physical copies of these magazine issues, or a reliable representation thereof (i.e., not ostensibly scanned pages hosted on some bloke’s personal website), please verify the information and remove these tags.

Also, can we look at rewriting this section? I thought what was considered best practice was to discuss how each aspect of the subject was received by different publications, rather than to treat each publication separately. Or are there any FAs that do the latter? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I shall post the style question to WP:HD. This link should work in a moment: WP:HD#“Reception” section best practices (edit: archived). But if there’s someplace more appropriate for that discussion, please let me know and I’ll move it there. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The only answer, so far at least, from User:NinjaRobotPirate, says that speaking more generally is preferred when possible, but it’s a matter for local consensus. So my request stands, but not urgently. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

WT:VG is usually a much better forum to ask. I don't recall a FA going source-by-source rather than grouping sources by attribute under discussion, but that doesn't preclude a source from doing so. There is a whole lot more editing to get this article to a reasonable place before that's even a discussion, honestly. Is the original author of these magazine quotes able to provide the citation?  czar 21:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Fair use scans of the magazine reviews are online here. I also emailed the user who added the reviews to the article (frankiekam) in case a better copy is available. Feel free to verify to your heart's content czar 21:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

And here they are on Frankie's fansite czar 00:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)