To leave a new message on my talk page, click here.
Discussion archive
This is an archive of past discussions about User:S@bre. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Like most things on Wikipedia, I'd say the existence depends on the notability/coverage of the topic. But given how prominent some series are, this shouldn't be a problem. They can also be good for lesser known parts of a series. For example, there was not enough real-world info on the Kingdom Hearts manga. So we used List of Kingdom Hearts media to showcase them, instead of having a Start-class manga article. An appropriate page for details also helped keep the printed adaptations section in the series article short.
Making a StarCraft list sounds like a good idea. Personally, I don't know why we don't have FLs for all the major series already. Some of them are on my ever growing list of things to do, but who knows when I'll make the time for them. :-\
As far as the writing draft goes, I'm not sure what's going to happen with it. My time on here is so erratic, I end up hoping around from goal to goal, sometimes leaving things undone. I'd like something to come out of it, but I'm hesitant to just move it without some kind of consensus on a finished version. Also, I'm not sure what would be an appropriate title under the VG namespace. It would probably be a good idea to bring this up again on WT:VG after Version 0.7 is done. (Guyinblack25talk16:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC))
Thanks for the praise :) List of Halo media and List of Kingdom Hearts media are roughly the models that should be followed. The featured list process is big on models for lists because so many lists have a similar structure, and consistency is generally considered a good thing. As for whether other video game franchises should have media lists, it depends on the size of the franchise. Generally, a list needs ten or more items before it can pass at WP:FLC, and a media list would often only have this many items in a decently large franchise. In any case, if you need any help on the StarCraft media list, give me a holler. —sephiroth bcr(converse)04:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
hl settings
I think you can go ahead and move the HL settings page to main space and start the merging discussions for it (Based on the WP:VG talk thread). Make sure to announce the merge at the WP:VG talk page, as I'm pretty sure that its going to be compounded by those that want to keep full articles. --MASEM21:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
39 of 393 articles have been prepared and submitted. Come help us prepare more at the workshop page.
Feature: Wikipedia 0.7
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of articles taken from the English version of Wikipedia, compiled by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is designed for a DVD release, and the selection was put together using a Selection Bot, based on the quality and importance assigned by WikiProjects.
The Video games Project and its daughter projects have multiple articles among the selection and are currently working on cleaning up the articles to improve their presentation. A workshop page has been set up that is designed to assist and coordinate the effort. The status of and recommendations for articles is listed on the table. Discussion about which articles should be kept and removed from the list have been taking place on the talk page.
If you have assisted in working on and improving a current Featured article, Good article, or A-Class article, please check the workshop page to see if the article is recommended for inclusion.
Articles will need an id version submitted to ensure it is included. They will also need to be cleaned up if maintenance tags and other issues are present. Participation is not restricted, and if you can assist with the preparation effort, it would be greatly appreciated.
Things to remember for preparation
The workshop page has a notes section for each article. Clean up suggestions have been left for some articles.
Do a light sweep of the article to address any vandalism andclean up tags: citation needed, more references, lengthy plot, etc.
If you need help with an article, post on the talk page.
Hmm, this List of StarCraft media seems eerily familiar... but why? :P By the way, I just realized I never posted a response to that image request a while back (I was going to post but Wikipedia crapped out on me and I forgot all about it.) Anyway, I couldn't really get a nice version of the logo, because of the outer glow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)21:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Concerned FAC
Yeah, it took me a little by surprise too, but it was all for the best in the end. At least for me. I didn't really like being under the pressure of a deadline, and now I have enough time to do it properly. I'll get working on it soon, and I hope it'll do better next time. :) Diego_pmcTalk17:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Good luck with Ghost. BTW, I think I figured out why there are so few featured articles; the GA process takes so long! No one has even started reviewing my article yet. Lawls. The Clawed One (talk)
I'm going to be taking the article to FAC today or tomorrow. Do you have the time to dedicate to an FAC, or should I go forward with this alone? Cheers! GaryKing (talk)15:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Great! Mind sticking around for at least a few minutes, maybe even an hour, and we can quickly brush up on the article by doing some copyediting? I'm also on IRC if you are able to get on, so we can have some real-time communication. I'll nominate the article later in the day after giving it a few more sweeps for any issues. GaryKing (talk)15:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Info on Wikipedia's IRC can be found at WP:IRC; it's probably more trouble than it's worth at the moment considering the article is fairly good right now. I'll go through it a few more times before submitting it. GaryKing (talk)16:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Automatically gets promoted. It hasn't happened before so ours would be the first. I've submitted the article to FAC – the notification todo list at WP:VG should be updated and perhaps WT:VG notified. GaryKing (talk)18:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I used to be like that too (or, I guess I still am!) You can just check my history of video game FAC nominations that have failed in the past; sigh! GaryKing (talk)21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
FAC regulars usually stay away from video game articles, partly because video game FACs have a bad reputation of being poorly written... GaryKing (talk)20:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you improve the image caption in the Synopsis section to make it more useful, to show that the image is needed in the article? I'm not sure of the context etc. of that particular screenshot so I can't really help there; otherwise, we should just remove it. GaryKing (talk)16:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay it looks good. We'll see how that goes. Images are a huge problem because we can't use copyrighted images unless we have a really good reason. Also, phew, I gotta wipe the sweat from my brow. The FAC is going better than I would have thought – so far! We'll see how it ends. GaryKing (talk)16:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
← I think it's fine as it is. Someone else suggested it to me because otherwise it seemed like the game was still under development. The word is concise and carries the message across nicely. GaryKing (talk)19:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I have more links to add :). I will adding links that can help you in StarCraft 2. Also can you help with FarCry 2?. There is so much information to add and iam finding it hard time where to put those information. Let me know if you need help. Iam at your service. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
your changes to Starcraft article
You changed back the date that I corrected - making it inconsistent with other dates in the article. If you insist on having an "international format" (which would be ISO 8601 - the only international date format that I know of - which it isn't) then please at least do it with all of the dates in the article to keep it consistent. Also, the game engine is not Warcraft II. At the very least call it a modified Warcraft II engine because Starcraft engine is indeed based on that of Warcraft II but it was rewritten to give the game developers features that were impossible to implement on the Warcraft II engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.214 (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: ghost FAC
You're more than welcome to argue with my comments on the article. You could well be right: I tend not to stray into FAC discussions very much since I am skeptical about my own ability to judge other people's work. Why don't you post the message you left on my talk page in the FAC discussion itself? I don't really see any point in arguing about a FAC on user talk pages. I actually appreciate bluntness if I've said something silly. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-9 01:08
That looks good, it provides some context for why they decided to suspend development. Integrate that source into the article and I'll stop being a nuisance. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-9 01:48
Portal Prelude
Hey i have created that article and this user named Masem wants to delete the article. Seriously i don't understand his point. That mod has got lot of attention from Valve and many users. I even added two notable and reliable source added there. Could you look into it?.--SkyWalker (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if you know, but I wrote a GA review of Doom 3, which you nominated. I passed it as a GA, so I hope you find some happiness in that. Bye. Tezkag72 (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Re:Empire
Good work, I have watchlisted and been looking it often. Well iam not worried about fans getting angry with faction list but they should be a better way of presenting things. There is not much info on multiplayer CA said that the coverage would be available by end of this year. For development the links would do and plus they are videos that explains a lot about ETW and don't forget to add loads of information of naval combat. It is pretty important for E:TW. Overall good job. Looking forward seeing this article being GA and later FA. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Creative Assembly is not known for canceling video games unlike Blizzard who knows they may cancel StarCraft II :P. This is the first Total Wars series iam hyped up. Especially the naval is what iam looking forward most. Btw your userpage says you are modder. Have you done any projects?.--SkyWalker (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey bud, Sorry for the late message. It is about time there is American faction and mission like Revolution in the game. I learned a lot about history games such has this. Though i wish they will be a remake of Shogun. It is nice to speak with another modder. Do you want to get into video games industry?.--SkyWalker (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Overdoing it with the pace on HL2 articles
Putting both Lost Coast and HL2 Survivor up for GAN when they clearly don't meet the critera will look to others like a really hasty move on your part just to try to get another leaf in your FT crown as quickly as possible to others, even if I know that your intentions are good. If I was to review either one at the moment, I'd fail them fairly quickly because of the gaping holes in comprehensive coverage, no matter how well copyeditted the existing prose is. I'm slightly surprised Prontok hasn't done that, since his review essentially asked for a complete rethink to approaching the article. Slow down a bit, there's no reason to hurry things along. Do some research into the background, development, third-party coverage (particularly important on Lost Coast, as actual reviews don't seem to be abundant, although third-party coverage certainly is there) and reception. Take your time on it to properly flesh out the articles, otherwise its just looks like your rushing through it for the sake of the FT. I'm sure you'll agree that in the scale of things on Wikipedia, having decently done articles is a lot more valuable than a box containing a list of links with gold stars and green crosses in it. I'm going to start researching sources for Blue Shift tomorrow as the preliminary to a rewrite; I'd still advise waiting until a full HL series topic becomes possible, but I'll leave the ball in your court as to whether you want to stay your hand or push onwards with this HL2 topic. -- Sabre (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, at the time that I submitted both to GAN, I thought they were both comprehensive. There is particularly little information to be found online for Survivor, but I'll keep looking. After Protonk's review, I realize that there's a lot missing now; I will probably eventually just bring the articles to FAC. Perhaps we should work on the same articles together so we can complete the HL2 topic sooner? GaryKing (talk)02:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
To be fair I'd say it was common sense to include the text in an infobox no matter what the image is, for example if album or game artwork has the title clearly printed on the cover the title text should still be placed in the infobox. Also, it states here: "Where possible, any charts or diagrams should have a text equivalent, or should be well-described so that users who can't see the image can gain some understanding of the concept." While not specific to this issue it shows the wiki's general view on the matter. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images as text also suggests textual information should not be displayed as an image, again while not specific, it suggests text should be a priority. As you say it's in the lead and article title, but it kinda defeats the point of an infobox when it lacks the rather important information of the name if for some reason you can't see the image. Even if the bulk of users can see it why should be discriminate those that can't just because it looks nicer? Rehevkor✉00:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Bits and bobs
I plan on getting to Episode One either today or tomorrow. It's been a busy week. To give you an idea, I haven't actually worked on any new content additions in the past week; it's all been copyediting and cleaning up work. And yeah, I'd still like to work on those HL2 articles. Gary King (talk)18:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Good. After GA then FA :P?. :). Btw have you see this link. It is talking about Special Forces Edition. I was wondering what is it about. Should that be added in article?. Btw i don't know why JzG is removing all WorthPlaying sites from all the gaming articles.--SkyWalker (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems Worthplaying has been deemed an unreliable source, but this Special Forces thing is just some addon to the special edition version of the game: nothing really worth noting. -- Sabre (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Did not see this reply. Still i don't understand how WorthPlaying is unreliable?. They have conducted lot of previews, interviews by various companies. Starting to get frustrating. Btw iam doing my best to source Empire: Total War. Some of those information are found in video and sadly videos can not be used has source. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about the rest of the list; I'm not familiar with these types of lists. I mostly work on business-related and music-related lists. Gary King (talk)22:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
For some time now, the Video games project and the Military history project have been cross listing their articles undergoing peer review in an effort to improve the quality of articles, as well as the copy editing skills of editors. The idea was first proposed by User:Krator as a way to better prepare articles for Featured article candidacy. After being approved by both projects, the idea was implemented under a trial period, and eventually approved as a standard practice.
New, cross listed military history articles are announced on the Video games project talk page, and listed on the Video games Peer review page under a special section. Video game editors are encouraged to leave any type of comments that come to mind. If you don't know anything about military history, that's perfectly fine because that's the point. An editor lacking knowledge about the particular topic can provide a helpful point of view as a general reader—the intended audience.
A peer review process such as this will not work if editors do not give as well as take.
Peer reviews are meant to examine not just the prose, but the sources and images used in the article.
Feedback can range from brief comments after skimming through a page to a full blown dissection of grammar, structure, and references. Either way, every bit helps.
Reviewing another editor's article can help sharpen your writing skills, which in turn can improve the articles you write.
Yup, that's what I meant. Sorry, if I didn't make sense, just that its a habit in me mentioning it in GA reviews. :) But yeah, that's what I meant. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)23:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, I'll go check the article right now. No worries, I read the article twice, just to be sure, and that's all I could come up with. There were some instances where I did question some stuff, but looking at other GA video game characters, my questions were answered an instance. ;) If you would like to aim the article to FA status, may I suggest you open a peer review first, in case I missed anything and to be sure. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)23:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Gravity gun
Just in case if you didn't see my reply on my talk page; I'm at college and the magazine is back home, so I might not be able to get to it until this weekend, but it's also my birthday this weekend (why I am heading home), so I don't know how my time will be. I do have a stack of video game magazines and would be happy to go through them when I can. In any event, if you look at the results of this search, you'll see lots of references in reviews even from Washington Post, USA Today, BBC, etc. with out of universe comments that assert notability for a reception sections. Conisder for example CNN's claim that "The gravity gun, a "Half-Life 2" fan favorite, is back in "Episode One," and re-establishes itself as one of the best weapons ever invented for a computer..." which I believe suggests notability, i.e. CNN, a reliable third party source, calls it one of "the best", which is clearly a sign of notability. Now if you do a Google Books search using the same parameters, you'll find comments like "Half-Life 2 's Gravity Gun is particularly elegant, as it solves interaction and the problem of physics objects getting in the way in a manner that improves..." from a book on game design that could be used again in a reception or development section. Best, --A NobodyMy talk02:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Electronic Gaming Monthly describes Half-Lufe 2’s Gravity Gun as the "thinking man's death tool, this weapon let you toy with gravity to kill foes with everyday objects." Call of Duty series military advisor Hank Keirsey says that the weapon his not very practical. He does, however, discuss its historical precedents: "The ancients learned very early how to use gravity to their advantage--but this usually involved rolling rocks down hills or pouring boiling oil down the castle walls. Those that failed to respect gravity suffered. For example, the guys that based their plan of attack on rolling rocks up hills--Google Sisyphus: That's a name of a guy, not the disease of your college classmate--or pouring the boiling up the wall." The gaming magazine gives the weapon a lethality level of 2.[1]
^Electronic Gaming Monthly features seven notable video game weapons and for each of them divides the profiles into sections headed as "The Gun," "Keirsey says...Practicality," "Historical precedents," and "Lethality level." See Evan Shamoon, "Gun Show: A real military expert takes aim at videogame weaponry to reveal the good, the bad, and the just plain silly," Electronic Gaming Monthly 230 (July 2008): 49.
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Left 4 Dead Revised Cast.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Left 4 Dead Revised Cast.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message and your suggestions. I've played Starcraft for a long time, so I shouldn't have any problems helping out. I'll have good time this weekend, so I'll let you, as well as the project talkpage know of my progress or any questions I might have. Again, thank you. I'll start as soon as I can. ~Beano~ (talk)(contribs)23:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Alright, either way is fine for me. I misinterpreted your message and thought that you planned on building that into its own topic. Gary King (talk)00:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, I guess I see what kind of topic you are building. Could you perhaps build a topic box so I know exactly which articles you plan on including? Gary King (talk)01:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice job with finding information for the Development sections. I find those the most difficult, especially for older games. Do you have any specific tips on finding that stuff? Gary King (talk)21:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that lengthy response! I'm definitely going to continue to refer to it after it is archived; it will come in handy. Gary King (talk)03:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I might have to agree with you. I would like to create some additional sections in the StarCraft: The Board Game with strategies and gameplay scenarios, but there are no sources out there that I can find to help back it up. Where would you (if it all came down to it) merge the board game page into? Oh and, I tried looking up sources for the MPQ file structure for Blizzard Games without success. I'll check for more later today. ~Beano~ (talk)(contribs)00:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Didn't find anything using Google, so I went and checked to see if it appeared in any of NPD Group's weekly or monthly top 10 PC sales charts via GameSpot and that yielded nothing. [1][2] Currently, I can't think of where else to look. --Silver Edge (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Short answer: depends. The image I uploaded is not free, I just tagged it as such until I made up a fair use template (and then I forgot about it, so thanks for reminding me.) Whether or not an image containing a copyrighted work can be considered free or not depends on the purpose. Does the image show a copyrighted item for the purpose of a copyrighted item? If so, it's not free, it's a derivative work (such as the video game box setups, et al). I suppose you could get around that by trying to frame the shots so that the copyrighted items are technically not the subject of the article, but that's pretty hard to do without cluttering up the shot or making it unintelligible at small sizes (an example is a free shot of a celebrity in which the celebrity is wearing a bart simpson tshirt.). [signpost dispatch] makes it pretty clear. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)01:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Reception will be interesting for this because it's not a game as much as it is a technology demo. But, I'll see what I can find. Gary King (talk)17:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest adding it; I'd like to see it. We can decide which image of the ones we have to keep after we see all of them at the same time together. Gary King (talk)15:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Mind if I nominate the article for GAN now? Someone I know wants to review it. Also, I plan on taking it to FAC, so we're not done here yet, anyways. Gary King (talk)16:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Great job on the article. I'm going to continue working on it for FAC. Mind if I submit the Half-Life 2 topic now, since I submitted it last time, it failed, and so now I think it's finally a legitimate topic? Also, how long do you suppose the entire Half-Life topic will be done? There's one left at GAN, and then we gotta do the main article which will probably require the most work considering it's up to us to decide how much focus to put on each game. One more FA will also be required, which Lost Coast can be. Gary King (talk)21:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay; in the meantime, I will work on Lost Coast and bring it to FAC soon. Watch my edits on there just in case I make a mistake :) Gary King (talk)00:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
As you can see, there's just some minor prose issues. The one major thing I'm worried about is if the Development section might be considered too technical for a general audience. Gary King (talk)00:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
However, I suppose we're given more leeway considering that the level is ultimately a technology demo, so it's expected to be more technical than a regular game. Gary King (talk)00:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
You and Gary have to take another look at this article, it is basically a stub with a GA star, it could be a problem if you decide to go for your featured topic in this condition. It mainly needs some reception information, but a general expansion is called for if at all possible. Amazing work! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, I've restored the above category and its contents since a user complained that it's contents had been manually emptied and then the category had been deleted by an admin out-of-process after you had begun the CfD proposing deletion. The CfD has been reopened and will continue for at least 5 days from opening, when it will be closed. Please leave the contents of the category intact until closure, when they will be moved as consensus dictates. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Good Ol’factory(talk)04:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sabre, I came here to leave you a note to let you know about the CFD being re-opened, but I see that Good Ol’factory beat me to it. Just so you understand, the rules pertaining to deletion, merging, or renaming of categories were developed to ensure that a fair and transparent process takes place. Even if the proposal seems absolutely obvious to you (or any other editor), it may not be so obvious to other editors. You did the right thing by taking this category to CFD -- but you may not have noticed that right there on the CFD notice it says: "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." (which also means "don't empty the category before" the CFD)
The problem was compounded when Bjweeks ignored the rules and summarily closed the CFD & deleted the category, before the CFD had run for 5 days as required. I think that may have given you the mistaken impression that it wasn't necessary to go through CFD to get a category renamed -- as was done with Category:Half-Life screenshots. Btw, you might want to look at the note I left for BJ on his talk page, which also covers this subject. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a note at my talk page. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I would not call it merge as the entire articale is basically removed, including all the trivia about the name, categorization (i.e. Fictional prisons), etc.. What's the point, trying to save space? Ppl worked hard to provide all that info, and it's gone in one swift because (no reason given)? This is not right.Andru nl (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Article importance is an assessment of a topic's importance in understanding a specific higher level topic. Assessments are maintained by WikiProjects and reflect the project's view of what is essential to understanding their scope. In the VG Project's case, all importance scales are in terms of understanding video games.
Recent discussions at the VG Project's talk page have called for revisions to the practice of assigning article importance. The discussion began in mid-November with the goal of clarifying what level of importance should be assigned to certain type of articles. It eventually expanded to creating a standardized table of importance to serve as a guide for current and future editors.
The discussion has focused on and shifted to several topics including flaws of previous practices, new ways to view assessment, other project practices to emulate, and specific articles which are exceptions to proposed guidelines. A brief pole and discussion determined most editors felt that the bulk of some topics—specifically individual video game, series, and character articles—were not essential to understanding video games, making them ineligible for top importance. The discussion then shifted to tweaking the wording and layout of the table.
The current proposed table is being discussed on the project's talk page, and the issue of whether some topics—specifically character articles—should be allowed to be rated importance has also been brought up. As always, member are encouraged to voice their opinions and engage in discussion to determine consensus so the new assessment scale can be implemented.
Hello Sabre, you've done an excellent job with this article, it's giving me a good overview of them as a whole. Rather than mess up the talk page I'll drop a few observations here.
In the lead: "the characters occupy a parody of American popular culture" I'm no wordsmith but I don't associate parody with something that can be occupied, would something along the lines of 'occupy a universe that parodies' or something to that effect be an alternative?
Under comics: "to accompany Moncuse's own Fish Police series." does this mean it was to be published in a Fish Police comic, or published alongside it by Fishwrap Productions?
Directly after: "The comic established many of the key features for the later comics; the main story of the comic" there's three instances of comic in the same sentence, could do with some substitutes.
Next paragraph: "featuring the Freelance Police fighting pyramid-building aliens in Ancient Egypt", "The Kids Take Over annd Belly Of The Beast."
Under the game section: "Sam and Max first appeared as video game characters in internal testing material for SCUMM engine programmers recently employed by LucasArts" No date has been supplied for the 'recently' to hang on, when was this?
Under music: "This music is mostly grounded in film noir jazz, but often incorporates various other styles at certain points" the second part of this sentence is a little wordy, "incorporating various other styles" would say the same thing.
Under Max's section in characters: "although he's not above committing excessive violence on his friend" would 'using' not work a little better than 'committing'? Though I'm fairly sure it's technically correct usage it doesn't quite sit right, if you see what I mean.
Hi S@bre, I hope you'll forgive the rambling I'm about to do, but I think it will be more helpful than just referring you solely to Commons policies/guidelines or legal documents. Here's a very simplified (ignoring certain caveats) overview:
Generally speaking, whenever someone takes a photo of a man made object (in copyright speak, "work of authorship"), that photo has two copyrights: 1) the photo itself and 2) the object being photographed. Such a photo is called a derivative work (i.e. it is derived from another work). In these cases, both copyrights need to be considered. In the case of the Sam & Max photo, the photo itself was indeed freely licensed (which is what the Flickr review was checking), but, because the photographer does not have rights to the object(s) being photographed (costume and stuffed animal), the creator of those objects would have to agree to the CC-by-SA 2.0 license for it to be valid. (Just as, for example, one couldn't photograph their computer screen while playing a video game and then license the resulting photo how ever they wish; they would need the publisher's permission).
The wrinkle in all of this is the concept in copyright law of a "useful article". Basically, objects with an intrinsic utilitarian function (like a car, chair, fork, etc.) cannot be copyrighted. Clothing is generally considered a useful article, which is why the mere tank tops, shorts, belts, etc. of commons:Category:Lara Croft are not a problem. In the Sam & Max case, however, the costume (perhaps distinct from mere clothing) may be beyond utilitarian function; the headgear/mask is particularly troublesome. Indeed, the US Copyright Office says the following: "In general, cases have not treated masks as useful articles, and, as a result, copyrightability can be supported by a mere finding of pictorial or sculptural authorship".
That said, this is a grey area of copyright law and something on which reasonable people can disagree. Commons has a precautionary policy which requires us to err on the side of caution, so I don't think that the deletion was entirely improper (although, personally, I would have nominated it for discussion). If you feel strongly that the image should be kept, you might want to nominate it at the undeletion requests page. I would, however, urge you to be careful with OTHERSTUFF arguments; the Commons has lots of "bad" images (commons:Category:Master Chief (Halo) probably has the same issues), so their presence doesn't necessarily support inclusion of this image. Never trust other images; each image should be evaluated on its own merits: for instance, a featured image uploaded in 2005 by a checkuser was recently (rightly) deleted as a copyvio. Everyone makes mistakes and/or misses things now and again. Эlcobbolatalk19:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lost Coast HDR comparison.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lost Coast HDR comparison.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You ready to work on the final article now, or want a bit more time before doing so? I'm feeling excited about it and would love to get it done. I'd like to wait for you, though, on this one in particular since you've got more experience working on series articles. Do you have an improved version of the article that's sandboxed, by any chance? Gary King (talk)04:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer just working directly in the article. The way we worked in both Ghost and Lost Coast went well, so we should do it the same way with this. Gary King (talk)18:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
For the series, do you have any references that might be useful, preferably ones that look at the entire series rather than just a single game? I'm going to look for some myself, too, but maybe you will have better luck finding some since you've written series articles before. Gary King (talk)21:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
You may or may not remember this issue...
A while ago, I brought this up on the WP:VG talk page, and duly reported the issue at the COI noticeboard and as you can see it went nowhere and got archived. Have requested help on the COI noticeboard talk, but no response as yet. Did I not report it correctly or is it not a COI issue or something? Yours confusedly, Mr T (Based) (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I have counseled other editors never to get another editor riled up, because they will do everything in their power to stop you. I got riled up recently too, and did exactly this. I should follow my own advice more often. Honey attracts bees better than vinegar.
Maybe I should have approached this merge discussion differently. No, I know I should have. I could have talked this through on your talk page first, and used less inflammatory language. I am sorry.
It may have seemed like I set up my case for unmerge also as a case against you. So now that I have the sources, it doesn't matter.
Is there anyway that both of us can save face and recreate these articles? I will refactor my comments to be less aggressive towards you. I apologize. travb (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}