Or they didn't have much to go by at the time. It's either Microsoft paid them to give the game good scores. I don't know why they changed their minds. Most reviewers actually don't like the game. Am I missing something? Ace of Sevens 20:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC) The introduction calls this game critically panned and says it got a lukewarm reception from the gaming press, even though it has a very respectable 81% at Gamerankings. Official Xbox 360 Magazine (UK): 9 out of 10.Summary of Perfect Dark Zero Reviews at Game Rankings. ![]() ![]() Summary of Perfect Dark Zero Reviews at Metacritic.However, if anyone wants to expand the Reaction section and wishes to cite some professional reviews as references (I reckon a few quotations from specific sources are better than general statements like "leans towards the positive"), here are the reviews previously included in the article. The review links have been removed from the article, and rightfully so. anetode ╔╝ 06:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC) Game reviewsĭo we really need all those links to each review? Why not just have Gamerankings (which is already there) and leave it at that? It would clear up the clutter. And even if it weren't, that does not automatically invalidate the edit or give you cause to engage in multiple reverts (or to violate WP:3RR w/r/t/ PDZ or Kameo), after all: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, WP:BOLD. Mateusc 06:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC) Once again, it is the box art ( Image:PerfectDarkZero.jpg is the image in Image:Pdz_boxart.jpg), as suggested by WPCVG's policy on infobox usage. I think this need a LOT of discuss in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games because as Jacoplane says, this is a consensus of community and you trying to disrespect this. anetode ╔╝ 06:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC) The problem of image that you posted is: not compilant with the norms os WPCVG and already a fine box image in the article. Pointing at other pages is rather irrelevant, this is a different set of circumstances with different options. If you don't see what's wrong with the box cover, then please tell me what is wrong with the image I posted. Mateusc 06:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC) You do realize that unsourced images are deleted, right? If there is a sourced alternative, much less one that implies fair use and permission, then changing the image is justified. Unsourced or not it's compilant with fair use and this is already made in lot games articles here. ![]() anetode ╔╝ 05:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC) Well, I don't see any problem with current boxcovers. Also, bad faith means that you do not assume good faith - that is, you appear to think that my actions are not meant to improve the article. What's broken is that wikipedia relies on fair use, and whenever there is an option that is more respectful of copyrights, it is preferable. The image I replaced *is* sourced, and is offered with permission. See Template:No source, that type of unsourced. Mateusc 05:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC) Yes unsourced. and not bad faith, just to keep the norms. I never saw anyone in Wikipedia broken with this. it's a public game boxcover with fair use compilant. anetode ╔╝ 05:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC) Unsourced? Hanhm. ![]() Unless you can provide some proof that replacing the image will somehow harm the article, I think you are simply reverting on bad faith. But nothing is terribly "wrong" with it, is there anything "wrong" about the replacement image? It is of a higher quality, it has a source (a requirement for images posted to wikipedia) and a clear rationale for fair use (it is part of a promotional "fansite kit", such images come with permission). WHY the boxcover need be replaced? What wrong with current boxshot? - Mateusc 05:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC) It is unsourced, for one. Did anyone else see it? Thunderbrand 22:24, (UTC)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |