Talk:Edge (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
	This magazine is supported by the Wikiproject CVG Magazine Archive.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: Imagic Expand: New CVG Articles, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: List of F-Zero titles, Kya: Dark Lineage, Wii Remote, Dynasty Warriors 4, The Sims 2, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Kirby's Dream Land, Electronic sports, Fire Emblem, Dante (Devil May Cry), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XII, Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit), Classes in World of Warcraft Cleanup: Age of Mythology, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Betrayal at Krondor, List of Nintendo trademarks Merge: Deletions / Essential articles / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

Contents 1 Bin Bags 2 Controversial Scoring 3 10/10 Scores 4 ACE Magazine 5 Spanish / German editions 6 TfD nomination of Template:Computer Magazines 7 Redeye, unexplained deletions 8 German edition changed to bimonthy, when?

[edit] Bin Bags

I remember that Edge was unique in being distributed in heavy-duty plastic bags for the first few of years. Something you see in some magazine today, but Edge never had the excuse of including "covermounts". Zoganes 22:57, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

That's still the case with significant issues now and again- the 10th Anniversary issue for example. It's rarer now though. According to themselves, it was to increase the mistique surrounding the magazine. Make it something desirable; there was a self-conscious air of arrogance around the whole thing at the start ("Less 'all the news that's fit to print', more 'only if we say it matters'"). Sockatume 23:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial Scoring

Possibly one of the reasons for the controversial scoring was that Edge has never credited reviews, so the reviewers have had the freedom to tear into a game without jeopardizing future junkets. Zoganes 23:17, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

Edge don't credit anything beyond the opening general list of credits (list of contributors, editors, designers etc.). They've rarely came across as tearing into games with wild abandon, though (with a few notable exceptions; their first ever 1/10, Kabuki Warriors for the XBox, for example). That's not stopped them getting in bother with publishers, though; IIRC a massively accusatory Redeye column, which lambasted Future/Rockstar for effectively marketing Manhunt to minors through Gamesmaster magazine, caused the walkout. Sockatume 23:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 10/10 Scores

Per a Frontier Developments Press Release (scroll down to the entry of 16-12-2002), both Elite and Exile were posthumously awarded 10/10 scores, so I'm about to add them to the article proper. Unfortunately I don't have an issue number, but I don't imagine this will be a controversial change? - ThomasHarte 15:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a period where Edge were writing retro reviews from the perspective of when they were originally released. The two games you mention were reviewed in an Edge RETRO special. Super Mario Bros NES got 10/10 in a retro review in the main mag. I can't pinpoint which issue from memory though.

I'm sure I read a bit in Edge where they were having a grumble about the 10/10 that Half-Life 2 received and said that in hindsight it should have been 9/10.--X201 10:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There has always been internal controversy over scores. Kuru Kuru Kururin (GBA) was originally scored as a 3/10 but amended to a much higher figure - 7, I think - while Eternal Arcadia (Skies of Arcadia in the west) was downgraded from a 9 to an 8 to prevent eclipsing Shenmue in the same issue (8/10). There has been other oversights (6/10 Gunstar Heroes and 8/10 Crazy Taxi 2) but the most famous mistake of all was the PR-pressured 9/10 awarded to Turok 2. All this is first-hand experience.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.24.94.126 (talk • contribs).

[edit] ACE Magazine

Anyone remember much about ACE magazine? I used to be an avid fan back in the day, it was my favorite video game rag. I think the ACE stood for "Advanced Computer Entertainment". I even remember reading their last ever issue and feeling sad :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bmathew (talk • contribs).

Remember it, sure : I created the wikipedia article on it only a few days ago. See ACE (games magazine). --Oscarthecat 08:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish / German editions

These sections appear very POV at the moment, as they make claims about the quality of the editions without citing any sources. Anyone able to elaborate on these sections, and add some refs ? --Oscarthecat 16:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: In the spanish edition there are very good sources. The edition is so bad because the spanish editorial just took a few people from another magazine not related in any way with videogames. So they have cheap and unskilled writers and translators. The links from the editorial website shows the both staffs and everyone can check it. That's the source and it's a clearly one.

You keep deleting the almost the whole spanish part asking for sources. What the hell do you want? A pdf scanned issue of both editions? Do u speak spanish? Do also want a translator, a videogames expert and a lawyer to certify that this edition is cheap crap? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.83.131.39 (talk • contribs).

Thanks for the feedback regarding translation and POV. As suggested, I have removed the claims regarding the quality of the translation. The argument over whether dedicated staff are always better than "generalists" is a dubious one, so I have removed that too. --Oscarthecat 21:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Yo do not remove the feeback regarding the translation. That's just one sentence. You remove all the fucking part about the local writers (they write in spanish, so no bad translation here) and you also delete all the sources. Bad and unskilled local writers. The editorial uses some staff of other old magazine so they get the work done cheap. And of course is a cheap work. Both staffs shown. That's a source. If you think spanish writers are really experts or it is a coincidence that they appear in both staffs just show me the proof. There's no one. By now I cited a good source, it makes sense and it's a good point. You have nothing.

Fact: The translation is crap. But because wikipedia does not allow to scan and upload parts of the magazine you keep deleting everything you want.

So by now, just fix yourself your mistake. I'm tired of editing what you keep deleting/hidding. And also fix the external links, they don't work anymore and that are the sources. If you just want to trash this part of the article you will not. If you have any source showing I'm wrong just write it down. But by now I have sources saying that my point is right.

And that's all. I'm not wasting any more time talking here. I you want a war you will loose it, so just calm down.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.83.173.145 (talk • contribs).

--

Rather poor English. "The spanish edition arrives at least one month later than the original, so the latest spanish issue is the translation of the english one released one month ago." Someone should re-write pretty much the whole part about the Spanish edition, or else it should be removed. Besides, many accusations lack references, such as "replace the low scored reviews with local ones with higher scores, just to keep the advertisers happy".

Also, the note about people deleting the aforementioned part should appear here, not in the article proper. --Almost Anonymous 21:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS NOT FOR ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Your own opinions and conclusions about the magazine, however self-evident, are irrelevant. You should be reporting the views of others regarding the magazine, with references. Sockatume 16:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I wasn't guilty of OR!--Almost Anonymous 20:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't meant to be directed at your thread, just the way the formatting worked out. Sockatume 22:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you speak german? If so, take one issue of the German translation. It goes as far as occasionally leaving half of a sentence in english (by mistake, I assume) every now and then. In such occasions it is not POV to call the translation "bad", I guess. I think there also was a mention of changing the games' scores in some cases which was actually announced by the German publisher, so there is a source, but it is in German, obviously. 80.137.88.150 15:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

From a spanish reader.

What a shame. The spanish edition is so bad that it changes a 3/10 score to a 7/10 one just to keep advertisers happy. It's not only a very bad translation like in the german edition.

So let's see. I'm tired of seeing this and others FACTS been deleted. So I'm going to write only in the english section. Every statement, score or information not cited will get a ^{[citation needed]} "citation needed". Then every information not cited will be erased in a short time.

That's just what a lot of wikipedia editors do with the localised editions entries. I'm tired of wasting time re-writing this part of the article while others are just trashing it. So i will act the same with the rest of the article, after all, everyone is happy obeying the wikipedia rules. So let's play the same game.

Is there anyone trying to hide the truth about shit edge editions? You will play fair.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.83.174.205 (talk • contribs).

Hi, thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. Unsure why you've tagged most of the the sentences with the {{fact}} tag, they don't appear to need it. Could you clarify why they're needed? I've reverted the edit for the time being, as it made the article a little unreadable. Thanks, --Oscarthecat 09:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I was gonna do the same thing but you beat me too it :D

To the IP editor: As to the fact tags and the translation issue - well find some sources for the translation problem and it can go back in. The rest of the info is pretty much sourced down at the bottom of the page :D so the fact tags aren't really needed! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 09:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the stupid and unfair world of the Edge article. A lot of people do the same with the foreing editions and they delete their contents. They do to hide the truth.

Because I'm tired of re-writing in the local editions section while being deleted, I will act the same they do with the english part.

You complain. I did and nobody cared. Do you want a fair article? Just complain and respect about every unfair edit in the WHOLE article. A 3/10 is a 7/10 in th spanish edition. You ask for facts and delete it, while you keep a lot of uncited scores. Is it fair?

Do you have spare time to unedit changes? Please then do the same with what has been written about the spanish and german editions and has been erased without reason.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.83.174.205 (talk • contribs).

Ok calm down :D I'm not disputing that it is fact! I actually believe you that it is true however it's not something you can just write about as fact UNLESS you have verifiable sources to prove it! In all honesty I've gone through the whole article and it is lacking in some sourcing (not as many as you tagged though). However your additions about poor translation need more verification than the rest. I am putting sources together for it all now.. but your stuff the sourcing has to come from you - I can't find anything with a google search I'm afraid. Sorry :( --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi 62.83.174.205. You clearly have more knowledge of the Spanish edition of Edge than the rest of us. I'm a fan of the UK edition and have never seen the Spanish version (sounds like I'm kinda lucky in that respect). Can you track down some sources about the poor quality of Edge in Spain for us, so we can get this article to clearly and demonstrably inform readers how good/bad the magazine is? Sounds like you've got a lot to contribute to the article, and the sooner we can get the article reflecting the true state of the Spanish edition, including some decent sources cited to show it, that would be great. Many thanks. --Oscarthecat 10:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of spanish forums with threads complaining about it. Is it really a fact? Well, even if it is, it's written in spanish, so it can't be really checked by most english speaking readers of wikipedia.

There are even some magazine scans, but they are copyrighted. Do I have to open a blog called "what-a-holy-shit-of-spanish-edition", where some readers complain in english about a spanish product, to create a fact?

The real fact is that a lot of german and spanish readers have tried to write the truth about the magazine and they have been silenced. But, how many people have said how good the local editions are? Noboby will and you will not find it no matter how hard you google for it in every language you want to.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.83.174.205 (talk • contribs).

Well I'm sorry if that's the case but for it to appear here it needs sourcing. It's the whole fundamentals of Wikipedia!! Foreign language sources are perfectly fine, it's our job as 'fact checkers' to translate the data not yours - as the 'fact adder' you just have to provide the means to verify it. However blog's and forums are not generally considered good sources. In this case however I think they will be sufficient. Provide a few here in the article and I will get someone to translate them for me. In all honesty I'm trying to find a solution here. Wikipedia has very strict rules over things that could be considered derogatory or over-praising. General information is usually accepted unsourced to a point like the rest of the article) but your information is potentially sensitive and could easily cause debate. We also have strict rules over original research, it may seem silly in this case but the opinions of some editors could easily differ to another's. It's a tricky balance I know but find me those forum links and we'll see about a way of integrating the content into the article! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 11:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I could just as easily claim that the Spanish edition is fantastic and better than the UK edition. After all I've got just as much proof. If it doesn't have sources, it's not getting in the article. See also WP:OR: the Wikipedia is no place for your own opinions, no matter how self-evident they may be. It's been there for months, if you had secondary and primary sources you should've cited them. And would you please cut out the allegations of bias or of some JFK-esque coverup? Did you not notice the massive unreferenced section on the staff walkout which was deleted? Hell, I was on the Edge forums when it walked out. The explaination given there was essentially accurate. But until someone from the mag writes a tell-all article or some other journalist writes up their analysis of the course of events, it's not suitable for an encyclopedia. Sockatume 15:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Computer Magazines

Template:Computer Magazines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Fourohfour 13:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(Notice included here to get attention of unbiased cross-section of potentially interested parties. TfDs and this template don't seem to get much attention on their own, but this template appears in lots of articles.) Fourohfour 13:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redeye, unexplained deletions

This edit included removal of various sentences, plus insertion once again (was originally removed back here) of the RedEye controversy. Unusure why the removals were done, and also whether the RedEye story is suitable (sources, original research), so have reverted the edit. If anyone thinks this is the wrong action that I've taken, could we discuss here? --Oscarthecat 12:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

From my own experience, from what I have heard from numerous sources involved e.t.c, the RedEye story is mostly correct. Some of these journalists have even published the stories they wrote as RedEye separately, since then. However, it is very difficult to provide citations for this, as I'm sure you're aware that most magazines over here don't duplicate their content online. So that story, however true/false it may be, does constitute OR, and probably always will. As for the deletion of other sections, was that perhaps some kind of revert to an earlier version? That's the only explanation I can think of, unless he/she actually did go through and delete little bits here and there, and actually re-insert a non-existent template.

Either way, the central issue is the RedEye story, and I don't feel it should be included here unless it can be quite heavily sourced, due to the nature of the section. --Dreaded Walrus 16:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. How about someone cites the offline source, instead? Doesn't need to necessarily be online, but as you say it does need to be heavily sourced, due to its controversy. --Oscarthecat 17:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German edition changed to bimonthy, when?

The article states "It appeared monthly until December 2007 when it changed to being published bi-monthly". Since it is march 2007 now; is it announced to become bimonthy in dec 2007 (and should the wording in the article be changed) or is the date incorrect? Felsir 13:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)