User talk:Pyroguy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:45, 11 December 2010

Re: Half-Life reverts

The policy to use official art is a combination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and the core Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It's the standard to use the company's official art for products so as to not misrepresent them. Personally I think your artwork is good, but that's not for myself nor Wikipedia to decide. Hopefully that helps. --Teancum (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I uploaded the new art was to remove the necessity to use the non-free box art, including the undesirable marks. Also, especially in the case of Half-Life 2, the new art is more representative of the work than the box cover (Gordon Freeman's face is not depicted in any of the games from the series). Also, the Half-Life games are now primarily distributed through Steam, where promo art is de-emphasized, and is different than the box art in the case of Half-Life 2. The art I created depicts the opening scenes from each game, which is experienced by every player (is platform independent), and also identifies the changing citadel, which is a major, unique, and instantly recognizable symbol from each game. In the case of the Episodes, the old art does depict Alyx Vance, who frequently accompanies the player, and is representative and recognizable, but Episode One includes an unnecessary text box in the upper right corner, and Episode Two includes an unreadable disclaimer at the bottom.

I did read the VG guidelines and the style manual, but I can't find a place that specifically requires promotional pieces. There was a debate about using screenshots versus box art, and it contained some relevant points, but I believe this is a separate case.

I will leave the old art in place, pending further discussion and perhaps consensus about changing it. --Pyroguy (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figure this is probably a good section...

The reason it shouldn't have its own page is primarily because of notability. The expansion isn't notable, from what I can see. Nothing in the way of critical commentary or such to make it so, anyway. It serves a stronger purpose in the main article on HL2.

Further, you should undo the edit you made to "Gameplay". That section had referenced and verifiable content, where you removed the citations and made it, er, unverifiable. --Izno (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 I will leave the old art in place, pending further discussion and perhaps consensus about changing it. --[[User:Pyroguy|Pyroguy]] ([[User talk:Pyroguy#top|talk]]) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
+:I figure this is probably a good section...
+:The reason it shouldn't have its own page is primarily because of [[WP:N|notability]]. The expansion isn't notable, from what I can see. Nothing in the way of critical commentary or such to make it so, anyway. It serves a stronger purpose in the main article on HL2.
+:Further, you should undo the edit you made to "Gameplay". That section had referenced and verifiable content, where you removed the citations and made it, er, unverifiable. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 00:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)