Talk:Games World of Puzzles

Latest comment: 7 months ago by 108.24.202.139 in topic Information (lost? ignored?) with redirect

Merge edit

I'd vote against this. Though one was immediately succeeded by the other, Games and Games World of Puzzles have considerably different content; most of the sections of the current article would be outdated under the Games World of Puzzles title. If the two articles must be merged, I suggest that the Games title be kept and that the Games World of Puzzles "rebirth" be listed under a subsection, as is the current state of the article. 67.255.65.82 (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Seems more like this one should be merged into the other, not the other way around as proposed. 71.55.139.75 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply
Support initial direction of the merge, as the current combined title is "Games World of Puzzles" (that is, a merge of "Games" and "World of Puzzles" that occurred in 2014). I can see where the confusion arises, as the lede starts with history, rather than summarizing the content of the article - I'll correct this now. Klbrain (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
  Done Klbrain (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

GAMES magazine was the long-time recognized form of this media. Seems like it would lead off the article with some history and then go into a brief discussion of its lower circulation current form. I think they really missed the bandwagon on eurogames - just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.163.10 (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

"Games Magazine" listed at Redirects for discussion edit

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Games Magazine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 4#Games Magazine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Information (lost? ignored?) with redirect edit

The Talk page for the original article mentions (twice) that Playboy was not the original owner, and if I ever get a chance to dig my copies of the first issues out of storage, I can prove it. 108.24.202.139 (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply