Talk:Next Generation (magazine)

Latest comment: 17 years ago by Kotepho in topic fair use image removal



The Edge page says that content from that magazine was published in Next Generation from 1996 to 2002, but the Next Generation page says that the mag was published from January 1995 till January 2002. So should the Edge page be corrected to read 1995, or did Next Gen only share Edge content for some of its life? --Nick R 19:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I really don't know, I didn't even think Edge's material was published in Next Gen until the comment was added to the Edge article. I do recall Edge describing Next Gen as its "sister magazine" on many occasions, such when reporting as NG's demise. Sockatume 22:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
In Next Generation #1 (Jan 1995) the table of contents states, "Next Generation is affiliated to and shares editorial with Edge". So yes, the Edge page should be changed to 1995. --Vitaflo 21:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

NPOV changes


Hi there. When I first read through this article, it was well-written, but seemed obviously very pro-NextGen. Personally, I don't have any particular preference. I made a few changes and also tried to improve the organization and overall coherence. For example, I moved the point about the lack of cheat codes, walkthroughs, etc. down with the other differences. I took out the sentence about the ranking systems of other magazines as it was clearly there solely to illustrate the weakness of such a system. I don't mind if someone puts it back in, so long as the pros and cons of both ranking systems are addressed (and there are for both), however, I personally decided to omit them since I think they're obvious enough for the reader to make up his or her own mind about. I softened the statement about constructive criticism, because this is subjective. Some may think an article is more supportive than critical, or more critical than constructive. I left it as an intention, which is how I think it should be. Finally, I took out the last sentence, because, frankly, it didn't make much sense to me. What does one mean by the "gaming industry" producing a magazine? It sounds like some kind of collective effort which surely isn't the case. Furthermore, the "desire" and "freshness" of NextGen is also obviously not NPOV. If a solid tie-in between Escapist magazine and NextGen is made, I'm all for it being put back in. Cheers. -- Hinotori 13:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Next Gen


Shouldn't this be a dismabiguation page to the current gen (colloquaially known as next gen, still) of gaming> Xbox 360, Wii and PS3?

fair use image removal


I have removed all or a majority of the fair use images on this page as their use was not in line with our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy (likely in that the use is not minimal (3.a.) and it is in a list or a gallery (8.)) or our Wikipedia:Non-free content guideline that states that cover images may only be used for critical commentary on the cover itself, not just identification. Please do not re-add them without discussion. Kotepho 08:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll grant you perhaps 3.a. 8, however, I say otherwise. I did not add these images for merely having a "decorative" gallery; I added them for 2 reasons: The first was to show progression of the magazine's format/style changes which was to accompany a later planned section. Granted this could be done with a minimal only 5 or so images, but this leads me to my second reason. To show a zeitgeist of gaming through 1995 to 2001. Currently, I'm a participant in WikiProject Video GameMagazine Archive. Given the shift of gaming news from a print based media to a web based media, finding sources of gaming history is becoming increasingly rare. I could understand why it could be seen as a decorative gallery if it was merely a collection of artwork, but its the images chosen and its accompanying headlines that makes it a example of history that's much easier to explain in images rather than words. —Mitaphane 15:58, 25 June 2007