Talk:Fallout 3 and Category:Top-importance Chicago Cubs articles: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 08:14, 10 October 2008

This category contains articles supported by WikiProject Chicago Cubs which have been rated as "Top-importance". Articles are automatically placed in this category when the corresponding rating is given and the appropriate parameter is added to the project banner; please see the assessment department and the project banner instructions for more information.

Administrators: Please do not delete this category as empty!
This category may be empty occasionally or even most of the time.

Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???
6	28	89	481	146	1,446

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{WPBASEBALL importance level category|name=Chicago Cubs|importance=Top}}
-{{talkheader}}
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
-{{cvgproj|class=B|importance=low|nested=yes}}
-{{Alternate History WikiProject|class=B|importance=low|nested=yes}}
-}}
-==Archiving==
-I protest the archiving of material required for -day to day- upkeep of the article, of long term relevance, of moderate length, of moderate tone, and of merit in every way that I can think of, that a discussion page should be.<br>
-Please state your reasons for doing so.<br>
-Interested parties may find the archived material through [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fallout_3/Archive_1| Archive 1]] or through the link above.   [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 00:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
-:The action was fairly routine. It was the end of the month, and I decided to clean out the talk pages of a few articles I've been editing, simple as that. You speak as though archiving in and of itself is detrimental to the maintainence of an article, whereas if that were the case, I'm sure I would never have considered the action in the first place, let alone have been allowed to do so at all under policy. Aside from that, I fail to see how keeping expired discussions on the talk page would have helped the article except as reference, which archiving does nothing to prevent; it is no difficult matter to point someone to the appropriate section of an archive if his/her issue has previously been brought up. With that, I conclude by saying that it would be impractical to keep all discussions on any article's main talk page, since eventually those pages would become too long and unwieldy to be of any help at all. If you oppose the act of archiving in general rather than on this page alone, allow me to direct you to [[WP:VILLAGE]], where you can discuss the merits or lack therof of archives with a wider pool of editors. -- <span style="font-family:Candara">[[User:Comandante42|<span style="color:DarkSlateGray"><b>Comandante  </b></span>]][[User talk:Comandante42|<span style="color:Navy">{<small><b><i>Talk</i></b></small>}</span>]]</span> 00:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
-==Jeux review==
-JEUX issued the first review of Fallout 3. Anyone have a link or a copy of the mag? [[User:JAF1970|JAF1970]] ([[User talk:JAF1970|talk]]) 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
-:All I've been able to dig up is [http://www.pcjeuxblog.fr/index.php?2008/09/25/185-retombes-3 this]. Nothing at all helpful, especially since I only know a smattering of Spanish and no French to save my life. There's got to be a translated review or a link to a scan of the review somewhere. -- <span style="font-family:Candara">[[User:Comandante42|<span style="color:DarkSlateGray"><b>Comandante  </b></span>]][[User talk:Comandante42|<span style="color:Navy">{<small><b><i>Talk</i></b></small>}</span>]]</span> 19:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
-==Reception from Community==
-I wonder why it is not mentioned that when this game was announced fans of the game were very angry (and still are) About the fact the game is not being made by the original developers and that it lacks important elements found in the last two games, such as the car and the dog(which has only been recently been added.)  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.204.36.103|76.204.36.103]] ([[User talk:76.204.36.103|talk]]) 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-:See '''[[Talk:Fallout 3/Archive 1#Dissapointment from fans of original titles|here]]''' for the answer I gave to someone else with nearly the same question (it's the very last topic). -- <span style="font-family:Candara">[[User:Comandante42|<span style="color:DarkSlateGray"><b>Comandante  </b></span>]][[User talk:Comandante42|<span style="color:Navy">{<small><b><i>Talk</i></b></small>}</span>]]</span> 00:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
-:I was always a fan of the Fallout games, and when I heard Bethesda was making the new one, I was very happy.  So it goes both ways, some fans hate it, some fans like it.  This article isn't the place to discuss it though. --[[User:Wes Richards|Wes Richards]] ([[User talk:Wes Richards|talk]]) 15:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
-==Leaked==
-today, actually, only the 360 version.
-http://www.scenereleases.info/2008/10/fallout-3-readnfo-xbox360-seed4me.html (NOT A LINK TO THE TORRENT, JUST AN ANNOUNCEMENT)
-should this go in the article?  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.170.3.93|58.170.3.93]] ([[User talk:58.170.3.93|talk]]) 02:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-Yeah, it should.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.207.84.170|66.207.84.170]] ([[User talk:66.207.84.170|talk]]) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-:No, It should not. --[[User:SkyWalker|SkyWalker]] ([[User talk:SkyWalker|talk]]) 18:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
-Yes it should  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.191.182.175|81.191.182.175]] ([[User talk:81.191.182.175|talk]]) 21:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-:The leak itself is irrelevant to the article, and should not be mentioned. Mentioning the leak could be construed as promoting it, which is the last thing we want to do since obtaining and using leaked copies violates copyright laws. If it is specifically stated by the developer or reputable gaming news site that the leak has directly affected the game's sales, or that the developer is beginning legal proceedings due to the leak, then that could be added to this article. -- <span style="font-family:Corbel">[[User:Commdor|<span style="color:DarkSlateGray"><b>Commdor  </b></span>]][[User talk:Commdor|<span style="color:Navy">{<small><b><i>Talk</i></b></small>}</span>]]</span> 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
-If its sourced and has links then it should go on the article, I don't see the reason not to, its happening, if spore and Halo 3 had discussions about the link I think fallout 3 should too.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.169.244.29|209.169.244.29]] ([[User talk:209.169.244.29|talk]]) 02:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-http://kotaku.com/5060952/fallout-3-360-compromised-by-pre+apocalyptic-pirates Kotaku has now mentioned the leak, and thus is sourced. Oh, and these "NO U" posts do not belong in Wikipedia.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.108.241.21|83.108.241.21]] ([[User talk:83.108.241.21|talk]]) 02:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-It's not notable. Pretty much every 360 game is released on torrent sites. Even GTA IV was and it's not mentioned there.