Talk:Nintendo Magazine System (Australia)

NOM

Er... I suggest that this be moved back into the NOM article. Either that or we have seperate articles for NOM and ONM and perhaps even one for NMS: Australia. NMS became NOM which became ONM - they're simple evolutions of one product and not seperate products themselves. --Zooba 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best if we kept the UK and Australian mags seperate as they are two entirely seperate magazines sharing the NMS name and nothing more, perhaps a paragraph of content with a see main article wikilink directed to the NOM article is a good way to go for the people looking for the UK NMS info inside this one.Atirage 11:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't mind an NMS: Australia article, but I don't think information baout NOM, when it was known as NMS, should be included. Indeed, there should be infromation in the NOM article linking to here, and perhaps vica-versa, but all NOM relared material should remain in the NOM article. --195.40.4.49 12:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Seperate Entity Plz

I used to love reading this as a child, but i had no idea of what happened when it stopped publishing (and still dont!). So i googled it like a few years ago or so and it brought me to the uk page causing much confusion. This page freed up a lot of ambiguouty surrounding that.

POV

While I agree wholeheartedly with the opinions expressed regarding the magazine's dip in quality and relevance after changing hands, it seems rather like an editorial. I don't want to butcher the article too much, so I'd rather wait and see what my fellow editors think.. Thedangerouskitchen 11:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, and was about to raise the issue. I mean no offense to whoever edited such information into the article - I mean, it reads great and all - but I dare say it's a tad... un-encyclopedic. We either need some references, perhaps even extracts from the magazine itself, or some of the more speculation-filled paragraphs will need to go. Quite a bit of the magazine is, unfortunately, personal opinion and, indeed, point-of-view. --Zooba 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

N64 Gamer

Wrong article I know, but does anyone know what happened to the page on "N64 Gamer"? Any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.102.217 (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NMS Australia Issue 1.jpg

Image:NMS Australia Issue 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NMS Australia issue 89.jpg

Image:NMS Australia issue 89.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor controversy

"The magazine created a minor controversy[citation needed] when it awarded the N64 game Turok 2: Seeds of Evil a perfect score of 10 in Issue 68." I can't imagine why this would have caused a minor controversy, since Turok 2 was extremely well recieved and has an aggregated rating of 89% from Game Rankings. Seeing as how a citation has been requested for that statement since 2007 anyway I am removing it. Freikorp (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Superman 64 rating

Can anybody tell me which issue of the magazine awarded the 1999 Superman video game 80%? Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering the game was released on May 31, 99 I am guessing it would either be the May or June 99 issue, but I need to be sure. I can confirm it is not the Feb, March or Oct 99 issues. Freikorp (talk)

I've finally tracked it down; it was actually issue 77 (August 99) Freikorp (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Front cover headlines / Nintendo People System, from 1993 to 1995

Can someone please explain why having every single front cover headline of the magazine, and the name of every person who ever worked on the magazine (which takes up over 9,000 characters I might add) is necessary and relevant. I don't see every single front cover headline and comprehensive staff list on the article for Time (magazine), and rightfully so, this information is over detailed in the extreme, not to mention undue weight. Wikipedia is not a fan site, it is a neutral encyclopaedia. If you want to create a memorial to this magazine (which would be cool, I liked this magazine very much) I suggest you do it elsewhere. Freikorp (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not see why there needs to be such a detailed staff list. I think it should be pruned to publisher/managing /editor/editor/deputy editor.

A list of every issue of Time would be very long (it would require many sub-pages) - but this magazine did not run for such a long time, and is not a big burden. There are lists of episodes for TV shows - for example: List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. I would prefer to keep the list of issues.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Pruning to publisher/managing /editor/editor/deputy editor sounds good. I can see your point about the list of issues, I just personally don't see it being very useful to anyone; around half the issues cover titles offer no insight to issue content. Two issues for example are entitled "WIN an N64!"; not helpful for anything these days, as opposed to covers like "DOOM and YOSHI Guides", which might be helpful to someone wanting a printed guide on those games. So personally I think it's a lot of information for not much use but as long as the staff list gets shortened I can live with that compromise. Freikorp (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Let us hope that Frank gives his/her view.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Just letting people know, due to work commitments I don't expect to have internet access from tomorrow until July 22, so I won't be able to join in any further discussions on consensus for a while, but I stick with what I said before. The staff list must be shortened, and I vote to delete the cover headlines but I'm not going to lose any sleep if I lose out on that one. Freikorp (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am shortening the staff list as this has been uncontested. I will leave the cover headlines intact until more people comment on the issue. Freikorp (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the cover headlines should stay as it is for the time being.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced and original research

@Eddie Blake, I see that you've been edit warring over this article for some time. Everything on Wikipedia needs to be sourced (WP:V). Sourcing "controversies" to the magazine itself is also inappropriate because the event is only notable if external secondary sources say so. If you don't have sources for this content, it should be removed. There are other wikis that can host the list of covers and whatnot, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and doesn't keep records like that. This should be an encyclopedic overview. – czar 14:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely with Czar's change. I was going to revert back to that version myself, but I'll give Eddie a chance to reply first. Freikorp (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Eddie Blake, if you want to preserve your work, feel free to save a copy or take it to another wiki, but information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and the unsourced stuff on this page needs to be removed. You've been invited to respond here (though this is a basic WP policy...) so I do not understand why you continue to revert. Third parties will consider future reverts plainly disruptive. – czar 14:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I am thinking of starting a wiki devoted to this magazine. Bringing the World Back Home (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Good luck with it. Freikorp (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but i may need help. Bringing the World Back Home (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)