Talk:Games for Windows: The Official Magazine

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Merge

This should be merged with the Computer Gaming World wiki. They are the same magazine, just changed names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vette92 (talk • contribs)

Comment: User's 10^th edit. Userpie 01:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Support

Your supporting vote here.
Support They are the same magazine, with only the name and design differing. Do magazines need new articles when they get a format change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.194.63 (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that Games for Windows has been folded into the 1UP website and ceased production of the print magazine, this issue should be revisited. Computer Gaming World lasted 25 years, Games for Windows a year and a half. Despite having different names, it was the same magazine. They were not seperate entities, nothing changed but the title and a few extra pages of Microsoft sponsored ads. Two separate articles are unnecessary. Two extra sections can be added to the CGW article, one for the GFW name change, one for the cancellation. - (Satertek (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose

Your opposing vote here.
Oppose Although they are the same magazine in spirit, they are completely different and one of the articles would be undermined by the other. Userpie 01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They are not the same magazine with just different names, they are different entities. Keep them separate. -- Grandpafootsoldier 00:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others have stated, they're not the same, quite simply. Same staff, same company, different magazine. Just by looking at both it's obvious. Enfestid 05:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They're related, but different incarnations. They deserve separate articles. - MSTCrow 22:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They are not the same magazine. They deserve separate articles. Balok 00:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It deserves a separate articles. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A different magazine. patsw (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They're flat out not the same magazine. Just because they're related and from the same company doesn't mean they're the same thing. This certainly deserves its own article. Brianreading (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

If anything, all of CGW's info should be moved to this article, not the other way around. --TonicBH 18:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Please place comments here)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.149.130 (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Games for Windows the Official Magazine issue 07.jpg

Image:Games for Windows the Official Magazine issue 07.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use has been added -- Grandpafootsoldier 04:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]