1,085
edits
Talk:Halo 4: Difference between revisions
→Why are some leaks allowed and some not?
| Line 189: | Line 189: | ||
:As to address why certain leaks are allowed, I guess the damage done cannot be fixed since it would be administratively unworkable; the content has made into many revisions in the articles. To remove these revisions at such a large scale would be to break the wiki's attribution policy which ensures that ever user's contribution will be properly attributed via history log. I would suggest take the initiative (be bold) and remove leaks (real or fake) from articles when you see them. — <span style="font-size:16px; font-family:OrbitronMedium;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 16:31, 28 May 2012 (EDT) | :As to address why certain leaks are allowed, I guess the damage done cannot be fixed since it would be administratively unworkable; the content has made into many revisions in the articles. To remove these revisions at such a large scale would be to break the wiki's attribution policy which ensures that ever user's contribution will be properly attributed via history log. I would suggest take the initiative (be bold) and remove leaks (real or fake) from articles when you see them. — <span style="font-size:16px; font-family:OrbitronMedium;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 16:31, 28 May 2012 (EDT) | ||
::There's certainly a difference when it comes to leaks like these. For the recent multiplayer one, its a bit of a bad area considering that its nowhere near a final build of the game, and some content may just become fodder for the deleted material template later on. Otherwise, things like the McFarlane card leak is more acceptable, given that it was a final product (in this case, for San Diego ComicCon) and less importantly, these elements will be revealed at E3 next week during their campaign demo (as confirmed by Geoff Keighley). That's why I think leaks as a whole should always be taken with a hint of doubt and should be discussed as to whether or not it should exist. However, I don't believe that any pictures or media of said leaks, regardless of their attribution, etc., should be included. {{User:Grizzlei/Sig}} | ::There's certainly a difference when it comes to leaks like these. For the recent multiplayer one, its a bit of a bad area considering that its nowhere near a final build of the game, and some content may just become fodder for the deleted material template later on. Otherwise, things like the McFarlane card leak is more acceptable, given that it was a final product (in this case, for San Diego ComicCon) and less importantly, these elements will be revealed at E3 next week during their campaign demo (as confirmed by Geoff Keighley). That's why I think leaks as a whole should always be taken with a hint of doubt and should be discussed as to whether or not it should exist. However, I don't believe that any pictures or media of said leaks, regardless of their attribution, etc., should be included. {{User:Grizzlei/Sig}} | ||
But how do you know that the McFarlane card leak was real? Somebody could have faked that for all we know. So basically the McFarlane card is only acceptable because it could mess up some things despite the fact that it could be fake while the leaked pictures/video which can't be fake is not allowed. --[[User talk:ADinoSupremacist|ADinoSupremacist]] 16:44, 28 May 2012 (EDT) | But how do you know that the McFarlane card leak was real? Somebody could have faked that for all we know. So basically the McFarlane card is only acceptable because it could mess up some things despite the fact that it could be fake while the leaked pictures/video which can't be fake is not allowed. Also soon after the Watcher and Crawler were posted here I discussed why they weren't allowed since they were leaks, clearly admins didn't care.--[[User talk:ADinoSupremacist|ADinoSupremacist]] 16:44, 28 May 2012 (EDT) | ||
==Wikipedia link== | ==Wikipedia link== | ||
Just scrolling down the page this morning and the link to Wikipedia's ''Halo 4'' article caught my eye. Honestly, I don't really see any reason why we need to include such links on game articles such as this, given Wikipedia's notability standards and our expansive detailing of every little thing. Any other thoughts on this? {{User:Grizzlei/Sig}} | Just scrolling down the page this morning and the link to Wikipedia's ''Halo 4'' article caught my eye. Honestly, I don't really see any reason why we need to include such links on game articles such as this, given Wikipedia's notability standards and our expansive detailing of every little thing. Any other thoughts on this? {{User:Grizzlei/Sig}} | ||