Talk:U.S. Gold

Fair use rationale for Image:USGold-2.PNG

Image:USGold-2.PNG 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 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 04:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Name

Anyone know why US gold given they were a UK company? I always assumed they were American :-P Nil Einne 16:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

They were brought into being in order to import popular US games to the UK - I envisaged the company importing "US Gold" across the Atlantic. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps more humorously, their remains (if any) I believe are under a Japanese company today. When Square-Enix took over Eidos. Theclaw1 (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fort apocalypse fair use.jpg

Image:Fort apocalypse fair use.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 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 17:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:USGold-2.PNG

Image:USGold-2.PNG 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 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 17:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

this is a small comment but this should be linked to the indiana jones the last crusade because it was made by us gold just adding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.50.43 (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC) sade and it should be connected to heros of the lance this is the same person from the indiana jones and the last cru

Image copyright problem with Image:Winter Olympics - Lillehammer 94 Coverart.jpg

The image Image:Winter Olympics - Lillehammer 94 Coverart.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Replacement of filled-out "cite" template refs with plain URLs

@Lordtobi:; As part of Lordtobi's extensive removal of uncited content, he appears to have also- and for no clear reason- replaced filled-out {{cite web}} references with much weaker URL-only ones.

In addition, note that the ZZap 64 issue 2 link originally went to the specific page being quoted, whereas Lordtobi's change appears to simply link to the issue itself.

While his removal of uncited content may arguably have been justified- if harsh- I expect someone who holds others to such high standards to meet them himself. I'd appreciate knowing what the justification for this was. Ubcule (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ubcule: Oh, I'm incredibly sorry. Usually when I go over remaking pages, I put research first, text second, and citation templates third, though it seems that I have forgotton the third step in the process of remaking 5+ pages related to CentreGold or its founder Geoff Brown, alongside other projects on multiple tabs. The reason the two sources were, as you put it, "replaced", is because I essentially deleted the page and created a new one out of new sources, which happened to include both sources formerly present, even if not in fleshed-out or direct-link form. Since I often lack the time to do citations by hand (which is actually my preferred method), I tend to use reFill for such occasions. Now said, then done, I will change back the citation templates to plain links (though respecting direct page links for both archuve.org sources), and apply reFill shortly. Thanks for noting! Lordtobi (✉) 17:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lordtobi:; I didn't follow everything you were trying to say, but it came across as "that's the way I do things"

As far as I can tell, your newest version still needlessly rewrites the original references with inferior versions.

I originally used {{cite news}}, which- as far as I'm aware- is most appropriate for something that was originally a printed news source (albeit archived). You replaced this with {{cite web}} and in the process removed any reference to the original work being Zzap 64. Why?

How you do things and organise your edits is up to you. What *isn't* is reorganising the article or references themselves in a particular way simply because it suits your workflow.

You clearly set out to extensively rewrite the article and- as I said- there may be an argument that it was justified to remove the large amount of unsourced material. But having taken that responsibility upon yourself, and having discarded work that (by implication) doesn't meet the standard you yourself set, I think I'm entitled to expect you to meet the same standard and not degrade the parts that *were* good enough.

Whether or not you were busy rewriting multiple articles- of your own volition- is neither here nor there; if you were too busy to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater, perhaps you should slow down. Ubcule (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lordtobi:; Additional- Okay, perhaps critical on my part given there was only one replacement of "cite news" with "cite web" and you improved one of the other refs. However, loss of good content that has had effort put into it is something that always tends to get on my nerves. No hard feelings...! Ubcule (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think "that's the way I do things" is quite accurate as a summary, but that should not be the focus of this discussion. Rather, in hindsight, the most proper citation format would be {{cite magazine}}, since depicted sources are archived versions of paper magazines, rather than newspapers as such. If I find the time, I'll get on that shortly. Lordtobi (✉) 10:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Lordtobi (✉) 11:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lordtobi:; that's fine (though I don't think it was necessary to remove the ref tag, which helps reuse). {{cite magazine}} is better still, and I've no problem with changes so long as they're improvements. (I complained about your "cite web" one because it replaced a more detailed ref; on its own, that would have been better than nothing).

BTW, I don't have time to do this just now, but- if you plan on any further major reworkings- you might like to note that {{reflist}} contains a "refs=" attribute that lets you put all the references in the reference list itself. See here for more details; it's useful because it avoids cluttering the article itself with reference text and makes things much easier to maintain.

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I am well aware what list-defined refs are and how they work, though honestly, I don't like using them for various reasons, though those are mostly based on my opinion (only minorly usability). Lordtobi (✉) 14:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Old version of article

The old version of this article was extensively cut down and rewritten (not by myself) due to lack of references. I'll place a link to the last pre-edit version here and it would be nice to have the content restored with references at some point.

Ubcule (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)