2020. 2. 17. 23:21ㆍ카테고리 없음
Madeline (video game series) was nominated as a, but it did not meet the at the time. There are suggestions on for improving the article. If you can improve it,; it may then be.: December 5, 2016.Madeline (video game series) received a by Wikipedia editors, which is now. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.This is the for discussing improvements to the article.This is for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text.
by typing four tildes ( ). New to Wikipedia?!., and.
For disputes. Find sources: ( ) @: Thank you! 03:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC). @: Thank you for your help with the article.
I believe we have all the sources that we need for the 'Critical reception' section. I am going to try and track down some more sources for the 'Common elements' section and the 'Commercial performance' subsection (though I am not sure if I can find sales for games as old as these lol) 07:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC). @: I'm done with the article for a while. Together we've exhausted pretty much all of the available sources without buying books/scholarly articles/etc. To access sources that we only have snippets to at the moment. In particular the corporate structure of the Madeline video game series is confusing to me.
This will need to be sussed out. I highly recommend getting access to Interactive Publishers Handbook (1996). Doing the nitty gritty of citations is not one of my strong points, but because of my work a huge heap of new information is now in the article.:D- 09:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC). @: Thank you again for your help. The corporate structure of the Madeline video game series is surprisingly complex and deep (which is a good thing since it means the article can be really deep, but it does take a lot of work).
I think it is okay for GA, but I agree that it needs more work to get to the FA level. I will definitely try to get access to Interactive Publishers Handbook (1996) to improve the article in the future. It would be really cool to get this all the way up to the FA level. You done a lot of amazing work on this article.
I owe you a lot for all of your help actually. 01:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC). ^^- 12:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Title I recommend changing the title to 'Madeline video games'. I haven't read the whole thing, but unless you have sources that discuss this as explicitly a series, they are really just video games in the Madeline series, so 'Madeline video games' is more recognizable (the name most people will call it), natural (reflecting what it's usually called), precise (unambiguously identified), and concise (not longer than necessary to identify), per the (article titles policy) 16:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC). @: Thank you for the suggestion. I have changed the title as you mentioned above. 18:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Images.
@:, @:, @:, @: please can you assess the newly added images?- 11:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC). I wasn't pinged, but I'll give my opinion because I'm bored.
I see no reason to have the logos of all the companies on the page. It looks cluttered and isn't done anywhere else (that I know of). ( ) 11:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC). Thank you for your comments @. You are more than welcome to give your 2 cents to improve the article; it is most welcome. I understand your point of view, and want to explain my rationale which is that 1) it helps to add clarity to a dense history caused by a series acquisitions and merges and 2) it adds a bit of colour to an otherwise text-filled section.- 11:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC).
I don't think using an image of three Japanese women in an arcade is very proper in this case. The difference in culture and the age of the subjects are obvious reasons why the image seems unfit, but the use currently seems to suggest that women playing a shooter game in an arcade (twitch gameplay) is somehow unfit and 'wrong'. Either way, I don't see the point. The logo of a company may be fine to use, but I'd like to see it limited to companies that (1) had a clear impact on the game series, and (2) have a logo that is free to use due to its simplicity. Showing the logo of seven different companies that had somekind of influence over the games results in a reader really just ignoring the logos. 12:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC).
Thank you for your comments Mable. I have a few comments in response. 1) I used the image because the critical commentary in the article suggests an innate difference between 'girl's' games (skill-based) and 'boy's games' (kill-based) for better or for worse, and this was the only one on the Wikipedia page so I thought it would suffice. I will change the image to younger Anglo gaymers playing edutainment. 2) @: and I will reassess the logos in the article.- 13:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC). Ah, this image does look better. Still not 100% sure what it exactly adds to the article, but it's alright.
14:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC). The point of the image is to show the types of games (edutainment, skill-based) that the creators and many critics thought were 'for girls'. That image is probably what was in the creator's minds when they were designing the Madeline video games for their target audience.- 14:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)This conversation should be happening on the article's talk page so that it won't be buried in a different talk page's history for future readers. 16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC). Moved fromTake a read through to see the potential use cases and rules for using non-free images (and audio) on WP.
We keep fair use images (images for which there is no free use alternative, usually hosted on Commons) to an absolute minimum on WP—usually no more than two or max four per page, and each needs good reason. So the non-free logos need to go (they are just decorative and have ), and I'd even kill the other logos for the same reason.
Perhaps use a better illustration of a company if you have some reason for depicting them. I'd also remove the girl at the computer. There are plenty of other free use alternative images for that (might need some creativity). 16:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC). @: I have removed the images in question. 18:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Suggestions.
Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. Retrieved September 9, 2016.Clarifying the deleted passage Hi @:, I see you deleted a highly informative passage without a discussion, so I decided to head to the and copy-paste verbatim the information I used as the basis for what was in the article. I trust that this provides sufficient evidence for the claims made in that passage.- 12:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)'Mattel has become a master at marketing software for girls.
Not only do its Barbie titles dominate the top-five rankings, but it also produces the next five top-selling games-four of which are based on the storybook character Madeline that Mattel picked up when it bought Learning Co. 'Few companies have managed to turn girls' software into a profitable business. The notable exception is toy giant Mattel. Last year, the El Segundo firm recorded a clean sweep of the 10 most popular titles for girls, attributed largely to the popularity of Barbie.' 'Rank Title Units sold Revenue (billions). 1 Barbie Riding Club 288,384 $9.1.
2 Barbie Nail Designer 229,316 3.9. 3 Barbie Photo Designer With 203,145 12.9. 4 Barbie Magic Hair Styler 156,456 4.7. 5 Barbie Detective 132,446 4.3.
6 Madeline Preschool/Kindergarten 119,721 2.6. 7 Barbie Cool Looks Fashion Designer 116,635 4.5. 8 Madeline Thinking Games. 106,392 1.7. 9 Madeline Thinking Games Deluxe. 102,164 2.0. 10 Madeline Classroom 1st/2nd 101,331 2.2Source: PC Data Inc.'
This source is restricted so I could not verify what had been written. I still cannot access the source but common sense indicates thata single game could not generate $2.6 billion dollars. Do the math for Madeline Preschool/Kindergarten with sales of 119,721 and revenue of $2.6 billion would mean a unit price of $21,717. That's my issue. 14:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)@: Hmm. That's a very interesting point and poses a conundrum.
I can see two solutions. First, the source incorrectly said 'billions' when it meant 'millions'. Second, that the Units sold figures are actually in 'thousands'. I have a feeling one of these options must be the case and I get the feeling it's the first, given the general sales statistics of the other edutainment games I've researched.
What do you propose we do?- 15:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)With sales in the millions our example has a unit price of $21.77 which sounds more likely. The problem is that your source doesn't say this.
So this material, and the source, have to be removed from the article unless you can find another source that supports your suspicion. I'll leave this to you. 17:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Problems with sources Although this article has lots of sources, many of its statements are nearly impossible to verify; most of the sources are apparently inaccessible to the average reader, hidden behind websites requiring registration or a subscription. 20:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC). @: thank you so much for copyedit this article!!
Free Download Program Madeline Classroom Companion 1st Edition
I would not say 'most', but yes, some of the sources are unfortunately hidden behind paywalls: part of this is due to be using my university database to gain access to sourcing. But additionally, Highbeam (which was an invaluable source to me) closed its doors rendering all its links dead. Sometimes over time links can become dead and need to be cached through the Wayback Machine. Due to there being over 200 sources, it's been a while since I've gone through it source by source and checked them all. At the end of the day, though the urls of some sources are inaccessible via hypertext, all the citation information is there so one could theoretically gain access to it in any number of ways and check the information. But point taken.- 12:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC).