Talk:SCE Studio Liverpool/Archive 1

Archive 1

Source of information contained in this article

Hi, I was doing some research on the Studio http://www.development.scee.net/profile_liverpool.html other than the fact that the studio is named as Studio Liverpool and not Studios Liverpool. There is also the fact that most of/if not all the second paragraph are all direct from the Sony offical studio biography. So it could be argued that this isn't a very article as it has information from one source and particulary a biased source so the information contained will not be a of a good quality and a quality befitting to be on wikipedia. TheEnlightened 16:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh jeez, if you think it's bad now, before I did the merge, the entire article was a blatant copyvio from the page you link above, misspellings and bad grammar and all. I probably missed a couple sentences, but got rid of most of it. I also managed to source the Yahoo quote, just since it seemed like the thing to do at the time. But I fully agree, this isn't currently a very good article. There's probably a decent amount of game industry press about Studio Liverpool, which would allow us to present a more balanced (and more complete) view. I'll do some looking when I've got a little time. — Wwagner 00:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, i will also try and do some research on the division although my current efforts just lead me to information about its days as Psygnosis. Also if you just do a Studio Liverpool search in wikipedia you get redireceted to the SOny Computer Entertainment page and there is no link to this page on the that article so that also needs to be fixed. TheEnlightened 20:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE. I have fixed the links i mentioned above. Amazing what you can do if you can be motivated

TheEnlightened 20:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the rename and redirects. I've been doing a bit of research today on the Studio in hopes of improving this article, and apart from the blatant propaganda of the page linked above, there's very little info out there on the company itself. All the industry press seems to be reviews of and interviews about the various games they produce (which belong, of course, in the articles for the respective games). I was really hoping to improve this article, but there just doesn't seem to be much available. Bummer, dude. — Wwagner 15:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I too have been doing some research and found a two page spread in Edge Magazine on Psygnosis but it doesn't really say anything about the studio now. It really does appear that the studio is now a just a developer farm producing yearly updates. It is a great shame. TheEnlightened 22:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello me again, i found little bits and pieces abut the studio, none very imformative or from good sources but they say the reason the studio had a name change was that under the Psygnosis publisher brand the studio released games for other consoles, an example being Wipeout 64 that was released in 98' for the N64 TheEnlightened 12:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Fix of an redirects that i missed

Hi, After correcting the name of the aticle i may of missed some links so if anyone has the time/know how to fix those that i missed it would be greatly appreciated. TheEnlightened 16:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo liverpool.gif

Image:Logo liverpool.gif 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 05:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1