Talk:Official Nintendo Magazine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Massive Clean-Up

This whole article needs a massive clean up. It's a huge page with lots of unneeded, badly organised content.

Contents

Hi, sorry to whoever wrote the article but I think the Contents list is a little tedious. It's very long and I can't really see what purpose it serves, this information can be gleaned just from looking at the magazine, I can't imagine why anyone would want to look it up on the internet. Also would it not be better to have another article about the old NOM, half the entry seems to be about the magazine's previous incarnation. 62.255.228.29 19:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures and history

Is it possible to get some pictures of the classic NMS magazine and mention it's publication in other regions, such as Australia? JayKeaton 15:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• I thought of doing so too. It would be easy to implement, but is there a comprehensive list of where the magazine was published somewhere on the 'net? Zooba 19:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can dig up, I think I've thrown all my NMS's away sadly, but I'll have a root around. The only copy of the Magazine I definitely own is an ONM from the N64 days, a one off copy I picked up quite a while after I had stopped reading the magazine. (If anyone has seen the magazine from the N64 days, you'll find that it was probably the biggest crock of shit magazine, ever). I definitely have a free booklet given away in 1994 which had every review in that year, but whether that's going to be useful I don't know. Incidentally, my first copy of NMS was issue 11, I guess I was 7 or 8 being that it had Super Mario All Stars on the front, what a game, what a magazine. - Hahnchen 02:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I would have thought the best idea would be to put images of the magazine in its first issue, and each subsequent major re-name, and then issue one after the change of publisher. They seemed to have a similar thing in the CUBE Magazine article, but the last time I checked the images had been deleted. Zooba 21:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • If you don't have the images then why don't you contact the Editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.170.71 (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Future publishing NOM

Does Future do NGC aswell?

Here's the source: http://ds-x2.com/index.php?id=4605

Critisicms of NOM and Free Gifts

Firstly, I think that unless people can find, say, five critiscms of NOM which are held by a large group of people, then we should delete such a section. Official magazines always have a tendancy to be biased. Also, a review is one person's opinion, so it is likely that some people will disagree with the reviewer's opinion.

• Yes, I completely agree. There was no need for this section to be written imo, and my adding a defence (based upon events when I was employed there) regarding NOM's alledged bias hopefully counters this. Feel free to remove to section if you see fit; it serves no real purpose. --Toph3r 18:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If such a case is true, then I think we should keep such a section, as, to me anyway, that's a very important subject that should be noted. Zooba 09:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thing is, I only know about this incident because I was employed there when it occured. Thus, no hard proof exists (or did, but has been deleted) for my article. I think it's important that people know the pressures game publishers put on magazines to adhere to the scores they want! It's a disgusting practice, but it's been going on for ages. Incidentally, that Mario Sunshine review was written by Richard Marsh (ex dep ed) and is known as a terrible reviewer(!). That score was nothing to do with Nintendo's pressure, merely the incompetence of Marsh as a reviewer.

So, do we remove the whole criticisms bit? The criticisms are exampled by *one* game, and i've explained that, indeed providing a flip side of NOM trying to stand up to Nintendo UK and being over-ruled. Thoughts welcome..--Toph3r 18:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • • If you cannot properly cite your comments on the Nintendo review censorship committee, then you really can't put it in Wikipedia. It's not that I don't believe you, I absolutely do, all official magazines are hopelessly biased. But if the press never got hold of it, and it was never reported, then you don't have much to stand on. - Hahnchen 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. 'Criticisms' entry now deleted. --Toph3r 23:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Unless we can provide some hard evidence, I think the whole section should be removed, as it can't be proven. We could try contacting the old NOM UK staff, as weren't they all fired when the magazine switched publisher and got new staff? Then again, any information we would receive may not be enough... Zooba 19:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I think we should limit the amount of examples of 'good free gifts' in such a section. Perhaps we should choose ten of the best and just perhaps edit the list every now and then instead of adding more and more?

Zooba 14:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think you need to list the free gifts at all. NMS/ONM have been giving out free gifts since the beginning of time. I think the first ever issue came with a keyring and they've been going on like that since. - Hahnchen 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone just re-added the criticism section, so perhaps the subject is worth discussing again. Personally, although I may agree with it more now, we need more than one particularity angry article and some speculation, so until we have that, I don't think the section is worthy of inclusion. --Zooba 20:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain?

When editing the "Nintendo Magazine System: Asutralia" bit of the ONM article, I came to this bit:

Ironically, after being forced to apologise in the July issue by the ACCC, explaining the printing error and saying it was nothing more than a cover price increase...

but got confused concerning this phrase:

...the issue of the magazine also including the g.s.t text was released in June 28.

Can anyone explain what it means? By the time the July issue was released, surely the June issue had already been release also? Zooba 16:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Some magazines release the new months issue at the end of the previous month to get the magazine on display for the entire month in which the new mag happens to be for. Feb issue released in jan, march in feb etc. Atirage 11:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

NOM E3 beach ball.

In the free gifts section for NOM, it says there was an E3 beach ball, which isn't true: That beach ball was for Nintendo's 2005 summer tour... I can't remember the name, but it focused on LOZ:TP and Nintendogs there. I think it was "Nintendo tour '05" or something...--The last sheikah 11:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits I have just made.

I decided to make some minor, and some major edits, to the page. I deleted the section on the free gifts, and replaced it with information on ONM's subscription offers, detailing the games and peripherals available. Subsequently I added a sentence or two to the opening section about the free gifts, and highlighted a couple of examples. Does anyone know the exact issue number when Nintendo-themed cards were the free gift?

I also added information about the DS Lite release special edition issue of the magazine. I highlighted the split reaction, especially found on the ONM forums, when describing it. Should this be deleted?

I also moved the information on the new-look ONM website to the "New Ways to Play", as I felt it should be included in such a section, which chronicled some of the events from the change of publisher. Out of interest, ONM refers to its issues as "Issue 01" instead of "Issue 1". I was wondering whether or not to reflect that in the article, and whether NOM did the same for its earlier issues. --Zooba 13:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

NOM isn't ONM?

The new magazine (N:TOM) has a new name, a new staff, a new publisher and started from issue 1. Surely this is a totally different publication to the old magazine (ONM)? I realise they both have the licence from Nintendo, but there's no other connection whatsoever as far as I can tell, so surely they deserve separate pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.146.47.250 (talk • contribs)

Yes, but is really the same as it replaced the old magazine. So, the same people who bought the old magazines are likely to have gone to this. They were both official. --Thorpe | talk 16:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, ONM is a simple evolution of NOM, rather than a completely different magazine. As alreayd stated, they're both the official Nintendo magazine for the UK. --Zooba 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. NOM and ONM are two different magazines that have a similar title. The new magazine is marketed towards an older audience and has little to do with the original, except the subject matter and official status. The change from NOM to ONM is a revolution, not an evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.131.94 (talk) 20:11, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

"Important Dates" Section

Can we not misuse this section? I personally feel that it should be for highlighting issues that recorded big events, like the launch of a new console, or a world exclusive. However, I feel that Issue 6 or 7 should not be included because the issues themselves were nothing special. If you want to highlight the controversy surrounding the announced exclusive and picture of Leon, then I'd suggest that such information be put elsewhere in the article. On this point perhaps Issue 160 of NOM does not deserve being in the list? --Zooba 12:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this VERY biased?

"The magazine has seen various mistakes made from day one, and the recent Battalion Wars dissapointment pushed fans to the limit of what they could put up with. Worse than just the fact it was another let down was the fact that the writers and admin tried to save face on their website by playing down what had been revealed at the Leipzig game show recently, this actually involved lying and editing posts that said otherwise, the crew even had the cheek to deny something that was in their own magazine as they realized they had embarrassed themselves in front of the worlds nintendo reporters and let the fans down in a disgraceful display." That seems very biased to me. Saying it was a 'disgraceful display'.

• Indeed it is. The user ONM persists in writing about the incident, and is seemingly making up claims such as "possible legal action against the staff". I've reverted to a previous edit, which did not include information I had previously written on some controversy surrounding the magazine, but I wouldn't be suprised if this guy writes what he wants in again. I'm not sure whether there should really be anything on such "controversy", as you could easily argue that there is none. Anyone's opinion on this? --Zooba 17:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that quote is a complete lie. What else is there to say? U-Mos 19:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move to Official Nintendo Magazine

Anyone got a problem with this? It IS the magazine's name; it should have been changed in February! U-Mos 20:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree to it. I don't know why it's been changed back. --Zooba 18:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the proposition as well.--NPswimdude500 02:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please put whether you support or oppose the move in bold. Hopefully, an admin will move the article soon. U-Mos 13:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Page moved, per request. Thanks for your patience. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Forum Members

First of all, sorry for reverting edits regarding these figures so often when I most definitely should not have. Anyway, I just don't think that 8,000 people is a very big number, especially considering that there are no definitive figures on active users. Perhaps, however, once the number of overall users reaches ten thousand, it could be worthy of inclusion. --Zooba 16:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Who actually cares about the number of forum members, whatever the number? (EvilRedEye 18:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC))

Many people have added the number ever since the forum's inception, so perhaps it matters to them? --Zooba 20:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wii Buyer's Guide Special Edition issue

Anyone know anything about this? Any official information? --Zooba 21:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

the only info I Know is that was a magazine special written to help first adopters of the wii console, choose a game to purchase out of the various game titles avalible. --Madcow 93 (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents section clean up???

Am i the only one who thinks the contents section needs a clean up?? Many of these sections are only very minor sections and probably don't need a mention. Mattyatty 16:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections in a day or so i'll add the clean up tag thingy and might clean it up myself if i have the time Mattyatty 09:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that all the regular features are worth mentioning, frankly. --Zooba 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Where's the Free Gift Section?

Who removed it, and why? TheListUpdater 22:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Because every issue has had a free gift, it's been going on for ages and just isn't worth mentioning and detailing every single one. --Zooba 12:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the NOM article needed?

I don't think the NOM article is needed. ONM is a continuation of NOM as the official Nintendo magazine for the UK. It's the same license, but under a different publisher. --Zooba 19:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and why is the NOM talkpage the same page as the ONM talkpage? --Zooba 19:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, because of the lack of a reply I'm deleting the NOM page and making it a redirect to ONM. --Zooba 08:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

They're two different mags. They need 2 pages. Duds 2k 21:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to revert Zooba's "Changes" (having given about 5 seconds for people to respond). Can someone else? Duds 2k 21:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally as simple proof. Super Play, NGC and N-Gamer all have seperate pages despite these all being "continuations" by the same publisher and often several staff. This change was publisher and every single working person, a completely disparate design and a reset to issue 0. Wiki precedent says it should remain and certainly shouldn't have been changed without any real consultation. Duds 2k 21:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think that there is much that can be said for NOM that can't be said for ONM. The only difference is contents, which, whilst a lot, does not an article make. Furthermore, I don't think that the NOM article should have necessarily been created at all in the first place (not considering the mess it was anyway), as the issue has been brought up several times, whether through the page's edit history or the talk page, so such a change should be discussed. --Zooba 21:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So, could we keep the ONM article as is until a new article can be created properly (if it is)? --Zooba 21:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the quality of the articles regarding Super Play, NGC and NGamer are dubious, I think there is a fundamental difference between these magazines and ONM: the "official" license. I don't believe that there is anything that connects Super Play and its successors beyond the fact that they are unofficial British Nintendo magazines - I don't think they have a license. With ONM, however, the license has remained throughout all its incarnations, and each incarnation shares this license. --Zooba 21:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything connects them, they're have the same publisher and frequently most of the same staff. There is nothing that connects the two official ones apart from a logo on the cover. The problem with leaving it until "A better page appears" is you won't get people to contribute to a page that doesn't exist. 07:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The official license connects ONM to NOM. As I said, it's the same license. This page is about the licensed magazine. In that sense, ONM is the continuation of the license that NOM had. What I dislike is deleting all the information about the history of the magazine from the ONM page - it is just as true for ONM as it is for NOM. --Zooba 08:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Future Publishing would have had to negotiate a new licence with Nintendo. They would not be able to use the existing one with EMAP. If we are using the licence argument we would have to merge the Nintendo Power page into this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.73.94.57 (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Girl Gamer

Shouldn't this have something about Girl Gamer. It seems like a sister magazine for girls. The only reference I can find of this is [1] where there are some scans of it. Since then, Chandra Nair has said, "Erm… because it gets the ONM message out to 300,000 people who wouldn't normally even know where to look for our magazine. Simple, really. Please don't take offence -- it's really not aimed at you unless you read the magazine it comes in." It seems that "the magazine it comes in" is Bliss. I haven't been able to find any mention of this magazine on Future or Bliss's sites. --Super Shy Guy Bros.Not shy? 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Massive cleanup

I've just cleared up the article a little, added references and removed some parts (ie. The Old Content of NOM - I didn't think this was needed, because NOM is now defunct) and removed the cleanup tags. I hope it's ok. -Breadsticks.rock (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Updates

Contents page updated to index of magazine issue 28 (April 08) --Madcow 93 (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Cover image updated to issue 31 (July 2008), the first of the redesign. --Super Shy Guy Bros.Not shy? 18:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Contents page updated to issue 31 (July 2008), the first of the redesign. I'm glad that's over!  :-D --Super Shy Guy Bros.Not shy? 19:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

I've added a couple of cleanup tags to the article. This article appears to contain vast swathes of unverifiable information, such as the contents section. This information cannot be backed up by reliable third-party sources. Citing the magazine is not sufficient. Additionally the majority of the article is in list format, past the lead section there is hardly any prose at all. EvilRedEye (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that this article needs to be cleaned up a bit. But I really don't see how the contents list could be verified apart from looking at the magazine itself. Maybe we should get rid of the lists and turn them into prose. So, the contents list, for example, could be changed into talking about what's in the magazine, rather than just a list. I might do a draft when I get the time. --Super Shy Guy Bros.Not shy? 22:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Draft

Per cleanup, please draft at /Draft. Thanks!  :-D We should work on converting these lists into prose. --Super Shy Guy Bros.Not shy? 19:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

NOM Contents

There should be a section about the contents of NOM Titan50 (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

the team

I'm not an expert, but I'm damn sure the main editor is that Chandra bloke. please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki443556 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope. Chan-san quit being editor. The editor is now Neil Long. Chandra is now continuing his music career. -Super Shy Guy Bros.Not shy? 23:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Issue 1

The introductory paragraph is grossly confusing, stating both that issue one was released in 2006 and that it is the longest running games magazine. I know that this is due to the change to Future Publishing, but still - it's not well put. Suggest change along lines of 'the first ever issue was...' with the old date in the 90s or whatever, and then 'the first issue under Future publishing was published...' afterwards. I would do so myself but am not quite sure of how it worked with the publisher change so would appreciate input of others a_boardley (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. --YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvement

Seeing as this article has been badly written, badly cared for, and overall rubbish, I think it would be a smashing idea for people to take other well-written gaming magazine articles and incorperate their sections into this article. I am now searching for a good role-model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardaviewer (talk • contribs) 11:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll try to contribute more to the article. --Super Shy Guy Bros.Not shy? 22:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. Update: very few game magazines have good wikis. Dang! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardaviewer (talk • contribs) 19:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

????

Does this magazine really exist? The article for Nintendo Power says that it was JUST sold to "Future U.S.", this article also says the magazine-of-questionable-name was sol to "Future Publishing" in 2006. Not to mention that "Magazine System" makes no sense and if a company actually named their magazine that it would be amazing, or perhaps more relevantly, why would Nintendo publish more then one "official" magazine (with the non-relevant exception of magazines with different sub-categories, such as a Wii magazine - which exists - or a Mario magazine).                     ~Rayvn  03:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs)

Yes, actually. --Yowuza yadderhouse | meh 18:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)