Talk:History of E3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] POV
It is impossible to say which conference possessed the most "hype" as that is a subjective term. Hype differs between people. Also, while Sony did have a poor conference, most all of the enteries posted about it on this page have been POV.
- The 2002 comment can be cited. [1]. The same could be said to be true for the Wii this time around. 74.137.230.39 22:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Killzone
There should be the controversy about Killzone 2 in E³ 2005 203.129.37.152 10:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] E3 2007
We should merge E3 2007 into this article. After all, every other year is contained here and the other article doesn't have very much information in it. Useight 19:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be merged. magiciandude (Talk) (review) 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think it should be merged once E3 2007 is over, since E3 2007 is an ongoing event right now. Next week it should be merged. Miles Blues 22:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good plan. Useight 01:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think it should be merged once E3 2007 is over, since E3 2007 is an ongoing event right now. Next week it should be merged. Miles Blues 22:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think it should be at least changed from E3 2007 to E3 Media and Business Summit as it is not just about E3 2007. Change the title in one section from announcements to Press Conferences of E3 2007. Oscar22 07:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- And it's getting about time to do the merge, when someone gets a minute. Useight 02:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think it should be at least changed from E3 2007 to E3 Media and Business Summit as it is not just about E3 2007. Change the title in one section from announcements to Press Conferences of E3 2007. Oscar22 07:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- But E3 2007 is unique and it has by far the most information !!! Animal91X 20:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- What, exactly, makes it so unique. And I don't think all that information is necessary. It could be cut down and merged. Useight 20:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- E3 2007 is very unique as it is the first one in Santa Monica and the E3 2007 artical has a lot more information and detail when compaired to history of E3 !!! 82.26.192.3 14:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but the E3 2007 article is currently a poorly-organized, indiscriminate collection of gaming news from the event, with little encyclopedic content on the event itself. It is not very useful to even an informed gamer, let alone a general reader, who would not find the article helpful as an overview of what the 2007 E3 Media & Business Summit is. It's full of unattributed POV phrasing and commentary, excessively informal tone, etc. Granted, the History of E3 article is not a very good article in itself, but the E3 2007 would need to be completely rewritten to become an encyclopedic article. Dancter 16:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Chop it down to size and merge. Useight 17:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but the E3 2007 article is currently a poorly-organized, indiscriminate collection of gaming news from the event, with little encyclopedic content on the event itself. It is not very useful to even an informed gamer, let alone a general reader, who would not find the article helpful as an overview of what the 2007 E3 Media & Business Summit is. It's full of unattributed POV phrasing and commentary, excessively informal tone, etc. Granted, the History of E3 article is not a very good article in itself, but the E3 2007 would need to be completely rewritten to become an encyclopedic article. Dancter 16:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- But E3 2007 is unique and it has by far the most information !!! Animal91X 20:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] merging complete
Ok, I merged the two articles. I think I did a pretty good job. Just go ahead and edit out whatever bugs you.
- Why the hell did you people merge this huge artical, on E3 2007 in to some poor summery of the history of E3 - 82.26.192.3 07:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I got most of the main points down. That article was way too big anyway. Besides, if you think it's poor, then why don't you change it? Oh yeah, and if you think that the summary is poor on 2007, then why don't you care about how bad 2005 down are? (Neutronbomb 04:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC))
- For the sake of organization, I suggest that 95-99 be merged into one section, as well as 00-04.--Orion Minor 04:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Major Changes
So, I made this page about a year ago and honestly didn't know what I was doing. A number of people have helped since then to make it better, but it really was just a list of almost random info. I've consolidated the sections to make for a more general approach. Was 1995 ever going to be long enough to warrant its own section? Probably not. I brought up this change above, but got no response (or serious objections), so I've gone ahead with the move. I think we should work on doing the same for the seventh generation sections, add some pictures and something in the upper right.--Orion Minor 19:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

