# Talk:Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.

shouldn't we use this article and articles asbout e.g. the tetris (TENGEN v nintendo) and activision v atari...

This article hurts my eyes.  Is there a better way to cite soruces?  I like how this article cites everything, but the constant line shifts really make it more distracting to read. - Hbdragon88 05:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The other option is to use parenthetical notes (i.e., instead of having a footnote linking to "Sheff 121" following "...hand over all records of profits made from the game," have an inline " ... hand over all records of profits made from the game (Sheff 121).") With thirty-two such citations, however, that's going to look really cluttered, and it makes it a more difficult to locate the full citation, since you'd need to scroll down to the references section for the complete info. Aesthetic taste varies from person to person, but the priority should be presenting a well-sourced article. Footnotes are the most effective way of accomplishing that. If the footnotes really bother you, though, you can adjust they way they appear by modifying your monobook.css file (i.e. User:Hbdragon88/monobook.css) to personalize the appearance of the footnotes. For example: .reference { vertical-align: baseline; font-size: 100%; } will eliminate the superscript and make the footnote brackets render in the same size as the surrounding text, while .reference { display: none; } will hide them entirely. This assumes that you're using the default Wikipedia skin (Monobook), of course, but you can get the same results with other skins, as well, but editing the appropriate CSS file. – Seancdaug 06:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.  Added the line and the article looks a lot better to me. - Hbdragon88 07:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, no. I removed:

This case was selected as #5 Universal Goes Ape in GameSpy's 25 Dumbest Moments in Gaming.
I don't see why that's relevant. I could just as easily say "David Sheff devoted an entire chapter of his book to this case." So what? This maybe maybe maybe belongs in the article, but it needs to be integrated into the main text, not appended as an afterthought in a one-sentence section of its own. And the hard link to Gamespy needs to go down with the other references so that the footnote can match the format adopted for the remainder of the article. — BrianSmithson 13:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I owe Hbdragon88 an apology. I absolutely despise "In popular culture" sections in articles (see this discussion for why), but I shouldn't have taken that out on you. I've reinstated the GameSpy reference, but I can't access the URL from work (blocked). Can you add the author's name to the reference and check the other particulars? — BrianSmithson 13:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I fleshed out the reference and used the cite web template. I'll leave it to you to add the inline ref, as I'm not sure how you'd refer to it. Pagrashtak 22:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If Kong is in the public domain, then why does Toho keep saying they can't remake King Kong vs. Godzilla because the rights would cost too much?  They wouldn't even have to pay, would they? Thanos6 19:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Good question. The character of King Kong and the scenario of ape capturing woman and climbing skyscraper is evidently public domain, so they shouldn't need to worry. — BrianSmithson 20:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Kong is public domain, but I doubt Godzilla is. Pagrashtak 01:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
But Toho OWNS Godzilla. Thanos6 02:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the character Kirby was named after lawyer John Kirby is definitely worth mentioning. But can anyone provide a source that explicitly says this is the case? Sounds likely, but a source citation would be a good idea. — BrianSmithson 23:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it ought to be edited, as even the citation says that the source of the name is unclear. 76.69.73.184 (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
It's at least as likely if not more so that Kirby was named after the brand of vacuum cleaner, and to the best of my knowledge, neither source has ever been confirmed. 153.42.170.64 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed it from "low" to "high" because this was a really landmark decision - had Universal won, Nintendo might have crushed, and who knows where they might have gone had they been forced to turn over the profits over from DK. Hbdragon88 01:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Did this article have a good article review, per Good article candidates? If not, the {{GA}} tag and the listing on Wikipedia:Good articles should be removed. Thanks. Twinxor t 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It was tagged 01:29, 27 February 2006 by User:Pagrashtak. Was the review process in effect at that time? No idea. — BrianSmithson 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards,Ruslik 12:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/june03/dumbestmoments/index5.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5PpZ6M59v?url=http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/june03/dumbestmoments/index5.shtml to http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/june03/dumbestmoments/index5.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)