Talk:Quantic Dream

message: :Image:Quantic dream logo.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 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 03:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Quantic dream logo.gif

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Quantic Dream. 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://web.archive.org/web/20121018103757/http://www.1up.com/news/quantic-dream-game-focus-emotions to http://www.1up.com/news/quantic-dream-game-focus-emotions
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: PNG has a better quality and you can easly read the word "Quantic", so is just better. Date format and "List of" removed, well...I thought they were better too. I really suggest to put the PNG, while the other two changes can be reverted if they violate regulation (but I don't think). Lone Internaut (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Date format should be kept per WP:ARTCON (article uses dmy format as the company is located in France); regarding list, there isn't quite a guideline, but "List of X" is the most common format with unspoken consensus on. Regarding the image, the PNG appears to depict and outdated, clipart-style logo of the studio, unlike the SVG, which has the most recent. Instead of replacing the SVG, which is superior to the PNG as it is a vector graphic, it should be edited to be more readable, e.g. flip white->black, or add a light background. I will get on doing that SVG edit shortly, and propose the result here; if we can both agree to that version, I will upload it here; if not, we can use the PNG. Lordtobi (✉) 21:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the help with the SVG, let's see how it comes in edited-more readable version. Lone Internaut (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For comparison, I uploaded renderings of the original and two vartations here. I think the second variation looks a little too brownish, so I would prefer the first one. What do you think? Lordtobi (✉) 21:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one is better, so my choice falls on it. Nice work. Lone Internaut (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  New file is up, if the logo does not refresh in the next minutes, hit Ctrl+Shift+R for to force a cache refresh. Lordtobi (✉) 21:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I say it's good. And for portal bar? Should be kept as I did in that version? Lone Internaut (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking into the revisions, I probably missed the portal bar being added; apologies. You may re-add it as you please.  Lordtobi (✉) 22:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  A pleasure to collaborate. See you around. Lone Internaut (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: Regarding the recent founding date change, I believe the old sources for the formation date refer to the company's incorporation, which indeed happened on 3 June. Consider splitting the sentence in two: "Quantic Dream" founded 2 May, "Quantic Dream SA" incorporated 3 June. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 16:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Or the registration entry for Infogreffe happened on 3 June since the website states on "03/06/1997". Sebastian James (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , Infogreffe is the portal of France's corporate registry, "Entered" here refers to when the corporation was entered into the corporate registry, which means that it incoroprated. Furthermore, the Infogreffe website only opened in 1998, making it unlikely that the date refers to when the company was entered into the website. The French (original) version of the site further says "Immatriculée", which more closely translates to "registered". Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 16:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: French Wikipedia states that before infogreffe.fr, the data was accessible by Minitel via 3615 Infogreffe (1986-1998). It is possible to move the registry to infogreffe.fr. Sebastian James (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, but I still don't think that it is the date when the website received it. The date presented still is the date when the SA was added to the corporate registry, aka. was incorporated. Further info if you check the last page under the "official documents filed" tab: The incorporation documents were filed on 5 May and the incorporation was finished on 3 June. Lordtobi (✉) 20:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added info. Hope I understood you right. Cognissonance (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup! I made a small adjustment for clarity, though. Lordtobi (✉) 05:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founding date 

message: I have reinstated the new table with the things you mentioned in your revert summary. Why exactly did you revert my edit by the way before starting a discussion on the talk page? - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 22:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , as I linked -- WP:BRD -- you need to achieved consensus before having your edit reinstantiated. As I stated before, I don't think that the table should quadruple in size just to make way for one platform per row. This is done in some list-style articles where every row is sourced independently, but this is not the case here, as we have many collective sources. I furthermore personally dislike that "Publisher" (now singular for some reason) is centered, while all others are not; I'm not saying that the others should be centered too, none should. I will revert your edit again, please gain consensus for your styling first. Pining regulars  for comments. Lordtobi (✉) 23:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , before reverting my edits you should instead consider fixing what you think is wrong before going and reverting the edit. Constantly doing that angers editors like myself, and may stop them from editing in the future. So please unrevert your change and fix what you think is broken, because the table in its prior form before I went and changed it, was beyond wrong and quite inaccurate. And as for the "one platform per row", that was the only way I could conveniently fix the Publisher section due to the fact that doing what I did would be quite difficult to do, hence why I did what I did. You may have a focus on editing video game articles, but you should put more thought into what you change / revert. Just a simple bit of constructive criticism. Oh, one more thing: I centered the publisher names because I previewed the article without the centered titles, and it looked a bit off, so that's why I centered it.  - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 23:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , I get your point. I restored some details (X360, Aspyr, Quantic Dream for Fahrenheit), though I noticed that "Self-published (original Windows release)" is probably factually incorrect; what you are citing is the GOG.com release, which came about six+ years later. Lordtobi (✉) 23:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , it still looks really off. I'm sorry but I personally don't find the reasoning behind defending the old table valid aside from wanting it to be compact. Compact isn't always better and it's still giving off quite incorrect information, as your changes don't indicate who published what, where my updated table did. And you modifying the older table to include that would IMHO make the table look even more off. I still don't see what was wrong with the way I had the table... - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 23:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , this table is supposed to give a brief overview over the games developed by Quanitc Dream + involved parties and platforms. It is not supposed to be overly detailed (and thus volumant), that's what the individual articles are for. Lordtobi (✉) 23:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , it was still brief. I just changed the table to have some added detail to clarify things for the reader so they had a better idea as to who published what. Sorry that involved increasing the height of the table, but it would be best if users had more detail when they go and look at the QD article, because perhaps readers don't have the time to scroll through large articles like Fahrenheit (2005 video game) to get information on stuff like that. Again, I still have the opinion that the newer table should be reinstated. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 23:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , you're well entitled to have your own opinion, but you will have to accept that others can and will have other opinions, so you will have to reach consensus for your version to remain. Lordtobi (✉) 00:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

text: , I disagree. The changes I made would've been quite hard to do in the current table, and it was missing quite a bit of information, and generalizing who published what titles and for what versions, meaning it was / is giving off incorrect information to readers. E.g., Atari didn't publish any of the Fahrenheit versions aside from the PlayStation 2, Xbox, and Xbox 360 versions. So yeah, I disagree that I inflated the table unnecessarily. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 23:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New table 

message: Per This press release the Paris Appeals court has found in favor of QD, among other things. I haven't seen this mentioned in other press yet, so I'm going to wait until third-party comes along to figure out how to add it, but heads up to look for this. --Masem (t) 18:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Followup