Talk:MLB 07: The Show

message: This article contains misleading information.  While it may be true that it is the only first-party developed MLB-licensed game, it is that way because of the exclusive THIRD-PARTY deal that the MLB made with Take-2.  Any first party can make an MLB licensed game according to the contract.  Furthermore, EA did not have an MLB-licensed game last year either, so their creative alternatives have been in the works for two years and manifested itself as an NCAA licensed baseball game last year.  It would be useful to add that there are other MLB-licensed games being developed for the 2007 season.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/01/24/news_6116946.html (link to the article about Take-2's deal with the MLB). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.153.112 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading

message: This "many people" paragraph isn't very neutral, nor is it sourced. Edit it, please. JAF1970 15:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weasel section is fixed, and the template removed. NyyDave 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel

message: The PlayStation 3 store has an update 'to fix the Oakland Athletics night game problem'. Can someone message me and explain what that means. Socby19 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oakland A's at night?

message: I came across this heated debate and thought there was no need for such argument. I've added reference to the bugs in the reception section here, including a couple of examples as suggested. I think this was a problem over misreading Wikipedia's "comprehensive" aspect. 
*Imagine wikipedia not as library, but as a book: in the library there would be articles about the game, maybe even a book or two which has a chapter detailing all the bugs. However wikipedia is an encyclopedia in this library, it should summarise all the information on the game without going in to full detail. If we want all the detail we can always go and read the book (the sources in the references/notes section).
*Similarly, if wikipedia does not summarise the presence and effects of these bugs then it won't be entirely comprehensive.
Are all sides satisfied with the addition in the review section? I really hope so because i'm sure all involved have better things to do than keep arguing. Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that looks great to me. An infinitely better way of organising the section, and what I was hoping would become of this instead of some drama. As far as I can tell, WP:CVG doesn't have any guidelines as to what is and isn't reliable - and I'm no expert on the matter, outside of the usual suspects (IGN, Gamespot, etc.) - but they look okay to me. Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 04:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A resolution and truce?

message: In August of 2008, a question was raised at the copyright problems board concerning whether this article infringes against this source. That source bears a 2007 copyright notice, while this article was created in 2006. The text in this article developed organically. Compare this version from March 2007, before the release of the game, with the tagged source. There is little question that the "author" of the external source is violating the copyright of Wikipedia rather than the other way around. The article seems to have been copied around May of 2007, after the release of the game. Compare the external source with this edit. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright question