Talk:The Wizard of Oz: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oz, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OzWikipedia:WikiProject OzTemplate:WikiProject OzOz articles

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Starwing Paradox (2 participants)
Pit (Kid Icarus) (8 participants)
Dancing Stage Max (3 participants)
Bez-MX (9 participants)
Vette (Star Wars) (5 participants; relisted)
International Hobo (2 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Featured content candidates

Good article nominations

Squirtle (nom)
Slowpoke (Pokémon) (start)
Strago Magus (nom)
Rayman (video game) (nom)
Setzer Gabbiani (start)
Game Boy Color (start)
Missile Command 3D (nom)
Harold Halibut (nom)
Talim (Soulcalibur) (start)
Fusajiro Yamauchi (start)
Mr. Mime (start)
Bella Goth (start)
Game Boy (nom)
Sonic Triple Trouble 16-Bit (nom)
Klefki (nom)
Sobble (start)
Exdeath (start)
Lucky Luna (nom)
Age of Empires: The Rise of Rome (start)
Mega Man X6 (nom)
38 Studios (start)
Pikachu (start)
Reigns (video game) (start)
Fallout Online (start)
Nuketown (start)
Donkey Kong (start)
Horizon Forbidden West (start)
Surround (video game) (start)

DYK nominations

Reviews and reassessments

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (nom)
Hogwarts Legacy (rev)
Pokémon Channel (nom)
Rain World (rev)
Noctule (band) (rev)
Mario Kart: Double Dash (nom)

Articles that need...

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

https://www.siliconera.com/xseed-and-media-vision-take-us-behind-the-yellow-brick-road/

Article Notability[edit]

There are no references, no citations, how is this article notable? ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 10:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an established, high-budget game by a notable developer/publisher on a mainstream platform that's been covered by numerous sites and probably a couple magazines. I'm too apathetic to actually hunt down and put in references, nor do I really know or care how to, you can feel free to do that though. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image comparison[edit]

315px 315px 315px

Compare the two images. Which looks better? I think it's the one on the right, with it's sharper image and more vibrant colours. If you really can't tell which is sharper, compare the NintendoDS logo and ESRB rating box. JQF • Talk • Contribs 22:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As we can see, the ESRB logo you argue looks better is vastly different from the official one; the official one looks exactly the same as the one on the box on the left. The one on the right has a red faded appearance to it. I can't even read the "Games" in the XSEED logo. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image on the left is as sharp as the right one. However Xseed logo is blurred, and to me it seems the colors for the whole image arent correct, its as if someone has played around with the contrast. But the main reason i replaced it was because the one on the right isnt cropped on the top and bottom of the image. Its plainly evident that the left image is by far better quality and maybe you should let go of your ownership issues for this image as it would be better for wikipedia. Salavat (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and plus by looking at them at 315px of course the one on the left is going to look blurred because its overall size is only 256, the correct size for the image to be displayed in the infobox. Salavat (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't about ownership issues, I just felt the one I'd uploaded was better, as it was larger and didn't look faded (and the cropping issue was fixed before this issue even came up, so I don't see any validity to that argument). But I guess this entire argument is moot, as the cover will eventually have to be replaced when the final version, with ESRB rating, is released. JQF • Talk • Contribs 20:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the damn page[edit]

People have clearly been screwing with this page. So why don't the admins on this site do what they are meant to and fix it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.87.232 (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]