Talk:Game Boy Wars 3

Comparisons to the NW series installments
As you may have noticed, a user has been deleting the information about the differences between GBW3 and other Nintendo Wars series installments.

Please DO NOT delete this information. It's been on the page right from the creation of the GBW3 page, and it hadn't been touched before even though a Wikipedia admin had visited at least a couple of times and the page itself had been requested for a cleanup anyway. Plus, anybody who had played Advance Wars before should be allowed to know this information, whether I or anybody else for that matter agree(s) with all of the noteworthy differences or not.

However, this information has been cleaned up a bit, as per a suggestion of the user in question. But deleting the information is VERY ill advised. Since the Talk page is now being started, we can use it to come up with a far better idea. --JuigiKario
 * They are not bad edits, they just are not ideal. Use Super Mario 64 as an example, as it does not contain such content. It is far too old to keep this content on its article. Maybe readd significant gameplay changes (AWDS includes mention of the Dual Screen and Tag), but the content being discussed includes many trivial details that do not deserve mention. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you even play GBW3? If you're sure the changes are so trivial, then you can't come crying to me and expect sympathy if you play GBW3 and see stuff like an AA Tank of yours getting murdered by a Battle Car. And yes, I am, as you might have heard, believing that Adder isn't exactly good (in AW2/DS), although it's at least partially because he's getting more praise than he deserves for what his CO Powers do. The list of differences from the regular branch would be more appropriate on the page for Game Boy Wars now, but not the ones that are specific for GBW3. --JuigiKario
 * I agree with ALTTP. Some of the information given is alright, but i think it would be more useful given as straight facts about the gameplay rather than a comparison to other versions. Rather than saying what isnt there, its better saying what IS there. If all game articles compared to other games like that, they'd just reference each other and it'd be stupid and confusing. --Jeffthejiff | Talk 11:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid excuse for the deletion of the information. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information, not deny it. The gameplay differences between GBW3 and AW were simply put up first because of higher priority, as gameplay differences can easily make or break a player's view of a game compared to a similar one. And I've been agreeing that the GBW3 page had been needing a cleanup job to begin with. Deleting the information that was already around wasn't the answer to this cleanup job. --JuigiKario
 * The information that was deleted is very useful. First of all: most people who have heard about GBW3 are those who have played Advance Wars. Comparision and listing of changes is essential. Also, more information is never a bad thing. Roma_emu 22:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So, what you're saying is that every single detail that can be said about the game. If you actually WANT to make a good article, then write about the game, NOT about how it stands up!
 * Ever notice how this is the ONLY article in the Advance Wars series where anyone is trying to compare it to the entire series? So, Super Mario 64 lacks a comparison, and this one has (had) one. SM64 is one of the best-written articles on Wikipedia. USE THAT. Also, good thing someone mentioned that you were whining about me, I might have forgotten about this article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you want to write a SM64-quality/style article, do so. But we don't have one; the comparision-style article is the best we will have for some time. Until someone makes something better, leave that up. - Roma_emu 02:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you like the article, you two will make an effort to improve that. We don't leave in poor content just because there's nothing to replace it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to try and rewrite this, and lose some of the GameFAQs-style advice and instruction (remember, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide) for some artistic and historical context. That said, there should be a section on how the game is different from the other games (especially seeing as it's dramatically different from Advance Wars), but the overdetailed list of specific changes is inappropriate for Wikipedia. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

When ýou conquer the radar station, how do you make use of it? What is the gbc adapter, which you mentioned?

Fair use rationale for Image:GBW3Battle.png
Image:GBW3Battle.png 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 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GBW3Box.jpg
Image:GBW3Box.jpg 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 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)