Talk:Edge (magazine)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bin Bags[edit]

I remember that Edge was unique in being distributed in heavy-duty plastic bags for the first few of years. Something you see in some magazine today, but Edge never had the excuse of including "covermounts". Zoganes 22:57, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

That's still the case with significant issues now and again- the 10th Anniversary issue for example. It's rarer now though. According to themselves, it was to increase the mistique surrounding the magazine. Make it something desirable; there was a self-conscious air of arrogance around the whole thing at the start ("Less 'all the news that's fit to print', more 'only if we say it matters'"). Sockatume 23:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Controversial Scoring[edit]

Possibly one of the reasons for the controversial scoring was that Edge has never credited reviews, so the reviewers have had the freedom to tear into a game without jeopardizing future junkets. Zoganes 23:17, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

Edge don't credit anything beyond the opening general list of credits (list of contributors, editors, designers etc.). They've rarely came across as tearing into games with wild abandon, though (with a few notable exceptions; their first ever 1/10, Kabuki Warriors for the XBox, for example). That's not stopped them getting in bother with publishers, though; IIRC a massively accusatory Redeye column, which lambasted Future/Rockstar for effectively marketing Manhunt to minors through Gamesmaster magazine, caused the walkout. Sockatume 23:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, Edge published an editorial in one issue (it may have been one of the columnists, if so, correct me if I'm wrong) that commented on the growing number of gaming celebrities. They provided a reason for not crediting the work of the writers, as the magazine saw it as 'glorifying' them. --Tr33zon 12:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10/10 Scores[edit]

Per a Frontier Developments Press Release (scroll down to the entry of 16-12-2002), both Elite and Exile were posthumously awarded 10/10 scores, so I'm about to add them to the article proper. Unfortunately I don't have an issue number, but I don't imagine this will be a controversial change? - ThomasHarte 15:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a period where Edge were writing retro reviews from the perspective of when they were originally released. The two games you mention were reviewed in an Edge RETRO special. Super Mario Bros NES got 10/10 in a retro review in the main mag. I can't pinpoint which issue from memory though.
I'm sure I read a bit in Edge where they were having a grumble about the 10/10 that Half-Life 2 received and said that in hindsight it should have been 9/10.--X201 10:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has always been internal controversy over scores. Kuru Kuru Kururin (GBA) was originally scored as a 3/10 but amended to a much higher figure - 7, I think - while Eternal Arcadia (Skies of Arcadia in the west) was downgraded from a 9 to an 8 to prevent eclipsing Shenmue in the same issue (8/10). There has been other oversights (6/10 Gunstar Heroes and 8/10 Crazy Taxi 2) but the most famous mistake of all was the PR-pressured 9/10 awarded to Turok 2. All this is first-hand experience.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.24.94.126 (talk • contribs)

Has any of this internal controversy been made public? I mean, it's understandable and even expected for a magazine's creators to disagree over what its content should be. -- SamSim 17:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is 0/10 still a possible score for a game? Given that 5/10 is "average" and should, therefore, be in the middle of the possible scoring range, it has to be, otherwise "average" is 5.5/10. This being the case, the fact that no game has ever received 0/10 is worth noting. -- SamSim 17:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACE Magazine[edit]

Anyone remember much about ACE magazine? I used to be an avid fan back in the day, it was my favorite video game rag. I think the ACE stood for "Advanced Computer Entertainment". I even remember reading their last ever issue and feeling sad :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmathew (talk • contribs)

Remember it, sure : I created the wikipedia article on it only a few days ago. See ACE (games magazine). --Oscarthecat 08:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish / German editions[edit]

These sections appear very POV at the moment, as they make claims about the quality of the editions without citing any sources. Anyone able to elaborate on these sections, and add some refs ? --Oscarthecat 16:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: In the spanish edition there are very good sources. The edition is so bad because the spanish editorial just took a few people from another magazine not related in any way with videogames. So they have cheap and unskilled writers and translators. The links from the editorial website shows the both staffs and everyone can check it. That's the source and it's a clearly one.

You keep deleting the almost the whole spanish part asking for sources. What the hell do you want? A pdf scanned issue of both editions? Do u speak spanish? Do also want a translator, a videogames expert and a lawyer to certify that this edition is cheap crap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.131.39 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the feedback regarding translation and POV. As suggested, I have removed the claims regarding the quality of the translation. The argument over whether dedicated staff are always better than "generalists" is a dubious one, so I have removed that too. --Oscarthecat 21:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Yo do not remove the feeback regarding the translation. That's just one sentence. You remove all the fucking part about the local writers (they write in spanish, so no bad translation here) and you also delete all the sources. Bad and unskilled local writers. The editorial uses some staff of other old magazine so they get the work done cheap. And of course is a cheap work. Both staffs shown. That's a source. If you think spanish writers are really experts or it is a coincidence that they appear in both staffs just show me the proof. There's no one. By now I cited a good source, it makes sense and it's a good point. You have nothing.

Fact: The translation is crap. But because wikipedia does not allow to scan and upload parts of the magazine you keep deleting everything you want.

So by now, just fix yourself your mistake. I'm tired of editing what you keep deleting/hidding. And also fix the external links, they don't work anymore and that are the sources. If you just want to trash this part of the article you will not. If you have any source showing I'm wrong just write it down. But by now I have sources saying that my point is right.

And that's all. I'm not wasting any more time talking here. I you want a war you will loose it, so just calm down.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.173.145 (talk • contribs)

--

Rather poor English. "The spanish edition arrives at least one month later than the original, so the latest spanish issue is the translation of the english one released one month ago." Someone should re-write pretty much the whole part about the Spanish edition, or else it should be removed. Besides, many accusations lack references, such as "replace the low scored reviews with local ones with higher scores, just to keep the advertisers happy".

Also, the note about people deleting the aforementioned part should appear here, not in the article proper. --Almost Anonymous 21:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia IS NOT FOR ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Your own opinions and conclusions about the magazine, however self-evident, are irrelevant. You should be reporting the views of others regarding the magazine, with references. Sockatume 16:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I wasn't guilty of OR!--Almost Anonymous 20:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that wasn't meant to be directed at your thread, just the way the formatting worked out. Sockatume 22:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak german? If so, take one issue of the German translation. It goes as far as occasionally leaving half of a sentence in english (by mistake, I assume) every now and then. In such occasions it is not POV to call the translation "bad", I guess. I think there also was a mention of changing the games' scores in some cases which was actually announced by the German publisher, so there is a source, but it is in German, obviously. 80.137.88.150 15:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From a spanish reader.

What a shame. The spanish edition is so bad that it changes a 3/10 score to a 7/10 one just to keep advertisers happy. It's not only a very bad translation like in the german edition.

So let's see. I'm tired of seeing this and others FACTS been deleted. So I'm going to write only in the english section. Every statement, score or information not cited will get a [citation needed] "citation needed". Then every information not cited will be erased in a short time.

That's just what a lot of wikipedia editors do with the localised editions entries. I'm tired of wasting time re-writing this part of the article while others are just trashing it. So i will act the same with the rest of the article, after all, everyone is happy obeying the wikipedia rules. So let's play the same game.

Is there anyone trying to hide the truth about shit edge editions? You will play fair.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.174.205 (talk • contribs)

Hi, thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. Unsure why you've tagged most of the the sentences with the {{fact}} tag, they don't appear to need it. Could you clarify why they're needed? I've reverted the edit for the time being, as it made the article a little unreadable. Thanks, --Oscarthecat 09:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna do the same thing but you beat me too it :D
To the IP editor: As to the fact tags and the translation issue - well find some sources for the translation problem and it can go back in. The rest of the info is pretty much sourced down at the bottom of the page :D so the fact tags aren't really needed! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the stupid and unfair world of the Edge article. A lot of people do the same with the foreing editions and they delete their contents. They do to hide the truth.
Because I'm tired of re-writing in the local editions section while being deleted, I will act the same they do with the english part.
You complain. I did and nobody cared. Do you want a fair article? Just complain and respect about every unfair edit in the WHOLE article. A 3/10 is a 7/10 in th spanish edition. You ask for facts and delete it, while you keep a lot of uncited scores. Is it fair?
Do you have spare time to unedit changes? Please then do the same with what has been written about the spanish and german editions and has been erased without reason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.174.205 (talk • contribs)
Ok calm down :D I'm not disputing that it is fact! I actually believe you that it is true however it's not something you can just write about as fact UNLESS you have verifiable sources to prove it! In all honesty I've gone through the whole article and it is lacking in some sourcing (not as many as you tagged though). However your additions about poor translation need more verification than the rest. I am putting sources together for it all now.. but your stuff the sourcing has to come from you - I can't find anything with a google search I'm afraid. Sorry :( --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 62.83.174.205. You clearly have more knowledge of the Spanish edition of Edge than the rest of us. I'm a fan of the UK edition and have never seen the Spanish version (sounds like I'm kinda lucky in that respect). Can you track down some sources about the poor quality of Edge in Spain for us, so we can get this article to clearly and demonstrably inform readers how good/bad the magazine is? Sounds like you've got a lot to contribute to the article, and the sooner we can get the article reflecting the true state of the Spanish edition, including some decent sources cited to show it, that would be great. Many thanks. --Oscarthecat 10:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of spanish forums with threads complaining about it. Is it really a fact? Well, even if it is, it's written in spanish, so it can't be really checked by most english speaking readers of wikipedia.
There are even some magazine scans, but they are copyrighted. Do I have to open a blog called "what-a-holy-shit-of-spanish-edition", where some readers complain in english about a spanish product, to create a fact?
The real fact is that a lot of german and spanish readers have tried to write the truth about the magazine and they have been silenced. But, how many people have said how good the local editions are? Noboby will and you will not find it no matter how hard you google for it in every language you want to.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.174.205 (talk • contribs)
Well I'm sorry if that's the case but for it to appear here it needs sourcing. It's the whole fundamentals of Wikipedia!! Foreign language sources are perfectly fine, it's our job as 'fact checkers' to translate the data not yours - as the 'fact adder' you just have to provide the means to verify it. However blog's and forums are not generally considered good sources. In this case however I think they will be sufficient. Provide a few here in the article and I will get someone to translate them for me. In all honesty I'm trying to find a solution here. Wikipedia has very strict rules over things that could be considered derogatory or over-praising. General information is usually accepted unsourced to a point like the rest of the article) but your information is potentially sensitive and could easily cause debate. We also have strict rules over original research, it may seem silly in this case but the opinions of some editors could easily differ to another's. It's a tricky balance I know but find me those forum links and we'll see about a way of integrating the content into the article! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 11:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could just as easily claim that the Spanish edition is fantastic and better than the UK edition. After all I've got just as much proof. If it doesn't have sources, it's not getting in the article. See also WP:OR: the Wikipedia is no place for your own opinions, no matter how self-evident they may be. It's been there for months, if you had secondary and primary sources you should've cited them. And would you please cut out the allegations of bias or of some JFK-esque coverup? Did you not notice the massive unreferenced section on the staff walkout which was deleted? Hell, I was on the Edge forums when it walked out. The explaination given there was essentially accurate. But until someone from the mag writes a tell-all article or some other journalist writes up their analysis of the course of events, it's not suitable for an encyclopedia. Sockatume 15:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Computer Magazines[edit]

Template:Computer Magazines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Fourohfour 13:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Notice included here to get attention of unbiased cross-section of potentially interested parties. TfDs and this template don't seem to get much attention on their own, but this template appears in lots of articles.) Fourohfour 13:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redeye, unexplained deletions[edit]

This edit included removal of various sentences, plus insertion once again (was originally removed back here) of the RedEye controversy. Unusure why the removals were done, and also whether the RedEye story is suitable (sources, original research), so have reverted the edit. If anyone thinks this is the wrong action that I've taken, could we discuss here? --Oscarthecat 12:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my own experience, from what I have heard from numerous sources involved e.t.c, the RedEye story is mostly correct. Some of these journalists have even published the stories they wrote as RedEye separately, since then. However, it is very difficult to provide citations for this, as I'm sure you're aware that most magazines over here don't duplicate their content online. So that story, however true/false it may be, does constitute OR, and probably always will. As for the deletion of other sections, was that perhaps some kind of revert to an earlier version? That's the only explanation I can think of, unless he/she actually did go through and delete little bits here and there, and actually re-insert a non-existent template.
Either way, the central issue is the RedEye story, and I don't feel it should be included here unless it can be quite heavily sourced, due to the nature of the section. --Dreaded Walrus 16:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. How about someone cites the offline source, instead? Doesn't need to necessarily be online, but as you say it does need to be heavily sourced, due to its controversy. --Oscarthecat 17:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German edition changed to bimonthy, when?[edit]

The article states "It appeared monthly until December 2007 when it changed to being published bi-monthly". Since it is march 2007 now; is it announced to become bimonthy in dec 2007 (and should the wording in the article be changed) or is the date incorrect? Felsir 13:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Columnists[edit]

I see no mention of Gary Penn and his column 'Mightier than the Sword'. Also, what about a reference to the way that Edge prides itself on providing numerous recruitment pages for games companies so that readers can break into the industry? This is one of the key features of Edge and so I feel it needs mention. Views? --Tr33zon 12:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official Web Site?[edit]

Edge's web site hasn't been updated in an eternity and I haven't seen any new issues on newsstands. If someone could find out what the status of the business is and update the article, that would be great. 86.59.11.23 15:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be business as usual. If your newsagents haven't been getting the magazine, perhaps subscribing would be an option? I certainly know they're still making the magazine - I got this month's issue without problems. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 15:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out nothing has to be updated. The link to the official site now redirects to Edge's section on next-gen.biz. Two days ago it had still taken me to the old, defunct site (maybe a DNS problem), and I had no idea they'd given that up. Thanks for the quick reply! 86.59.11.23 12:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, from this week, edge-online.com redirects again to next-gen.biz. The masthead has been changed to "Edge Online hosted by next-gen.biz". I couldn't find any reason given after doing a cursory search online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.164.18 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Galaxy Cover[edit]

How about changing the Edge cover, it's too old. How about putting the Super Mario Galaxy cover (the newest issue)??? --Mr.Mario 192 22:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the cover for issue 179 up, fairly recent. --Tr33zon (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cover design (masthead etc.) hasn't changed though, so it's still a perfectly good example to use to illustrate the magazine. (To be pedantic, at least in the UK the Super Mario Galaxy cover wasn't current on the 23/10, the then current one was a Rock Band cover, and it's now a nice PS3 in thunderstorm one). FredOrAlive 20:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:EDG169cov.jpg[edit]

Image:EDG169cov.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 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 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) 05:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Columnists and Review Database[edit]

Seemingly from issue 192 Stephen Poole is writing a column in Edge again (although it is unknown for how long).

It also looks like the review database has vanished from the website (30th August 2008).

87.113.39.189 (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— A fan managed score database is online at https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1D1odIVhdCE8zlBp5Ha1bNsLNAU83UF1WBiYYl5A#rows:id=1, however it is missing issue 0. Also what is up with using the ugliest cover of recent years? 78.147.95.106 (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Edge (magazine). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Edge (magazine). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edge (magazine). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First issue of Edge[edit]

Hi, AarnKrry. I found the very first issue of the Edge magazine at Wikia. I wonder whether you would be okay with me switching from the April 2017 issue to the October 1993 one. --George Ho (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current image is more representative of what the magazine is like now. It would be better to add issue one into the article with commentary about how it's changed over time. - X201 (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mean I can right away add it (rather than switch) as part of the body article, right? George Ho (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, add it as part of the body as long as it has enough critical commentary with it, discuss things like the size change and the removal of the machine names from underneath the logo etc . I think preferable for magazine articles to have a current-ish issue in the infobox. - X201 (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed Future plc, and they said they are fine with such usage (well, "fair use" actually). I'm unsure whether details about the front cover are necessary for such usage, even with its permission. If it is, I could not find reliable sources discussing the image itself. I found a primary source, but the issue was mentioned in just one line. George Ho (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi George Ho! I'm happy with whatever you guys decide. I tend to update it when a new Zelda comes out, just because that's when I buy Edge and the cover is always many years out of date each time I come to visit the article again! Thanks anyway -- it was very considerate of you. · AarnKrry · 00:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
About the current issue... I am uncertain whether it is appropriate as a lead image at this time, especially for a currently active publication. Every "current" issue gets replaced: [1][2][3]. Nonetheless, I won't use the first issue as part of the infobox. I think a logo would suffice as a lead image; see Time (magazine) and Newsweek, which ceased its print publication years ago. I am going to add or change images at "Personal Computer World" at some time. George Ho (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Lead image (2022)[edit]

I did request the very first issue four years back (see #First issue of Edge). From what I learned, "current-ish" issue has been most preferable to display. However, as I have begun to worry, every current issue cover would automatically have "contextual significance" issues, especially if the cover would eventually be replaced by a more recent cover. I raised my concerns recently at another talk page Talk:Rolling Stone#Lead image. Rather than no cover at all, the consensus there decided to have one of anniversary-ish covers, so I had to abide to that.

If the consensus decide against the no-cover option, then how about one of issues here: 100th issue (Aug 2001) or 300th issue (Christmas 2016)? 200th issue used 200 covers (literally), and I couldn't find a standard-ish edition of the 200th issue. --George Ho (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Vulphere who uploaded the cover. --George Ho (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or one of 20 covers of the 258th issue (20th anniversary of Edge) or one of covers of the 323rd issue (25th anniversary)? George Ho (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC) (changed one of links) George Ho (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind to use the cover of 323rd issue for lead image.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 23:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to a 25th-anniversary cover. Will probably switch to a 30th-anniversary one next year or the 400th issue in the next few years. You don't mind the one you uploaded being deleted right away, do you? George Ho (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's all right.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 00:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edge_(magazine)&oldid=1196415770"