Talk:Broken Sword

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Adventure games, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of adventure games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Untitled

I have been trying to disambiguate some of the articles that link to Congo.

The section of this article named Broken Sword 3: The Sleeping Dragon states
The Knights Templar return in another globetrotting adventure, taking the protagonists to Glastonbury, Paris, Cairo, Prague and the Congo.

As congo is linked there I wondered if anyone knew if the game refers to Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Belgian Congo, Congo River basin or maybe just Congo River.

If anyone knows could they fix the offending link. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.210.52 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Clean up

congrats on whoever cleaned up this article. I saw it a couple of months ago and it was all other the place, i would have done it myself but i didnt know where to start. good one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.134.79 (talk • contribs)

[edit] GBA version

This line is self-contraditiory: The GBA version has several bugs that made completing the game impossible. (Please note that even with the bugs the GBA version is still beatable) Either this game is or isn't completable. So I have removed it until we have a source that says one way or the other. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"the GBA version is completable (obviously), but you can do things in a certain order that breaks the game, preventing you from finishing it", answered by Revolution's Joost Peters. -- Lightkey 23:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The game is completable, I have done it myself, however I did encounter one of these bugs and it did require me to restart the game. However, I could recall everything I needed to do to get back to that point, and doing so took me less than an hour. In fact given the stunning voice acting and beautiful artowkr in this game, having to restart was a joy :P

Except the GBA version has no voice acting... Liam Markham (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] spoiler

"It has been confirmed since August 2nd 2006 that this will be the final in the Broken Sword series, as the hero George Stobbart will die towards the end of the fourth installment." By whom, and is this spoiler necessary? --Dandelions 02:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh, rumors I've read is that someone will die... However speculation includes, Nico or George Stobbart... I don't think anyone knows who will die if anyone dies69.225.9.90

[edit] Fan-made games

Does Broken Sword 2.5, a fan-made game, really need to be on this page? It strikes me as being most unencyclopedic, and I'd be inclined to remove all mention of it. -- H. Carver 21:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Wikipedia has policies regarding the inclusion of external links. Relevant to the links included in this article are WP:EL and WP:NOT. Specifically: Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, point #11; and WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. Justification for the inclusion of any link into this article is the onus of those who wants the link added. Mindmatrix 15:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I take full responsability when adding those links, and your reasons aren't revelant enough to stop users to add "contributive content" to the article. Those links have been double-checked, and have nothing to do with spam. Also, the content of these websites can bring extra infos about the games not present on the article. Firstwind (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this edit says it all. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Say what??? could you be a bit more specific Firstwind (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Your... edit... was... reverted... by AntiSPAM bot. - Dudesleeper · Talk 23:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Irrespective of this discussion, I've removed two links. One, to ripway.com, has DNS issues (it doesn't resolve); the other is in French, and since equivalent English sites exists, there's no need to include it here. Mindmatrix 16:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Well done user Mindmatrix, i think the link section is now clearer and the diversity of websites about BS is fine. I'm satisfied with the current situation and up to leave it like this. Firstwind 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ahem - I still think the other three links should be excised; don't misconstrue the fact that I left them there in my last edit as an indication that I support their inclusion - I clearly do not. Since the article was protected, I left them there for the benefit of the discussion, in which you are the only person that supports their inclusion. I'm still waiting for more input on this. My initial point that these links fail the various WP policies is still valid. Mindmatrix 22:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not waiting for you to approve it you know. If you really think that the remaining links fail with Wikipedia policies, bring good reasons to do so and give some proof, if you do not follow the policies, i'll put them back. Firstwind 14:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I won't express my opinions on this matter, having past experience with User:Firstwind editing it could be considered unfair. However this article has certainly been protected for too long already. Maybe a RFC? Mthibault 18:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I already stated this above: "Justification for the inclusion of any link into this article is the onus of those who want the link added." You have failed to demonstrate why the links belong, per the policies cited, which is the proof I've given to you. Your simplistic tactics of trying to turn the argument on me won't work. Further, claiming or asserting that I'm not following policy is disingenuous at best, and more likely a poor attempt at trolling. This seems to be your modus operandi, and it's quite tiresome. You have one more chance to provide valid reasons why these links meet the criteria cited in the policies - if you fail to do so, they will be deleted. Mindmatrix 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all we do speak English here, i don't need your constant mindless reports and foreign expressions. I think you gives a high estime of yourself, it's not up to you to give people a chance, this is so pathetic! You seem to say that i don't follow the policies and you do, you should read carefully Wikipedia policies and make contributive additions instead of making such a mess and bothering "real" administrator to protect an article. What can i say more, if you see the article better without fansite links go ahead and change it, we'll see next. I expect to see "little rats" such as user Mthibault... to follow this discussion, and this thought is not an agression but a good designation for such users. Firstwind (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I really don't know what to say. After carefull reading of WP:NPA I choose to ignore this this time as I said at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Firstwind&oldid=176153388. Mthibault (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You've essentially edited three articles; I've created nearly 300 new articles, and substantially expanded numerous more. To say that I should "make contributive additions instead of making such a mess" is a clearly biased interpretation of the situation. Further, the Wikipedia community has clearly expressed guidelines and policies regarding external links. You have chosen to ignore community consensus and are forcing your own views. The policies I cited above state that one should avoid links to "social networking sites (such as MySpace or Fan sites), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET". The links you keep adding are clearly fora, to which this policy applies.
You state "it's not up to you to give people a chance, this is so pathetic" - no, it isn't my duty to give people a chance. I simply enforce policy which has been determined by community consensus, but it appears you're unwilling to work within the Wikipedia community. Regarding your comment about "bothering "real" administrator to protect an article" - administrators are equal, and I don't summon others to do "real" work. If you choose to dislike me, that's one thing. To imply anything about me is your opinion, not a statement of fact.
As far as modus operandi is concerned - it's a valid english expression found in any dictionary (for example, at Merriam-Webster). It is not a "foreign expression", but rather a loanword. Also, the next time you make personal attacks gainst any individual, you will be blocked from editing "no questions asked". To state that "little rats" is "a good designation for such users" is the kind of anti-social behaviour that is not welcome here. Mindmatrix 18:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Those comments are more than two months old, this former dispute has been solved already, so you're making more mess than there is here. I don't pretend ownership of this article, i'd just like to add two links, and it's not because few other users are against my decision that mean that i'm wrong. You also didn't always showed good intentions in your previous edits, and anyone reading this should take a look at the conversation below done by an administrator. Also after the first dispute ended, and the article got unprotected, the new links kept on the external links section, but then more than two months later, suddenly user h carver removed the links so i put it back and this new dispute started (again). Who's the most incivil then???
Firstwind —Preceding comment was added at 20:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't mean you're "wrong", but Wikipedia is built on consensus. - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit issues

Hi,

I was asked to take a look at this matter and thought I'd drop a short note.

This dispute revolves around three issues: links, civility, and article ownership.

Firstwind

Please listen carefully. Wikipedia works by consensus, and so what you have said above really only means you are content the links are okay. It cannot mean they are going to be okay for everybody. You were told at ANI about 4 months ago, that disruption to editing, OWNership of articles (as if you have a say on them more than other people) and ignoring others and consensus instead using personal attack is not right. But I don't see any sign it has changed enough yet. What would help a lot is to be prepared to discuss the links you like, and understand a bit what others feel too, and be prepared in the end to accept others views as well as ask them to accept yours.

As an encyclopedia, we are often very selective about links. It's not unusual for good links to exist that are left out due to "already got enough good ones". That might be what's up. But in any case you need to start working with others. Working in a way that is "by yourself" without others doesnt work here. You also need to discuss the article not the people, so comments like "little rats" are not okay, and if I hear of incivility again then you may end up blocked perhaps, which would be a shame. So please take care to be civil and use good words.

The other thing that might help is, instead of arguing over policies, and accusing each other of not having a clue, may I suggest visit WP:3O and ask for an opinion on the links in question? That way you will get unbiased answers and views. It is incivil to argue this way; if there is a problem, then discuss and find an answer that works, or seek help to do so from others in the community.

Everyone else

Yes it was wrong to say incivil things. If it repeats it will be a problem, and if disruption continues it's a problem. But even so, don't over react. And if you feel the links are wrong, then try to explain why as well, and find agreement. But don't be incivil either.


I won't be mediating, but mediation is open if anyone wants it, and I think it would be the best answer for everyone. Please see WP:MEDIATION. I'm going to leave my comnments there, but I hope they will be taken note of. If the incivilities continue from either side, please let me know. I'll be glad to come back. Meantime though, communicate and seek help, and discuss. Don't just attack each other. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)