Jump to content

Talk:Dungeon Siege

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleDungeon Siege is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 19, 2018.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 8, 2017Good article nomineeListed
July 25, 2017Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Reference material

[edit]

I've found these:

More as I find it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hah, wow! Alright, I'll poke through these for now, as I'm satisfied with the sourcing for the GA-level, but I guess I pretty much have to take this to FAC once Homeworld is done. Thanks so much! --PresN 13:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem! When you said you might take this article to FA, I decided to dig around and see what sources were available. Fortunately (or unfortunately), games from this period tend to have a frightening amount of coverage, as I learned while helping Zeality with Anachronox. Hopefully it's not too overwhelming. Good luck with the article! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When do you think that you may nominate it for FA PresN? JimmyBlackwing good job on digging those up! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: Probably not for a while; I haven't even started poring through these links, to be honest. My last FAC (Homeworld) just finished yesterday, though, and I don't have any other major writing projects spinning, so I'm planning on starting in on it this week, and depending on how it goes maybe nominate it in late May or June. Hopefully. --PresN 03:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Congratulations! One day I hope to have an article pass GA (more realistic possibility) and maybe one day FA. Let me know when you do nominate it, okay? Thanks. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much again for finding all these, JimmyBlackwing! I've finally gotten through them all (it was exhausting; Chris Taylor was a media hound but every outlet seems to only want to ask the same trivial questions as if Google wasn't a thing), and it's made the article so, so much better. It's now up for FAC, if you want to review it or just read it. --PresN 17:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC) @TheSandDoctor: right, you asked me to ping you too, so done![reply]
No problem at all! Yeah, a lot of late-'90s/early-'00s game coverage seems to have the repetition problem—it's a struggle to trawl through it. I'm glad you were able to find valuable material in there. Unfortunately, these days, I don't have enough Wikipedia time to review articles, but I'll definitely give the Development section a read. Good luck at FAC! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Thanks for pinging me as requested! Good luck in the FAC! Only admins can review FACs, right? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: Anyone with an account can, though it's expected for reviews to be rather in-depth or else they're likely to be discounted by the FAC coordinators. --PresN 18:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dungeon Siege/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) 01:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have started reviewing this article to determine whether or not it is of GA standard (within my assessment). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reviewing! Though right off the bat, I'm a little confused- in this edit you convert all the dates from month-day-year to day-month-year "to match conventions"- what conventions are you talking about? Month-day-year is the standard for American dates, and this game was developed by an American company, and the article (re)written by an American editor (me), and I'm not aware of any conventions that dates need to be in the European format. --PresN 01:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: I find the format weird myself, however, it is the most common convention across Wikipedia (convention I was referring to). If you prefer the other format I could switch it back, it is just the most common one here. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Result: this article meets the criteria for GA status according to my review. It is well-written, verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated with images throughout. This article also does not appear to have any copyright infringement and the Earwig report comes back promising (see here). Well done PresN and all other editors who have contributed to this article! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TheSandDoctor: Awesome, thanks! As to the date styles, FYI: it's probably the articles you're usually editing in, then- as per MOS:DATEFORMAT (and the following subsections), both formats are acceptable as long as the article (not including refs) use them consistently, and barring a strong national tie to the subject articles should retain whatever style was originally used. It's been that way as long as I've been here (10+ years). It's not really a big deal either way to me. Anecdotally for me, I see American-style dates more often in articles. --PresN 02:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome PresN. As for your comment, that could very well be correct. I do move around but shall defer to your judgement in that as you have been here a lot longer than I have (about 4 months and counting here haha). Anyhow, I shall switch it back to the format it was before. Sorry for the confusion and happy editing! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Format has been switched back per your request. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! No worries, happy editing! --PresN 02:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Publisher

[edit]

@Lordtobi: Many games are having different publisher (e.g. those under THQ) For Dungeon Siege, at least a few stores list Square Enix as the current publisher (SteamhumblebundleneweggGMG. Matthew hk (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthew hk, yes that is true, Square Enix bought the franchise and are now publishing it. However, the infobox is used to display the original publisher of a work, which in this case is Microsoft (and Destineer for Mac). Square Enix's ownership would require a reliable, secondary source, and should be covered in the prose (e.g. under "Release") instead of being stuck into the infobox. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 17:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of Aranna interview

[edit]

JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works set in castles reverted?

[edit]

Castle Ehb's a pretty major part of the game, and is prominent in the plot description for the game. From this, I figured that the category for 'Works set in castles' was appropriate as the castle's very important in the plot of the game, and is a pretty big segment of the game gameplay-wise. Waxworker (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the category: "Works set in castles, not just with a castle in them." Dungeon Siege is not set in a castle. These type of categories are arbitrary enough as-is, and the castle in the last section is not a defining part of the game. --PresN 14:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dungeon_Siege&oldid=1207057662"