Jump to content

Talk:Dishonored

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 17:18, 13 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Keep majority rating "FA" in {{WPBS}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Featured articleDishonored 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 January 11, 2016.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 24, 2011Articles for deletionKept
January 23, 2013Good article nomineeListed
March 28, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

"Critical Acclaim"

[edit]

In response to User talk:ferret#No critical acclaim for Dishonored.. I believe a little more thought may be needed here. Typically I prefer to err on the side of caution and stick with a fairly neutral and (should be) uncontroversal "positive reviews". A lot of articles see drive by editors who change "positive" to "universal/critical acclaim". But usually those cases do not pass 90/100 on Metacritic.

In this case, Dishonored does pass the 90/100 mark though, for a single platform. How do we accurately represent this? One version is higher than the others and they straddle the boundary. -- ferret (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion really needs to be moved to the game project because we need a benchmark for this once and for all since everyone likes to to think their favourite game is critically acclaimed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do think "positive reviews" should be changed. I understand that these standards have not (yet) been set, but it doesn't quite feel accurate in its current form. Nwillard (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I´m fairly new to wikipedia in the less public sections, so if I make some mistakes in communicating with other forum-members correctly in regards to proper editing etc., I´d like to apologize in advance. Thank you. Concerning the topic: While I wouldn´t have any sort of problem with the term "positive reviews" at all, the thing that irks me is that seemingly not all pages would hold up the same high level of quality as the Dishonored-article, leading to the game being connoted as a bit worse than the reviews actually suggest. So "Positive reviews" would be a fine term, but what of the other wikipedia-pages then that would still use the "universal/critical acclaim" catchphrase and thus profit from less accurate editing?

One article I could think of, even though that one IS actually about my favourite game (and not Dishonored, as it may come across), is the Deus Ex: Human Revolution article. Here the "critical acclaim" is listed in both the reception-section and the introduction-section, even though the ratings are slightly worse than Dishonored´s and the "critical acclaim" could also only be applied to the two PC-versions, whereas the console-versions suggest "generally favourable" reviews.

So I agree with you both that this discussion should maybe be discussed a bit more in regards to having a real benchmark for such things since it blurs the reception-section of the articles to some extent. Autorefiller, 17.01.2016, 11:17

Alright, in that case, the proper venue is going to likely be WT:VG. If everyone is happy with Dishonored's state, and the real question is consistency across articles, it should be discussed there. -- ferret (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Dishonored. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dishonored. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dishonored. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with edits

[edit]

@Darkwarriorblake and SomeoneElseMightGetItWrong:

Please discuss the issue here instead of the edit summary of the article. This way other editors can weigh in on the situation and provide their thoughts and guidance. Thank You. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 23:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue appears to be resolved. My intention was not to edit war, I am somewhat still inexperienced here and did not know how else to begin a discussion. In either case, I still believe the plot can be trimmed in certain parts - for instance, the summary as is mentions details that the player can only learn by taking certain routes, such as learning that Burrows (the Lord Regent) started the plague himself. That's only learned if you take the non-lethal route on his level. In any case, for now I will focus on other articles. SomeoneElseMightGetItWrong (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record Alucard 16 I think the edit warring warning was a bit premature and excessive, there were 3 edits total over a lengthy period of time. And SomeoneElseMightGetItWrong, it does contain info that can't be obtained through every route but the aim is to create a comprehensive story. It seems pointless to leave out details just because someone might not learn that on their playthrough. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, I also disliked getting a warning such as that one after already settling the situation peacefully... especially considering that there was no bad faith on either part till then. Also, I understand your reasoning Darkwarriorblake, and will not make any edit regarding that then. If you wish to return Granny Rags to the summary, go ahead. Any edit I make from now on will focus only on readability SomeoneElseMightGetItWrong (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alucard 16, FYI this might be coming across like you've done something wrong, I think it was unnecessary to warn us but I can see you were trying to help and force a dialog. Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dishonored&oldid=1206983031"