Talk:Batman: Arkham City

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Batman: Arkham City 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 trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 27, 2015.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 7, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
January 16, 2013 Featured article candidate Not promoted
March 9, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Edit request from , 19 October 2011[edit]

The overuse of commas needs to be addressed. For example, the following sentences: "The game features a main plot, and a subplot. Side missions were made available, instead of an open world concept." Neither of those commas should be there as they disrupt the flow of the sentence. There is no need to use a comma to separate two similar ideas such as plot and subplot. Also, the word "instead" serves to join the two ideas and is used in lieu of a comma, and should not be used along with one.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2014[edit]

Sorry to send another request, but I had made a mistake. I had wanted the category, Category:Video games featuring female protagonists to be placed on the Batman: Arkham City article. I did not want it on the talk page for the article. If this can be done, it would be very appreciated. Editor35109 (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done per WP:DENY. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

References[edit]

My attempt to bring the references into line with the guidelines at Template:Citation/doc and the nearly identical guidelines at Template:Cite web/doc has been repeatedly reverted. 'Publisher' is not generally required in references to periodicals and websites because it has no value to anyone trying to check a reference. For example, if you want to look up a reference to something in Game Informer, it will be no help to you at all to be told that it's published by GameStop. Even less useful, if that were possible, is the unsurprising information that the publisher of BBC News is the BBC, or that Time is published by Time, Inc., or that Eurogamer is published by Eurogamer Network. 'Publisher' can be useful in tracking down a specific edition of a book, but it's almost never useful for a website or periodical - particularly ones which are notable enough to have a WP article, which is the case for all the references in this article. That's more than 5K of useless clutter I removed and one editor insists on putting back. I'd like to hear why he feels it is so essential. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: Hi there. I'll reply in the interest of discussion, because I didn't have anything to do with it. I read the two docs, and I understand what you're saying, but why would anyone want to go out of their way to delete existing and correct information? How is that not totally needless and pointless? We're not about to run out of space, there's no slowdown from processing it that stops the users, and there's nothing cluttering about it. Those docs don't say that there's anything wrong with it, and don't have an edict to wipe the world of it. It says not to worry about it if you don't want to, doesn't it? How could there be any actual problem or reason to do this whatsoever? You're asking for a justification for keeping it, but you actually need to provide a necessary justification for not, which it seems couldn't possibly exist. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 15:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't need to justify removing stuff that is useless. if I'm prepared to go to the trouble of removing it to bring the references closer to the recommended format, then, yes, anyone objecting needs to justify why it should remain, when both good sense and the guidelines for references say it has no value. Just because someone put it there unnecessarily a long time ago doesn't make it sacrosanct. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Chris, why would you assume that "it will be no help to you at all to be told that [Game Informer] is published by GameStop"? On the contrary, I am very interested to know that a prominent video game publication, which covers and reviews games, is owned by a retail store. It lets me know there could be a potential conflict of interest in the coverage the publication gives. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 15:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your work, but as the editor proposing a change, you do have the burden of justifying it. The information you're removing may not be required, but it is useful information nonetheless. I appreciate your effort to streamline the references, but more is lost by removing this information than is gained in brevity. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@Y2Kcrazyjoker4: the purpose of the information in a citation is to help a reader to find and check a reference. (If an editor added a claim that the game had been panned by Game Informer, you'd be able to find the (supposed) reference and show that the claim was untrue. The only elements that would help you track down the original article would be the url, and, failing that, the article title, the date, the publication. The publisher's name would be no help at all.) If you were to question whether Game Informer is a reliable source for an unbiased review, that's a whole different issue. The details of the publisher of Game Informer are readily available, and any such issues could be discussed in the talk pages of those articles. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Prototime: my point is that it isn't *useful* information. Just being true doesn't make it useful. Did you know that (in another area) this kind of useless information was removed from the citations within the templates for singles and album charts a long time ago - thus removing it from thousands of articles - without a single complaint? Nobody cares because nobody uses it. It's only there now because a long time ago someone saw that parameter on the {{cite}} template and thought (without reading the guidelines) they were supposed to fill it in, just because it was there. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
It would seem that the other editors in this discussion disagree with you on the information not being "useful", or else there would be no objections to your removals. Indeed, this article was promoted to GA status and then to FA status after receiving multiple reference reviews, and no one felt that the information was sufficiently "useless" to remove, even despite the guidelines not including it in their recommendations. And I'm not familiar with your music example, but it sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Prototime: There have only been two other people in this discussion, and only Y2Kcrazyjoker4 has asserted that they are useful and attempted to explain why (and see my response above). You have described them as useful information, but not attempted to explain in what way they are useful. Your invocation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. is entirely inappropriate - that's all about the invalid argument that 'bad stuff exists elsewhere, so why not here too'. This is the very opposite. I'm pointing out that the kind of change I'm trying to make here is (a) good sense (b) in accordance with guidelines and (c) widely accepted elsewhere in WP. Let me put this around the other way. If all these references didn't have publisher, would you feel it was useful enough for you to spend time adding them? I suspect not. So why object to their removal? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Arkham Knight PC sales[edit]

Um... sorry but I'm kinda new to editing. I added the bit about the PC sales being suspended on June 24th. I don't know how to cite properly but here is the source: https://community.wbgames.com/t5/Support-for-PC/June-24-Update-on-PC-Version-of-Arkham-Knight/m-p/575332#U575332 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.71.3 (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You're attempting to add info to the wrong article. You want Batman: Arkham Knight (where the info already is). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Batman: Arkham City. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Batman: Arkham City. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)