|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Diablo III article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5|
|edit||Frequently asked questions (FAQ)|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about Diablo III. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Diablo III at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
The second paragraph says that the player can choose from six classes, but that is not correct. The sixth class, Crusader, is only available with the "Reaper of Souls" expansion pack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- The character specific description notes that the crusader is only available in the expansion. Attempting to segment all features from "Classic Diablo 3" and the expansion would lead to a very fragmented article as much of these features have been blurred and significant changes affect both the base game and expansion. I think it's clear enough to list six characters in the first paragraph, and make the expansion only distinction for that specific character. Apriestofgix (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The tone of the article misleads
You would draw from the article that the game was an overall commercial success and an overall critical success.
The first, yes; thanks to the carry over from the love of the second and first versions.
The second, no, no no.
Diablo III was acknowledged to have fundamental flaws by the developers, prompting the major reworks of "Loot 2.0" etc.
An article written by a savvy player would be better than wikipedias's corporate drivel.
- That's nice, but the critical reception is pretty high too. Yes, the game was an overall success. No, that doesn't mean it was problem free. -- ferret (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
DRM note in Mode(s) field
WP:ELNO allows community site links if they're official. This one (http://battle.net/d3/en/) is not only official, it's maintained by the game's makers. As a result, I can see no ELNO based reason for removing it from the article. Rklawton (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Rklawton:, where in WP:EL does it say that a community website is okay? There's WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, that says "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites". WP:ELNO. No. 10 says "Social networking sites (...), chat or discussion forums/groups (...)". Have you checked out the website? The tabs gameguide, rankings, media, forums and buy now don't seem particularly useful to me. The official website already covers the game, with the links below "Learn more about Diablo III" link to the community site. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- One link goes to the game and the other to community news. There's a link to the community page at the bottom of the game page, but it's not very obvious. Since they are both official sites and they have different domains, I don't see a problem with listing them both. On a related note, shouldn't external links go above references? Rklawton (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)