Jump to content

Talk:Darkwatch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleDarkwatch has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 7, 2013Good article nomineeListed

Comments

[edit]

There's also a russian movie of the same name. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How was the controversy resolved?

I own the game, and I don't recall any controversy over it being resolved. My copy of the game, bought past the listed date, still has the Prom Night scene in it. --TerminusEst13

There was no controversy surrounding the love scene between Jericho and Tala called "Night of Passion." It received media attention in the form of mentions in articles about the game story, as well as reprinted concept artwork of the scene. None of the press was negative. For anyone who plays through Darkwatch, the importance of this scene in setting up the finale is quite evident.

A search for Darkwatch on Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com) only brings up the video game. I believe the Russian film you're referring to is "Nightwatch," a.k.a. "Nochnoy Dozor."

Biased

[edit]

This article is rather biased don't you guys think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.126.129 (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Nope.TerminusEst13 23:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

The "gameplay" section of this article needs to be re-written. It's completely biased. Even though the game might be a rather generic first-person shooter, I recall it receiving generally positive reviews. Whoever wrote the gameplay section for this article clearly intended for readers to come away with the impression that this was a dull game. Chicken Wing 03:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Strange. I was under the impression I liked the game and wanted to give a fair look at it. And, seriously, Darkwatch DOES do very, very little that's new. It's fun, but it's not innovative in any way, shape, or form. TerminusEst13 23:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the gameplay section if you want to say the game is not original, I think it should be said once and it should be linked to a noteworthy review that says the game lacks in originality. As it is now, the entire gameplay paragraph just reads about how unoriginal the game is. Chicken Wing 19:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why does a fact need a citation? The sky is blue. Does that need a citation? No, because we can go outside and see that the sky is, in fact, blue. Anyone who plays Darkwatch can see that next to nothing in it is original. The weapons are staple FPS fare, just westernized. The abilities are generic FPS powerups. The Blood Shield is lifted right from Halo. The only-two-weapons-at-a-time also originated from Halo, and now many other shooters are trying to take it up. It even has the typical woman-in-your-head-that-states-the-obvious-AND-NEVER-FUCKING-LEAVES-YOU-ALONE. YES, CASSIDY, I KNOW I NEED TO PICK UP THAT WEAPON. YES, CASSIDY, I KNOW I NEED TO SHOOT THOSE GUYS. YES, CASSIDY, I KNOW--aw, fuck, I'm dead, thanks a bunch.
Darkwatch is a great game. One of the best damn shooters for the XBox. It is not, however, original in any way, shape, or form, and this needs to be noted. There are other areas in which it's stated that it's a damn good game, especially in the intro--the matter of whether it's good or not is opinion, though, and needs to have citations. Facts do not.
I'll tell you what, though. I'll look over the gameplay section and see if there's any way I can make it less "negative", as you put it. Maybe I said it was unoriginal too much. In any case, I'll give it a looksee and see what I can do. TerminusEst13 20:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revamped the gameplay section. I think I'm more fond of this one than the previous one. TerminusEst13 20:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I don't know how to fix it, should be http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0406693/ --Asperchu (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B assessment

[edit]

Can you expand the Lead and Development? Also, instead of having "Promotion and merchandise", I suggest renaming it "Release", put the release info at the very beginning, then make a sub-section titled "Promotion and merchandise" or "Marketing". --JDC808 ♫ 16:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Can you expand the Lead and Development" - I just thought the same thing. --Niemti (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check it now. --Niemti (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! --JDC808 ♫ 19:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Film in Development Hell

[edit]

Article mentions a film that, as of 2013, is in Development Hell. With the sequel being cancelled in 2007, I find it hard to believe a film would even be considered at this point. Can anyone find a source from this year that says a film is even still in development? If not, the line should be changed to reflect the most recent year a film based on the game was mentioned to be in development. For example, if the most recent source that says a film is in development is from 2009, the line should read "as of 2009 a film is still in development hell."
LoveWaffle (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2011/10/12/igns-ultimate-video-game-movie-guide?page=2 and don't cn the leads. Also development hell is not "in development". --Niemti (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't you CN a lead if there's something in it that needs citation?
LoveWaffle (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because [1] was there in the article's body all the time. --Niemti (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 06:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, someone has to do this after five months. I will be printing the article out and going through that with a red pen; this may take a few days (especially since I have a peer review to do also, and that will come first). Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gad, I wish I'd known that when I said "a few days", it would wind up being almost two weeks. I apologize for the delay.

Anyway ... after doing a light copy edit, which says a lot for the article and the attention paid to detail in the writing (there were no ergregious restructurings or rewordings required—thank you), I see that one of the two big issues I had remaining, the Heavy Metal cover image which I didn't see meeting WP:FUC, has been dealt with by removing it from the article. Excellent.

However, the other one still does, so I'm putting this on hold so the nominator can address this. It shouldn't be too hard.

Basically, it's that some of the citations are insufficient.

hold on and let me open the article, because their numbers have changed since I printed it out ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, any online cites must include a retrieval date. Use {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} to make this easier to format, as you prefer.

OK, here we go:

  • 4, 6, 9: If these are published books, {{cite book}} should be used and more fields filled in. We should have, most importantly, the page number these facts appear on (if they're different pages, we'll need separate notes in the short form—you might want to consider just moving the long form to a "works cited" section and making all the specific footnotes short form. We also want the publisher's location if it's not, say, New York or London, and ISBN. You might even see if you can set up up with an online link through Google Books.
  • 7 and 8: Dead links, as noted. Update. Use archive.org if you can't find a new URL.
  • 43: Um ... author? date? Everything else we've talked about?
  • 51, 52, 57–60: Date?
  • 54: Article title? Issue date? Page number? Author? Compare it with the immediately following note 55.
  • 63: This is a print magazine? Then use {{cite journal}} and give us an author's name (if given there) title
  • 64, 65, 68 and 69 as well as some other ones before that. Make the date format consistent Month day, Year. Plus we should have an author.
  • 67: Spell out the name of the month like all the other footnotes.
  • 70 and 71: Date format.
  • 72: What page? What was the piece called?
  • 73: Who wrote this? What was it called? What do I know about this magazine that might make me consider it a reliable source?
  • 74 (and, again, others): Use cardinal numbers in dates, not ordinals.
  • 76 Author?
  • 77 ISO 3001 date format is not acceptable.
  • 79 Author and date.
  • 83 and 84: Who publishes these magazines? What was the article called? Who wrote it?
  • 85 Author, if any credited?
  • 88 and 90: Date format
  • 91: Date format.

I know this seems like a lot, and I hope I won't ruin your weekend, but if you're willing to devote a few hours to fixing this it'll pay off. Happy editing. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Perfectly formatted citations are not required. (that's okay, most reviewers miss this part, I have to point it out often). Also, simply no author and no date, simply no author and no date, simply no author, etc. That's all the dates as used in the sources (I rewrote them all). Oh, and I just don't have these books and these magazines. And the dead links are not archived, because I already checked them (before I tagged them for being dead), due to "robots.txt". --Niemti (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for perfectly formatted citations; just ones that are complete where possible and consistent.
"Make sure that the problems you see in the article are actually covered by the actual Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with 90% of the Manual of Style pages, are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for de-listing." Like, seriously. Just whatever are you basing all this on? --Niemti (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also: "Mistakes to avoid: (...) Requiring page numbers where these are not essential. Demanding the removal of dead links, in direct violation of WP:Linkrot and WP:DEADREF. Although, bare URLs are not considered verifiable, and should be formatted appropriately. (...) Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA." OK? (I really have to point the actual rules, to, like, almost every reviewer. I find it pretty strange, like if you guys actually didn't read all this.) --Niemti (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I really don't want to sound like an asshole, I'm sorry for that, but that's what GAR actually is. --Niemti (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will clarify this: what I'd like to see is enough information to make any particular cite verifiable ... I believe that's still part of the GA criteria. I am sorry if I came across too strong; I thank you for trying not to be an asshole as well.

When there's a cite to a print book or magazine, we need some way of verifying that the book or is real and that it was not made up. And it's not that hard to get ... for instance, here's your note 5 source. Granted, the page in question is not available there for copyright reasons ... but with the ISBN and everything else we can accept on good faith that it says what the article says it says. Here's note 4 ... OK, snippet view only but now we have proof the book really exists. And so on with note 9. I can't find that article from note 57, but here at least is a start to verification.

We do not ask for online-verifiability (although that's always nice); we just want someone to be able to walk into a library or archive somewhere and be able to check this out.

I would assume that you expanded the article with these sources already there?

Just searching this way: [2] might be often easier and give better results. --Niemti (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And of, as of, for example, #73, it's all clearly right there: Sarah Baisle, on January 5, 2006, and I don't get what's your problem with AWN at all (maybe beter just tell me whatever would make it un-reliable?). Or I don't understand "ISO 3001", which is just super cryptic. --Niemti (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say ISO 8601 (thanks Randall!). Sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean about AWN is that, if it were linked to the article that apparently does exist, I'd be able to click the link and know that's a real outlet.

Anyway, really this: "Enthusiasm in wanting an article to be the best it can be is admirable, but take care not to impose conditions for passing the article, perhaps based on your own stylistic preferences, that exceed the criteria. In particular, the GA criteria do not require compliance with several major guidelines, including Wikipedia:Notability and the main Wikipedia:Manual of Style page." --Niemti (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bunch of mostly different edits instead (+2kb of text/refs). --Niemti (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will just insist on making notes 4, 5, 14 (see under "Presentations" here) 57, 81 and 82 verifiable. I've already done the hard part there, for most of those. Address that and everything else is not really an issue. Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5, like the GameSpy online guide? I'm not sure what do you mean overall, besides to copy-paste the detailed info on this lecture (which I just did). Like, the "#issue XX" for these magazines, or what? --Niemti (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay now? --Niemti (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just put in the (ISBN 9780744005172) for that. If you do it that way, it will automatically be linked to a page that allows any number of ways to verify that the book exists. Since I couldn't get into it in Google, we'll not worry about a page number. Maybe at some point in the future if you or somebody can get a hard copy, then we can add a page number and all that good stuff. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I'd like to find out is how well (or bad) the game sold, but I guess it's just impossible. I even talked with O'Connor and he said, to quote, "My partners and I never saw sales figures, sorry." --Niemti (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to bump, I didn't notice it. --Niemti (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... to bump? Meaning what? Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I see, you put it in. Now it's a pass (Wow, this took long enough ... six months or so. Is this some kind of dubious record?) Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bump :) (missed the reply). --Niemti (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Darkwatch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Darkwatch. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Darkwatch. 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}}).

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) 00:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Darkwatch. 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) 23:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Darkwatch. 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) 03:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Darkwatch. 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) 13:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Darkwatch&oldid=1206880814"