Jump to content

Talk:Dishonored/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Website

There is an official website up, www.dishonored.comManhunter28 (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Dishonored box art Bethesda.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Dishonored box art Bethesda.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. "n.a." is not a valid fair use rationale. 86.28.234.224 (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Harvey Smith's work on Thief?

I don't actually think Harvey Smith did much for Thief: Deadly Shadows and in fact it is probably more like people confuse him with the Project Director, Randy Smith. Harvey Smith mentions on his personal page that "Periodically, someone credits me with Thief, which I love, but did not work on. (I’m mentioned in special thanks for Thief 3, probably.)" , and the most I could find a reference for was in allgame's Thief: Deadly Shadows credit listing under "Additional Design".

204.195.96.70 (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Josh Holloway is not in this game.

To prevent further bizarre additions of this, read this.

""Corvo is entirely silent," Smith said. "We let you project onto him, for better or worse." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Gameplay image or video

Does anyone have any suggestions for a good image or video that could visualise the gameplay? A video is fine, I can edit it if necessary. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Pointless entry until release

Whatever any dev may have said about any feature the game may have - it all may change until release day. The whole entry is pretty pointless until the game is actually released, IMHO.84.63.10.197 (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It comes out in a month and all previews back up what is in it, nothing has changed. So your comment is pretty unnecessary IMHO. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Corvo Attano

I can't see this ingame poster you're talking about, but to prevent any further confusion I just asked Harvey Smith and he says Attano here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Smith and Colantonio stated... unreferenced tag

I added the tag to "Smith and Colantonio stated that it is impossible for a player to accrue all of the powers and abilities in a single playthrough." because I didn't see a cite immediately after it, and I think generally for a direct attribution, which this basically is even though it doesn't quote, adding a cite is encouraged, or even required. If it's in one of the other sources used in the article, could that ref tag be copied to the end of that sentence, for clarity? —Torchiest talkedits 19:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It was the next immediate source, but I repeated it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"Dishonored" redirect

Right now the page Dishonored is a redirect to Honor. Now I doubt many people would type in the word "dishonored" looking for that page. "Dishonor", definitely, but I'm sure at least 99% of people who type in "dishonored" are looking for this game. What does everyone think? Should I change the redirect or not? If nobody posts anything here I'll be bold and change the redirect; if that's not what the community wants it can always be changed back. flarn2006 [u t c] time: 07:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't seem to be a reasonable redirect on its own (neither dishonoured, honored or honoured exist) and you'd imagine most people would be looking for either this article or Dishonored (film). I've gone ahead and CSD'd Dishonored to make way for the move. joe•roet•c 19:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Instead of changing the redirect, why not moving the article to that title? — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I assumed that was what was being suggested. Otherwise there'd be no need to delete the current redirect. joe•roet•c 20:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: S@bre (talk · contribs) 01:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hullo! I'll be reviewing this article's GAN for you. An initial appraisal looks promising, though I have noted a few issues. I'll be following up shortly with the full review after I've spent some time looking through it. Watch this space! -- Sabre (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to your input and getting this to GA! :D Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I saw the request for a copy-edit and I'll be dropping by here on a near daily basis to copy-edit this big guy, one part at a time, so any suggestions would be more than welcome (to avoid me doing superfluous work) :) Mathijsvs (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I do apologise for the delay in getting the review up, I got hit by a few off-wiki things that require more urgent attention. It'll hopefully be ready by Monday. Though I'll try to keep up with the copyediting progess mentioned above. -- Sabre (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Take your time, I'll hold back until your review is up, so we can do this in an orderly fashion :) Mathijsvs (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Alright, we have a potential for a very strong article here. I may be a little harsher than is possibly required for GA standards, but I think its necessary as this has very much got the capacity to go to FA. At the moment, we're on hold pending some changes.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    See below for both of these.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    Reply: I'm removing all redundant reference tags (since half of the references are repeated several times in the same paragraph). Mathijsvs (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    C. No original research:
    No obvious issues here.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    See below, the main issue here is the reception section, which I believe to be fundamentally flawed in its approach. There are also a few extra sources that can be used for development.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Some ongoing activity, and occasional expansion, but nothing to really disrupt stability.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    The video is unconventional, but I'm convinced of its usage and purpose. The captions for the two people images could be more interesting though. Take a look at Brütal Legend for example.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On Hold until issues resolved

Introduction

  • "fighting to reclaim the Empire" – since the Empire is something that isn't really elaborated on at any point (and remains vague within the game anyway, I'd suggest either "fighting to reclaim the throne" or "fighting to reclaim Dunwall".

Gameplay

  • "which affect the effectiveness" – the similarity in the wording breeds some awkwardness in the flow. Replace either "affect" or "effectiveness" with a suitable synonym that doesn't sound similar.
  • "health and mana potions, and enemy awareness, damage delivered, and responsiveness" – I would suggest "health and mana potions, as well as enemy awareness, damage delivered and responsiveness"
  • The first use of NPC is should be spelt out in full, wikilinked and then have its abbreviation introduced. Currently, this is done in the second usage of NPC.
  • Link Health (gaming) in at an appropriate juncture.
  • "rather than having a specific "hacking path" and "sneaking path"" – would suggest "rather than specific paths aimed at particular gameplay styles" or some such derivative.
  • "Features and abilities" – technically we've been talking about features since the gameplay section started, so maybe run with a title such as "Player abilities", "Abilities and powers" or something similar?
  • Increase the size of the thumbnail for the video a bit. Its a little small to see what's going on.
  • "Corvo's body" – why not simply "Corvo"?
  • "Enemy AI will respond to sound and can be distracted by the player creating a sound in one place to lure a guard away from their position" – AI should be spelt in full and linked to Artificial intelligence (video games). Since the next pararaph continues to discuss AI, I would recommend moving this entire sentence to the second sentence of the paragraph below it.
  • "aware of the players presence" – missing possessive apostrophe.

Setting

  • "late 1800s - early 1900s" – would be better as simply "late 1800s to early 1900s". Wrong dash anyway.
  • "—known in the city as trans—" – something about the "trans" part of this feels like its missing something, like there's an omission or spelling error. Is there?

Cast

  • The more appropriate section title would be "Characters", since it isn't a cast list, and the content is more focued on the roles of the characters, not the actual cast members.
  • *"The Outsider" – is it really necessary to capitalise every usage of the "the" when it is not the first word of a sentence? It isn't his first name.
  • "Hiram Burrows" – clarify quickly here that Burrows is the Empress's spymaster. The spymaster is referred to at several points in the plot section, but its never explicitly linked that it is Burrows.
  • "the cities religious order" – should be "the city's religious order" (ok, perhaps it maybe arguable that the order extends to other cities in the fiction, but since the game's setting is entirely focused on the single settlement of Dunwall, the singular form works better.)

Plot

  • "a gang leader Slackjaw" – make this either "gang leader Slackjaw" or "Slackjaw, a gang leader".
  • "neutralize" is used four times in this section, and quickly begins to feel repetitive. Try to come up with some appropriate synonyms to reduce the amount of repetition.
    • Reply - That was hard, lol, felt like I was having to dub a Japanese show for a Saturday Morning slot, removing all the references to kill. "Oh look he deployed his parachute off screen, he's ok" Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "and gives him a lowered dose of poison" – following the previous sentence, the tense here implies that Samuel gives Corvo a second dose, which saves his life. Changing to "and had given him a lowered dose of poison" will rectify this.
  • "Corvo awakes as the prisoner of the assassin Daud and his men, the people who carried out the Empress' assassination, and have captured Corvo to claim the bounty put on his head by the now Lord Regent Havelock." – Change this to "''Corvo awakes as the prisoner of the assassin Daud and his men, the people who carried out the Empress' assassination, and who intend to claim the bounty put on his head by the now Lord Regent Havelock." We establish at the beginning of the sentence that Corvo has been captured, so the second iteration of that is redudant.
  • "an idea supported by Emily's gift to Corvo previously – there's been no discussion of any of Emily's gifts, so simply modifying to an idea supported by a gift of Emily's to Corvo previously will eliminate any misinterpretation that the reader should know what and when this gift was.
  • "If Corvo does not manage to save Emily, the empire crumbles and Corvo flees from the Empire by ship." – inconsistent capitalisation on "Empire", but since the article never really defines what the empire is anyway, perhaps use "If Corvo does not manage to save Emily, Dunwall crumbles and Corvo flees by ship."

Development

  • Rock, Paper, Shotgun offers some useful articles to enhance the development and reception sections, it would be a good idea to rake them for useful information. The one about the heart in particular. [2][3][4]
    • Reply - I looked at the first 2 sources but couldn't see anything of note related to the game, can you give me an idea what you were seeing? I added the Heart stuff from the 3rd source. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The interview with Smith touches upon the origins on the game based on his personal experiences, while the one with Houston discusses the nature of the freeform playstyles and their variable levels of violence in testing. Is there not anything out of either of those that you think could be integrated? -- Sabre (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Reply - So I've re-read the Smith one and while interesting I can't really see anything strictly related to Dishonored, its an interview about Smith and goes into his history but he doesn't really say anything about how that specifically influenced the game, it seems like info what would be in his own personal article. At least I can't see how to integrate his parents deaths into this one. EDIT - I added in some stuff from the violence source. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "The full Arkane team including their officers in Lyon, France, and Austin, Texas worked on the game" – I assume this is meant to be "offices" not "officers". I'd link the Lyon, France and Austin, Texas too.
  • "2-dimensional" – change to "two-dimensional"
  • "late 1800s-early 1900s" – again, probably better as "late 1800s to early 1900s".
  • "on side streets and alleyways to better suit the gameworld" – change to "one side streets and alleyways that would better suit the game's world"

*Given the discussion of Tallboys, especially visual elements, perhaps an image wouldn't go amiss. Concept art or character render would be appropriate for analysis in the caption, but an appropriate screenshot (take a look here for some potential ones) could also give you an oppportunity at the same time to discuss other visual elements in the same shot.

    • Reply Which would you suggest? this or this? There is also this which is concept art similar to the final mode but not exactly, the feet seem to be different. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The concept art one is doing it for me, I wouldn't worry that the feet are different from the final version. Throw on a suitable styled caption that links in with the text, and it'll fit in fine. Its always nice to have these WIP images to give a look into the development thought process. -- Sabre (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Release

  • "Spring 2013" – only for the northern hemisphere. Use a financial quarter estimate.

Critical reception

Ok, as far as I'm concerned, this entire section has a fundamentally flawed structure. This may be where I'm overextending into something closer to FA standards rather than GA ones so feel free to argue against this, but if you want to take the article further (and there's no reason it can't) then this is probably good advice. The entire thing essentially reads as an amalgamation of back of box quotes from reviewers or otherwise a review-by-review summary. This isn't a good approach, as it doesn't lend any depth of analysis to particular elements of the game. It just scratches across the surface of general critical opinion.

A better structure would be to have separate paragraphs discussing how reviews felt about particular aspects of the game. Theme the paragraphs by gameplay and design, plot and atmosphere, graphics and technology, etc etc, then do a final summary paragraph that draws similar reviewer opinions together. You'll probably need to use more reviews to get such an approach to bear fruit and be truly comprehensive, so be sure to use the reliable sources found in Metacritic and GameRankings, along less conventional (but still as reliable and attached to decent publishers) critical approaches that don't ascribe scores, such as Rock Paper Shotgun and Zero Punctuation to build it up. The end result is a far stronger reception section, that provides good detail as to individual elements of the game's reception. Take a look at Star Trek: Voyager – Elite Force, Brutal Legend or Halo: Reach for some inspiration.

    • Ok I have tried to do this here, is this what you mean? I haven't been through and copy edited yet because its 3am and my wrist is starting to hurt, but if you're happy with the content and organization I can CE it and add it tomorrow. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I like it! That's good, perhaps little over the top with quotage still, but still first rate. Take your time to copyedit and otherwise straighten it out, I'm not in any rush! -- Sabre (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that's the review. Other than the reception section, there's only really small things. The article overall is in great shape, well done on the work so far to all involved. Even with the reception section, there's not much holding back the article, and I can easily let it pass once these are dealt with. Sorry for the time its taken to get it done. -- Sabre (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

K, I'm just reading Batman for the week because I can't wait to see what is going on, then I'll take a look. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
K K, I think I'm up to date with your requests. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've made a couple of minor tweaks, and I'm happy to Pass the article now. You've done good work here, keep it up! -- Sabre (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
:D Thanks Sabre! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Copy Edit Progress

I have removed all of the redundant reference tags (seriously? Three consecutive identical references in 3 sentences?) and will be checking grammar, spelling and overall language. :) Mathijsvs (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree on a lot of the reference tags, if the exact same reference is repeated one after another without interruption that's a side effect of expanding the article, but in some cases you've removed references entirely from a section meaning points are now longer properly referenced. In other cases they might appear later in the same section but they're after multiple other references, so the original point is now not referenced as far as someone checking the first immediate reference is concerned and they realistically shouldn't be checking every ref in a paragraph to find the one relating to the point. Where multiple references are used one after another for a single point, it is because the point is not entirely covered in the single source. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand that, but the fact is that several of these paragraphs were littered with references, making them extremely hard to read. I may have been overzealous left and right, but I stand by the majority of these removals. As with most triple A-titles these days, there consist a plethora of online reference materials, which results in a short sentence being followed by three or more references... Mathijsvs (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand removing repeat references in consecutive sentences, I'm just saying that when your CE is done I will have to restore some of them because there are some unsourced statements now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You've failed to even mention how it started as a ninja game

--Niemti (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You've failed to mention a source for this claim. Snow talk 08:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sexual objectification and violence not mentioned

I am missing a section on the Objectification of women here. I read this article searching for more general impact after seeing violent clips thereof discussed in a known feminist analysis of such games: Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games. There's no such mention yet in the article itself.

Anybody cares to mention its social impact? Zezen (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You're confusing the directed ramblings of someone looking to complain, with social impact. For example, someone using the ability to zoom in, and the existence of women in a game, is not objectification of women BY the game, it's someone using a zoom function to look closer at female models. This isn't something the game has been notably criticized for. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:Archive.is RFC the following links have been automatically removed from this article:

  1. http://archive.is/IPSim
  2. http://archive.is/P8qJ0
  3. http://archive.is/hGAWy
  4. http://archive.is/95eNl
  5. http://archive.is/LbQkk
  6. http://archive.is/KYpFg
  7. http://archive.is/TtW1x
  8. http://archive.is/lN3AZ
  9. http://archive.is/aAjf2
  10. http://archive.is/ljWBg
  11. http://archive.is/qcFTO
  12. http://archive.is/bARsb
  13. http://archive.is/xtJcK
  14. http://archive.is/ulKaF
  15. http://archive.is/TOIPA
  16. http://archive.is/wYf6p
  17. http://archive.is/50WQj
  18. http://archive.is/nHD89
  19. http://archive.is/oBJzr
  20. http://archive.is/yTgzO
  21. http://archive.is/8rEKo
  22. http://archive.is/Sexoy
  23. http://archive.is/HJb0M
  24. http://archive.is/PchiP
  25. http://archive.is/TmVlB
  26. http://archive.is/WAFSn
  27. http://archive.is/cVaMW

Door to Nowhere

This article does not tell us anything about Piero's Door to Nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.165.211 (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

delete

WHO THE HELL DELETED ME DOOR TO NOWHERE ON THE ARTICLE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.165.211 (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"Critical Acclaim"

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dishonored/Archive_1&oldid=1260485584"