Jump to content

Talk:Overlord (2007 video game)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleOverlord (2007 video game) 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
December 2, 2007Good article nomineeListed
January 13, 2008WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
March 3, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Stub

[edit]

The article is very short for a game weeks away from being released. I don't know if anyone has been either editing this game or removing anything posted here but please help improve this article. I'll try my best adding things to this article. Hugh000270 09:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screens

[edit]

U NEED SOME SCREENS ON THIS PAGE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.218.18.252 (talk • contribs).

Rewrite

[edit]

This article desperately needs a rewrite; it's clear that whoever edited it is a fan, but it's still rather poorly written. MagicFlyinLemur 21:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Unfortunately, many videogame articles suffer from these things, especially second-person perspective, which is a pet hate of mine. Regardless, I spent a while on the article earlier, and I feel I mostly fixed it. Feel free to do any other changes if you want, or to keep your eye on the article. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 13:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. :( --Dreaded Walrus t c 05:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much better now than before. I've made my own set of changes, but I think the article still needs a bit more fine-tuning. --theSpectator talk 18:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How armor and weapon upgrades work

[edit]

If anyone knows how weapon and armor forging works, that might be a nice addition. For example, I have a theory that the only difference between the three metals is the amount of minion sacrifices allowed; this is simply a theory.

Dungeon Keeper Connection?

[edit]

The pictures and concept of this game seem remeniscent of Dungeon Keeper, and I see it listed on "See Also", but I'm curious what the connection between the two is- spiritual successor? Same development team? Homage? Does anyone know? Darien Shields 01:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would suggest it's an "in the vein of..." connection. There's more than a passing similarity between the two the two games.

Dungeon Keeper was Bullfrog and EA, I don't think any of the Bullfrog team will be at Triumph Studios (which is Dutch). Always possible, of course, but, I suspect, unlikely.

Maybe "See also" would be better renamed to "Similar games"? Hikari 08:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

[edit]

Could people please leave the spelling as British English. So far as I can tell, based on the comment in the page source, the article was written in British English originally, so it should be left as such. The fact that it's published by a British publisher and written by a Dutch studio are also a pretty compelling reasons to use British English. If I'm wrong feel free to tell me. Hikari 18:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khan represents wrath?

[edit]

Where is stated, definitively? It's more likely that he represents lust (over Jewel).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.58.204.226 (talk • contribs).

Sir William represents lust. It's pretty obvious in the game.Elwood00 T | C 13:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Khan represents wrath as he is vengeful over the caputre of Jewl. Wrath is sometimes called "revenge" by some. He wanted to deal wrath upon the overlord. Stabby Joe 12:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Spree it is even said that the only reason Khan started his rampage was to get back at the Overlord. --69.85.152.178 21:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it obvious? Wrath of Khan? :P Sturmtiger 23:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on how many references to other works there are in this game, I wouldn't put that past them. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 20:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Khan was supposed to be a parodic representation of Games Workshop's Warhammer 40.000 character Kharn the Betrayer (who was all about wrath and berserking). I mean, he basically already looks like a Chaos Space Marine, even with the horns and everything. The only thing different is his colouring and his helmet design. Follow this link for more reference images http://images.google.no/images?hl=no&q=kharn&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi Anyway, that's my understanding of it and I find it pretty amusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.213.47.203 (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler

[edit]

Can someone add in a spoiler warning for the Wizard's description. That just ruined the ending for me.

  • I'd be inclined to mark the entire Characters section, given they're revealed as you go through the game. Hikari 20:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't seem like a huge spoiler to me. I mean, if each hero character tells you how the wizard corrupted them, then you know by the first hero that it's his fault. There are different endings based on your corruption level; revealing those would be spoilers.
  • It's not just the revelation of the corrupting of the Heroes he's referring to, but the true identities of the Wizard and the Overlord. Just because you can figure it out doesn't mean everyone else can. Regardless, it's still a spoiler as it's an event that occurs without the audience's prior fore-knowledge: It's not as though you're told the Old Overlord is hitching a ride in the Wizard's body at the very beginning of the game. In fact, you're told he's dead. Seems like a pretty huge spoiler to me. I'd personally think there should be a spoiler template beneath the Story heading, as well as one for the 'List of Characters in Overlord' article. Zerolus (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Zerolus[reply]
See WP:SPOILER. If you're reading a section which gives an overview of a plot, you'd expect it to have spoilers in it. A spoiler template would simply be a waste of space. Una LagunaTalk 08:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edit needs a citation....

[edit]

...but I don't quite know how to add one.

I added this paragraph to the Updates section:

A patch has been released for the PC version of the game, which updates the software to version 1.1 and fixes a number of bugs (both minor and game-breaking), and a 1.2 patch is in development. XBox360 users will eventually be able to download the same updates, but (as of 7/16/2007) no 360 patches have yet been released. This delay is largely due to strict content verification on XBox Live, as well as differing technical processes involved in patching a PC game, versus an X360 game.


The source is here: http://community.codemasters.com/forum/showthread.php?t=199534&page=1&pp=10

That's the official company forum; the bit in question I'm referring to is some quoted text, around the middle of the third page. 207.96.8.128 02:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnarl as Green Minion

[edit]

I just looked through the PC Instruction Manual and didn't see this. Was it in the Xbox one? Thanos6 05:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the line anyway - the colour-definition is little more than a game-mechanic and describing him as a green when he.. isn't seems odd. It adds nothing to the article so it's not worth messing around with. QuagmireDog 15:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring?

[edit]

The constant and continuous edits and revisions in this article - especially regarding British vs. American English - could constitute an edit war. Is there some way we can come to a consensus here? For instance, I'd advocate using American English in the article as, if I remember correctly, the MoS (or somesuch document) suggests that it should be the standard - thought I remember reading elsewhere that language usage should be kept in-context, eg. British game = British english. Any thoughts/discussion? ABVS1936 18:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the comment embedded in the source of the page, it says that British English was the original spelling used for the article, that the game was published by a British company and developed by a European company. My spelling reversions and edits have been solely based on that comment.
The MoS actually says there is no general preference, it's decided on a case-by-case basis. The main rule is consistency, hence the relevance of article originally being written using British spelling. The relevant portion of the MoS is at WP:ENGVAR. Hikari 21:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having never edited the page (I don't think I have anyway) I haven't seen that comment. However, I would say that the article should keep the British spelling. Unless there are any other arguments as to the language used on the page - if there are then lets hear them - keep it British. ABVS1936 05:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you only see it if you edit the main page, rather just edit a section. It's a shame you can't attach a template to a page so that a note about the language convention for the article appears when you edit any part of the page, it might help to avoid problems like that. Although that still relies on people actually knowing the differences between US and British spelling. Hikari 21:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, it would also be handy if more people paid attention to talk pages aswell... But I digress. Hope we have sorted this one out, for a while atleast! ABVS1936 02:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem we haven't. Probably because people still don't pay attention to Talk pages. It is rapidly turning into an edit war. It's rather depressing, really. Hikari 06:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find this rather dumb. What this british english and american english fight going on. All asking me to see the talk page. Wikipedia fights are getting silly day by day?. --SkyWalker 07:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also the only wording i see you people are fighting is artifacts,armor and artefacts and armour. Seriously both of them are same. Also from when did British started to fight over American english?. --SkyWalker 07:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The manual of style is quite clear on this matter. If wikipedia 'fights' are getting sillier by the day, it's only because editors like you are unfortunately unwilling or unable to follow somehting that is clear cut. In reality, you claim it is a silly fight yet if I were to start to change articles in American English to Commonwealth English you'd revert in a heartbeat Nil Einne 02:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine Then. I understand that your edits is more of personal attack. --SkyWalker 09:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't understand the point you are trying to make - your own edits on this page are to do with the language used in the article. Secondly, the difference is that it is a British game and therefore the "language" used in the game is British english. Surely we should adhere to the language used by the subject of the article. Please let us know if, for whatever reason, you think this should not be the case. ABVS1936 08:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it is me who is unable understanding you and and other edits which says add british english not american because the game is british english?. --SkyWalker 09:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, SkyWalker. The game is written in British English - in the game armour is called "Armour" and artefacts are "Artefacts". Do you get the idea now? You wouldn't start changing the spelling in the articles of other British English topics to "American English" would you? So therefore, this article should be written using British English, agreed? ABVS1936 13:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response?

[edit]

There is no mention anywhere on this article of critical opinion, of any kind. It would be nice to see some percentages, marks out of five, or whatever else. Obviously, this would require citations. Tartan Nutter 12:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamespot gave it a weighted score of 7.5, which, afaict, is the combination of the critique score and the average user score (8.0 and 7.0 respectively). That's the only score I know of, off hand - if someone wants to do a critical reception section they'll need to pool resources from a few more places. Might be an idea to mention critical and player response. Hikari 20:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A section like this won't be a problem, I'll make a start at some point (though I'm no expert writer, citing web pages is something I do a lot of).QuagmireDog 10:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I advise suing Game Rankings to get an overall score average, and despite what other will probably edit first - Metacritic doesn't have enough game reviews. Stabby Joe 13:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest News - Austraila

[edit]

So from what I'm hearing - from my EB Games guys - is that there is no more stock of this game in Australia. Can anyone confirm this? And should it be noted in the article? Something like "Huge Demand" - I don't know, just seemed slightly noteworthy considering the lack of media attention the game got, compared with the demand and subsequent sell out of stock. ABVS1936 08:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can say "huge demand" without knowing exactly how many units they've actually shifted, otherwise all you can reasonably say is "larger than expected demand". It could also just be a supply chain issue. So, yes, we need more information on the nature of the shortage, once we have that it will be easier to decide if it's noteworthy enough to go in the article. Hikari 08:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's original research unless somebody has specifically done the math and its been published by a reliable source. Keep an eye out for any information regarding that, but I'd strongly advise against trying to form article text out of something you hear on the grapevine. QuagmireDog 15:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks QuagmireDog, was mentioning it here before being "bold" on the article - checking on my own info first. I agree, we should keep an eye out, both here and on the 'net re: reliable sources producing this info, and making sure it's verifyable. ABVS1936 18:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fable?

[edit]

How is this related to Fable? Apart from both being RPGs? 14:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the Overlord's corruption level is similar to a system in Fable. I've removed the 'similar games' section anyway, it seems that only a facet of Overlord is similar to them, and finding similar games is what categories are for. I've removed the mention from the text too, if a reader hasn't played Overlord or the game its being compared with, the text is saying "this thing you know nothing about is also like this other thing you know nothing about". Not very helpful. QuagmireDog 15:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reinstated the text in the article itself, but specifically inline with the characters' appearance. With a citation, it should be fine. However, the 'similar games' bit can stay gone. QuagmireDog 16:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible print and online sources (for your reference and mine)

[edit]

I've been subscribing to PC Gamer UK for over four years now, so if they've ever had anything on Overlord I'll be able to use it.

Here's a list (which won't be much good unless you own the mag):

Some online sources:

UnaLaguna 08:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

[edit]

Well I've highlight most of the needed section that have been demanded, any spelling/grammer errors noticable, please notify and edit. Also add more refs, I know of them but have to much to type the first time around. Thank you. Stabby Joe 22:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel

[edit]

I removed the "sequel" section - the Amazon link is clearly to a special edition of Overlord, not a full sequel. If anyone knows more about this please add it back in if necessary with an appropriate description. Cheers, Miremare 15:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VG assessment

[edit]

Per Stabby Joe's request on my talk page, I'll give you an assessment. I did the peer review for this article ages ago, which contains some ideas which could help. However, considering the fact that this article has changed considerably since then (and hey, three months is a long time), I'll go from the top...

Rating-wise, I think this is still Start-Class. It's the right length for a B-Class article, but it's still lacking a few things which I'll go over below. Articles with a B next to them are points I consider necessary to get this article up to B-Class. If you address all the points listed then you could probably get it up to GA-class:

  • The screenshots have great fair use rationales, but the box art doesn't. The screenshots look like they're from cutscenes: a screenshot showing the actual gameplay would be very useful.
Done. Stabby Joe 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main reason I'm not promoting this article is because I looked at it and said "there aren't enough references". I'm not going to point you at any links, because you seem to know what you're doing (development and reception have enough for B-standard and are generally well-formatted). If you own the game yourself, you can source stuff from in-game dialogue (useful for plot) and the manual (useful for gameplay), but - and this is a big but - use these primary sources as a last resort. It's fine to use reviews to source stuff: some editors are a little hesitant at doing this, but it's fine. B
Done gameplay although how would one go about citing the plot and by how much? Stabby Joe 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When sourcing this section for a game article, I usually use the relevant game guide at IGN. I would give you a link, except the site refuses to load for me. You can use any game guides/walkthroughs you like, providing they're from a reliable source (GameSpot, IGN, etc). Failing that, I use chunks of in-game dialogue if there are important details which walkthroughs miss. Una LagunaTalk 07:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't find anything to support the ending claim about the jester since nothing offical seems to mention is and the dialogue doesn't directly state it. But despite that last one: Done. Stabby Joe 13:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead needs expansion per WP:LS: summarise the entire article in three or four paragraphs.
Done.
  • The plot section seems a little long. Try and trim down on details which aren't necessary for an overview of the story per WP:NOT#GUIDE. B
Cropped it a little and will do so more although looking at many ogood and featured artilces, it doesn't seem to long in comparrison. Stabby Joe 23:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the character section seems quite long. You can probably shorten it to three or four paragraphs (one on the protagonist, another on supporting characters and another one or two on villains). B
Done, citations coming. Stabby Joe 01:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The development and reception section seem a little thin on the ground. If there's no more information on the development of the game (and there should be: look at sites such as GameSpot and IGN for information on when the game was announced, when it went gold, which shows it was on display at). The reception section can definitely be expanded. This can be done by expanding on the points mentioned - go into more detail on what makes the game good and what makes it bad. Also, if there are any awards which the game won then you can list them. B
Develpment extended, reception underway. Stabby Joe 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reception Done. Stabby Joe 18:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOS, in-line citation thingies should go after punctuation, not before. Example: GameSpy noted the multiplayer mode being "sloppy" and "unstable" at times, not being as enjoyable as the single player mode[16]. should be GameSpy noted the multiplayer mode being "sloppy" and "unstable" at times, not being as enjoyable as the single player mode.[16]
Done. Stabby Joe 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got any further queries, feel free to ask. Hope this helps, Una LagunaTalk 17:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although I'm somewhat confused since you mention development and reception being B standard already but require an extention when bring the rest of the article to a B standard? I might just be misreading it but still... Stabby Joe 22:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I couldn't be bothered to proof-read my assessment before I saved it. What I meant to say was the level of sourcing of these sections was B-standard, but their length wasn't, if that makes sense...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnaLaguna (talk • contribs) 07:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect sense, cheers! Stabby Joe 13:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phew. Una LagunaTalk 15:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think this is now definitely B-class. Great work so far! All you need to do now is add more sources to fill in any uncited holes, and a not-too-extensive copyedit. I'm no English language master, but I can improve this to GA-level prose if there are any holes. Una LagunaTalk 16:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really put effort into it... 70% of this article must have been my work lol! But in all seriousness, I am still in the process of getting more citations but I don't understand what your copywrite comment means? Once I know I'll do it and hope to push for GA. Stabby Joe 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I last looked, this article had a few grammatical and spelling errors. Those appear to have disappeared now... Una LagunaTalk 07:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what needs to be done for a GA? I'm also currently adding in more citations as possible. Stabby Joe 14:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I can see that needs doing is adding more citations where there currently aren't any. The main offender is the Characters section, but there are also some unsourced statements in the Overlord: Raising Hell section. The last sentence in the Gameplay section and a couple of the review scores in the table in the Reception section also appear to be unsourced.
Otherwise, you should be fine for GA. And if I have missed something, it's not the end of the world as the person who does the Good Article Review will provide some time to fix any problems. But until then... I'll chant CITE! CITE! CITE! at you and any other editors. Because I'm too lazy to find the sources myself. Ahem. Una LagunaTalk 16:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've looked into those citations and filled them the best I could, if that seems good enough for GA then I'll request a peer review... but I have no idea how that goes however lol! I previously asked another user to do it on the Oblivion page but then he got praise for doing so even though I did ask originally. Bah! 80% of this article is by me so no one can take that from me aha! Stabby Joe 20:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one hole I can see is the bit at the end of the plot synopsis. I'd be tempted to just remove anything which isn't plot-critical: the phrase "which could imply a sequel" sticks out at me as original research: the last sentence should be removed. The two unsourced statements beforehand are should if possible be sourced, however. This might help. When you've sourced that bit, go over to WP:GAC and follow the instructions for nominating an article. Una LagunaTalk 21:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done and thanks alot for all your help up to this point. Stabby Joe 00:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo, Spelling and Grammer errors

[edit]

Because of mt recent overhaul of added typrwork to this article, reading through quickly I've picked up on some errors. I've fixed some as I know so have others and thanks alot. Hopefully they've all been cleared up, but still its worth a look. Stabby Joe 15:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA comment

[edit]

With a quick glance over the article, all of the fair use images must meet the fair use requirements guidelines and not have any one side larger than 300 or 400px. For example, Image:Overlord pc uk.jpg meets the criteria, but Image:Early Overlord.jpg needs to be reduced from 1024 × 1241 so that any one of the sides is 300-400px at most. You can do this in most picture editing programs, and just reload the image in its place by clicking "Upload a new version of this file" on the image page. After you have reduced the image, add {{Non-free reduced}} to the image page. Please address the applicable images before the article is reviewed by another editor. Good work on the article so far. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I copied the fair use rationales and summaries across as I seemed to mess up the {{Non-free reduced}} tags >_< Una LagunaTalk 07:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on fixing those so quickly, I deleted the oversized revisions and removed the tags. --Nehrams2020 09:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was originally my uploaded image. Duly noted in the future and cheers for fixing it. It would be great if it did pass GA, then I could say, with Una's advice got this to Start class to GA by myself! Stabby Joe 13:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I noticed that UnaLaguna did the peer review for this one, so I suspect that this will be a fairly smooth review. Some comments:

  1. The caption for In game Overlord 1.jpg could be more descriptive I think, especially since it's almost impossible to tell what's going on in such a small picture Done Stabby Joe 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must cover every major point/heading made in the body of the article. Currently, for example, it does not appear to touch on the Development or Reception sections. Done Stabby Joe 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. All one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone. Done
  4. I won't hold it against a GA pass, since Gameplay elements are sort of inherent and non-controversial, but if it would be possible to cite "As corruption increases, the Overlord's armour will become more devilish with horns protruding out of the back, shoulders, elbows and knees. The corruption level also determines which game ending the player receives and which high level spells they can cast." (Gameplay), you should. Might be helpful for FA too. The same goes for the second paragraph under "Overlord: Raising Hell." Done Stabby Joe 19:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. At the beginning of "Story," you write "The game begins where Gnarl and the Brown minions awaken the Overlord from his tomb." But Gnarl hasn't been introduced yet, so I/the reader will have no clue who he is - a brief, half-sentence worth of context would help here ala. "The game begins where Gnarl, the Overlord's main minion" or whatever. Same with Oberon Greenhaze, Sir William the Black, Kahn the Warrior and the Jester — all characters introduced without context. Much of this could be solved by merely flipping the Character and Story sections, but I'm not sure if that's the way you want to go with it. Done
Flipped around since thats the basis for other featured articles such as Shadow of the Colossus. Although I'm not sure whether that helps completly. Stabby Joe 13:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "The corresponding Xbox 360 update arrived several weeks later." (Development) requires a citation.
I didn't add that comment and thats a bad thing since I've looked everywhere and can't find anything on that. Stabby Joe 14:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Refs #3 and #4 are the same news item on different sites, so using them to cite the same thing is redundant. By association, Refs #25 and #26 are the same and thus all should be merged. Done
  2. Ref #5 is broken. Done
  3. Refs #11 and #28 are the same and should be merged. Done
  4. Refs #32, #44 and #45 need to use a proper citation templates or a similar format.
I'm sorry but you're going to have to be a little more spercific. Stabby Joe 14:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. First of all, now that everything has been moved around, they are references #6, #7, #33, #34. None of these use citation templates or a similar format that contains parameters like "title of resource," "retrieval date," "author's name" etc. etc. The rest of the references use them, but those four do not for some reason. Cheers, CP 18:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)  Done Una LagunaTalk 18:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 04:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I appreciate the compliment CP. And another rigorous GAR from you! I believe I've addressed a couple of the (easier) problems. Una LagunaTalk 09:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've adressed most and left bold comments on others I'm somewhat confused about, thanks for the review by the way, hope I can get it to GA soon. Stabby Joe 16:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the 360 patch: [1] [2] [3] [4] (that one gives "4 weeks away"). But I've not found anything that exactly says when the patch was out. --MASEM 16:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can let it go; just citing that there is one (as per the refs above) should be good enough. Once the citation issue listed above is dealt with, it should be good to go for GA. Cheers, CP 18:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've choose the forth one since it lists that there is/was one. Is that one ok? Stabby Joe 19:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. Everything looks good now, so I will be passing this as a Good Article. Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Teamwork FTW. Good job everyone, especially Stabby! Una LagunaTalk 20:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I first found this article it was a sart class... now that I'm done with it its Good! Thanks aswell for others advice, notably you Una. Cheers! I've also created a character article to help with the section on it. Now I need another game page for vast improvment, maybe try and get this to featured (I'm going to get that BarnStar lol!). Stabby Joe 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Overlord pc uk.jpg

[edit]

Image:Overlord pc uk.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Well done with the article, Stabby Joe and others. A massive improvement! Miremare 20:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA

[edit]

I would like an assessment to know what needs to be done in order to reach the next level/rating. Not a peer review since I know its no where near there yet. Of course it would mean a massive expansion and rewrite in areas (notably I think gameplay) but then again you know I'll most likely do it. Stabby Joe (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding the article to the assessment page per your request. An interest has been expressed in increasing the amount of 'A' grade articles within the gaming project's remit, so hopefully this one will either be there or be close. Thanks for your work on the article and the same goes to all contributors who built it from nothing, it's an excellent piece of work. Someoneanother 12:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is probably the best article on any video game in Wikipedia. I made a few minor edits during my assessment yesterday, but found nothing else to comment upon. User:Krator (t c) 17:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. Upon writing a large portion of this article I did think there would be a number of mistakes since I have a slight habit of writing in and missing out certain words and that can't be traced via grammer or spell checkers lol! I consider this page my best 'work" so far and am watching it constantly, mainly due to the fac that when the add on is released, I can see some adding info that might bring it down a few which of course I and you don't want. Stabby Joe (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RAISING HELL

[edit]

I'm thinking of making an entirely new article because due to the recent review of the DLC in OXM UK, it says its more of a full expansion, IE meaning plot and reception being its own thing. Plus new info on characters go in the characters article. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worms Reference?

[edit]

In one point of the game,where a sheep is seemed to be attacked and then somehow blows up,seems like a reference to another codemasters game,Worms 4.One of the minions of Overlord also says "Sheepy blew up" after the explosion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.144.148 (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do the worms say that? Otherwise the notion of animals exploding can be linked to many other things. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures too large

[edit]

Hey guys, could you make the screenshots in this article smaller? I can still kinda make out what they´re supposed to depict when I click on them. A 60x40 resolution would look better on my hi res 22 inch monitor. Thanks.--Threedots dead (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're can't just think of your computer now can we? I fail to see the problem given the millions of other articles with pictures the same size, if not smaller given that if we made them smaller, we wouldn't be able to make out what the picture is of at all. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some review

[edit]

Sorry for the long delays, I haven't done reviews in a while because of business. I've got a couple of minutes, so here we go.

  • The bold links in characters are not a good idea, because they give the reader the impression that the articles are about those characters specifically. Recommendation: no bold. Done.
  • I recommend that all mentions of a future PS3 version are removed from their separate paragraphs and integrated in the same text that describes the existence of both 360 and PC versions. As it's release date is Summer '08, is a precise release date already there?
  • I think a merge from the expansion pack into the original article is in order, because of the limited added content. The current page on the expansion pack is really detailed on the plot, perhaps add just a little something to the plot section here, like "The plot continues in expansion pack such-and such, where the Overlord.. " etc.
  • The quotes in the reception section could use some copy editing with the use of square brackets etc. Someone familiar with this should be able to help out.
  • Some of the references have author information available that is currently not here, e.g. Overlord announced by IGN and the announcement of the sequel.

Go for FAC, I'd say, too! User:Krator (t c) 16:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot. However I'm not sure about merging Raising Hell given that the article can be expanded (has own gameplay tweaks and reception that can be added) and looking at it, wouldn't that make this article larger than it needs to be? Stabby Joe (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images re FAC

[edit]

If this is to go to FAC, I'd say that the images Image:OverlordRH.jpg and Image:In game overlord 2.jpg would probably be challenged for failing WP:NFCC, notably WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. The others would probably just about be OK. Black Kite 14:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposals

[edit]

I think Overlord: Dark Legend and Overlord: Minions, while seperate games, should be merged to this article for the time being. There is not enough information to warrant an own article. What do you think? SoWhy review me! 12:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough details look at the IGN links. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is, then it should be in the articles. My point was that the articles currently only say "there is a game with the name X, which will be released Y on system Z". SoWhy review me! 12:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why i have not added is because my English and grammar sucks. :) --SkyWalker (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, you should have said. I will try and do it later if I find the time to do it. Should not be too hard. SoWhy review me! 13:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Articles expanded and sourced. SoWhy review me! 14:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Iam doing my best to improve my English. Thanks you can see all the IGN. PC, Wii and NDS have information which should be added. :). --SkyWalker (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we all have to learn. I learned it mostly from the web myself, that was before Wikipedia unfortunately, so I had to resort the IRC and technical support. So keep it up and if you need something like that again, please do not hesitate to tell me. SoWhy review me! 14:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I have loads to learn. Now that you have mentioned can you help with Overlord 2 and the Overlord: Minions?. :)--SkyWalker (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added everything to Overlord: Minions that the source says. There is just not much more info...I will have a look at the other one now. SoWhy review me! 15:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You have been real helpful. Thanks. The game was just announced today so in few week they will be loads of info.--SkyWalker (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(undent)  Done. Sure, no problem. I help where I can :-) SoWhy review me! 15:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a section mentioning the sequel and spin-offs and while those articles are stubs, they will be expanded soon enough in time so as what has already been mentioned, leave them split. Given that I latched onto this article, I'll probably do the same to these and expand them when info comes ready so future edits shouldn't be a probem for those. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Overlord pc uk.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Overlord pc uk.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Overlord (2007 video game). 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) 23:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Overlord_(2007_video_game)&oldid=1204483944"