Talk:Black & White (video game)

populous

doesnt mention populous. inconceivable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.240.25.160 (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Name?

Should Black and White be renamed to Black & White? This appears to be the corrent title on the official EA Games Website

Quite so... seems to be all correct now. (Darric, 06 Sept 2005)

Unplayable on Windows XP

It may or may not be notable that there is no way to play this game on a PC with Windows XP.

Yes it can, after downloading the patches, and following the advice on the offical forums http://allboards.lionhead.com Check out the sticky thread in the "Black And White" forum. Grymsqueaker 13:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just installed an original 2001 release version of this onto a PC with Windows XP SP2 and DirectX 9c; It installed and ran fine (well, all of Land 1 and a bit of Land 2), with no patching required. Jaruzel 12:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have Windows XP: Media Center Edition 2005, don't install the patch i've tried it countless times and it totally stopped the Black and white 1 Game from working, it works without the patch fine. Fire Monkey (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok after some heavy modification to the games patch, I have made it work on XP!! Please pm for more info!

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.104.117 (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC) 

Article has too much opinion

Speaking as a good god, I think it's actually not too hard to be a good god. One way to build influence is to build up villages, which takes wood. Casting "Miracle Wood" is a "good" action.

Not Unplayable upon release

It was possible to play through and win with the original release. There were a couple of really annoying bugs, though.

Your worshippers would sometimes consume all the food at the worship site in one gulp. Fixed by patch.

The longer you played a level, the longer the load and save times become. Still a problem, although improved by patch. (Opinion: this game has the absolute worst load/save game feature of any I've ever seen).

Creature poop never decays, which means a level will become covered with creature poop unless you fireball it. Still a problem... and never fireball poop while your creature is watching, because that's a behavior he'll emulate, without regard for the fact that the poop is next to your temple or within one of your villages.

Original Giant

I've been sorted though old magazines to throw out... just opened PC Gamer UK, issue 59 (August 1998). It's got a scoop on page 19, with a large picture of a giant. Not a monkey, or a cow, or anything like that. It's a humonoid creature with no mouth, wearing a loincloth! According to the article, it's appearance would still change according to your actions. Should probably be mentioned somewhere.91.105.6.48 (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That picture is probably the Ogre mentioned in the list of Creatures - all the creatures change as you play them. Any material added to the article needs more sourcing than a picture or it is original research and not allowed. PC Gamer publishes a LOT of pre-release hype from design teams that never actually makes it in playable form in the actual release.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unplayable upon release

Shouldn't there be some sort of mention about the fact that the game was unplayable upon release as it wouldn't let you complete one of the later levels?

I'd write it myself but I don't have enough information about it. I just remember Peter Molyneux being all hype-happy about it, and then turning around and saying 'well yeah, we need to fix that'. That one experience completely let down my faith in him and Lionhead. Only for it to be compounded by Fable's complete failure.

Didn't Peter Molyneux say that Fable would enable you to build your own teleporter using common household materials? Probably, since he generally over-hypes his games to the heavens. --Dan 16:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

When black and white was released, there was a bug on the last level. What was meant to happen is that a curse on your creature was removed, but the bug prevented that curse from being removed. You could still complete the game, but you would just end up with a completly useless creature. Thats what i remember about it, anyway.

Also, it's not playable if you have Windows XP and I think 2000, not to mention others the game it's self mentions. It think someone should add an entire Technical Difficulties section. Gopherbassist 12:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Writing style

This article is of a slightly below mediocre standard and needs to be written in a less informal tone. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ape not Orangutan?

According to this Prima guide here, the initial monkey creature is an 'Ape' and there is another darker monkey creature called a 'Chimp'. How should we edit this? Seriphyn 09:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an Ape and a Chimpanzee and A Mandrill IIRC,I've not played for AGES!However,I've not played in full,IMHO,just get the Lion if you're a player,the best Creature...Ever.121.7.56.203 16:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Zipcode for weather?

I just seen that in weather section, I had never heard of that, what is it talking about?

Dancing Pets

I heard that the animals could dance to arbitrary music.

Does an in-game Winamp interface count? Nifboy 08:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:B&wbox.jpg

Image:B&wbox.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 05:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Creature surprise

Wasn't there a test in the A.I. where the creature did something that surprised the developers? If so, this should be included. P.S. I don't have the time but there a lot of typos in the article, such as periods after )) . Lots42 (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but according to the article on Richard Evans: "The artificial creature in Black & White holds the Guinness World Record for most intelligent being in a game.[5] Black and White is Number 1 in AIGameDev's most influential AI games.[6]" Surprised that that's not mentioned anywhere on the page.Stoopdapoop (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference material

While digging through the online print archive, I located the following print preview material for this game:

• Computer Games Magazine Preview
• Computer Gaming World Preview
• Computer Games Magazine Preview
• Computer Games Magazine Preview
• Computer Games Magazine Preview
• Next Generation Magazine Preview

One or more print reviews for this game may also be found in the archive. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black & White (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 07:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• The publisher field in the infobox is a bit messy. EA Games or Electronic Arts? Which version does Sold-Out Software published?

I think Sold-Out re-released a budget version. According to the box, they're an authorised licensee of EA. They didn't originally publish any version of the game. I'm not sure what to do with it, so I got rid of it for now. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• The lead can be slightly longer so that it fit the article's overall length.
• Black & White is a 2001 video game developed by Lionhead Studios and published by Electronic Arts for Microsoft Windows. - genre should be put in the first sentence, not the second one.
• A primary theme is the concept of good and evil, and the atmosphere is determined by the player's behaviour and which side is taken. - "which side is taken" seems like there is an option for players to choose.

• I misunderstand this sentence. I am sorry about that.

There is. I'm not sure what your point is here? Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• The game won awards from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences, and the Electronic Entertainment Expo's Game Critics Awards - Instead of mentioning all of them, I would simply say that it won some awards. These are probably too detailed for the lead.

I'm not sure how to do that without making it too short and vague. You've already said the lead is too short, and by doing this, it'll be even shorter. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I would say you should generally add more stuff about the game's development/release into the section. I think they should be able to help you to buff up the entire section. I think you can list one example of an award, but not all.

Story

• Soon after, a creature is chosen - Is this really an important plot point? It sounds very strange in the section.
• and becomes the principal antagonist - sort of unnecessary. You are telling a story. You don't need to mention that he is the antagonist.
• Nemesis then destroys his former creature and attacks the village - What exactly is a creature? Can the plot section be slightly expanded to mention that? What is its significance? Is it some kind of pets, or some kinds of wildlife>

The plot section has been moved to after the gameplay. The reader should understand what a creature is now? Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• A mysterious vortex opens that the player enters to escape Nemesis - escape "from" Nemesis.

I'm not sure that's necessary. It seems redundant, and doesn't add anything to the sentence. I'm seeing an opportunity for ellipsis here, taking advice from User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• After the curses are lifted and the piece of the Creed is claimed, - How it was lifted?
• I would really consider putting the gameplay section first. The plot section sounds confusing without it.

Gameplay

• which can move or throw people and objects, - "which can move" seems unnecessary. I would suggest "an animated on-screen hand which can be used to throw people and objects, tap houses to wake their occupants, cast miracles, and perform other actions." What do you mean by "throw"?
• A patch was released that allows the Hand to be controlled by an Essential Reality P5 Glove, a virtual reality glove. - something for the development/release section.
• The quote in the gameplay section is not needed. It disrupts the overall article's flow.
• making buildings and getting the villagers to breed. - "making" buildings sound strange.
• The most important building is the Temple - I don't think it is necessary to stress that it is "the most important".
• Worshipping generates the power needed to cast miracles. How many villagers worship is controlled at the Village Centre. Which miracles are available depends on those available at the player's villages. - I would move them to the next paragraph which is mainly talking about worshiping.
• Is there any expansion on the multiplayer skirmish mode? It seems to present very little information only.
• Teaching is performed by using a Reinforcement learning system - should be "r" instead of "R".
• There are three types - What has three types?

Leashes. The previous sentence talks about leashes, and as I understand it, the assumption of a previously mentioned subject improves the flow? Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread this part. You can ignore my comments about the leashes

• Sentences is rather short in this article. You can actually merge some of them together. Short sentences seem to be making ideas to feel disjointed.
• The Temple provides a pen, the creature's main rest area. - What is the significance of this? Is it even tie to the gameplay?

I believe the creature grows faster sleeping in the pen, but I'll need to check. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Development

• devoted the entire development time to the game - this does not make sense. Do you mean that he work on the project full-time, or the entire team at Lionhead is working on it?

I need to check the sources, but I believe it's the former. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Molyneux liked the idea of controlling people in a world from Populous, - Populous should be italicized
• The team questioned and competed with each other, and the result was better quality work than expected - According to who?

Molyneux, I think. I need to check the sources. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• and although the design hadn't been finalised, the game incorporated elements of Populous and Dungeon Keeper. - You can just say it drew inspirations from those titles. and although the design hadn't been finalised in particularly seems to be something unnecessary.
• He said of the idea, "Black and White is atonement for all my previous game design sins" - You can paraphrase it to "He hoped that the game could be a refinement when compared to his previous games"
• and the team doubted the game as it ended up would get released - so they doubted the game because it would be released? I don't quite understand this logic.

I need to check the sources, but I think it means there was doubt the game would end up as it did. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• I would move The entire game, including the tools and libraries had to be written from scratch. after the trial-and-error stuff.
• and were trying to make the most of their talents - I would strongly suggest that when it comes to subjective comments, you should mention the one who say that.
• Eurogamer noted that certain miracles have a "distinct sword and sorcery flavour", and that Temples resemble wizard's towers. Indeed, Temples were originally called Citadels and some sported a mediaeval, fairy tale look - Eurogamer comments/preview is not necessary in a development section. You should only mention that "Temples were originally called Citadels and some sported a medieval, fairy tale look"
• The idea to make the advisers characters came from programmer Alex Evans. - This Evans is the founder of Media Molecule, so he has an article.
• He wanted wanted them to interact and to have their lips synchronised. - He "wanted" them
• They sent a list of three thousand bugs to be fixed - wikilink "bugs"

I wikilinked the first instance of "bugs". Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• As the end was near - That sounds unnecessarily dramatic.
• I would really recommend you to merge sentences together. They are way too short.
• Don't really need to mention "Peter Molyneux" every time you mention him. You should simply say "Molyneux".
• Lionhead announced that the game went gold on 16 March 2001. - What does "went gold" means/indicates? Normal readers may not understand what it means.

I don't know; that's just what the source says. Should I get rid of it? Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Software release life cycle#Release to manufacturing (RTM)

• You should mention the reversible cover art somewhere in the development section.

Not sure where or how, especially as there's little about it I can find. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Subsections would be something great for this huge development section.
• I think that what they showed at E3 aren't really important enough to be mentioned in this section. They aren't really significant.

Reception

• The reception section has way too much quotes. You need to paraphrase many of them.
• All the magazines here should be italicized. (Game Informer, PC Gamer, Edge, Games Magazine, Computer Games Magazine, GamePro etc.)
• No criticism in these reviews at all?
• You put many quotes there, but in some cases, you do not mention why they have such thoughts.
• Any information on the game's sales?
• Is "Editor's choice" really an award?
• The citations feel quite messy. Stuff like [1]:4,5,12,14,17,30[2]:26[4]:13 does not look good, though this is not part of the GA scope.
• You need to create a section about the game's expansion and sequel.

Overall

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list corporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

There are some problems with the article. Ideas feel slightly disjointed, so I think you should look over the article and see whether there are sentences that can be merged together. The reception section has way too many quotes, which must be paraphrased before promoting. When all the issues are fixed, the article should be good to go. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer: I haven't finished making all the changes yet, but you think it's a bad idea for the citations to be at the end of each paragraph? I cite multiple pages of the same sources multiple times, and I'm not sure if there's a better way of doing it, Another thing, I use the term "bespoke" in the development section. Is there a term that complies with MOS:COMMONALITY? That term is listed at Glossary of British terms not widely used in the United States. I think the source uses the term "custom-written", but that's American as far as I understand it. Adam9007 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem with these citations is that there are the page numbers.They looks very clumsy, but they are outside of the GA scope, so even if you leave them alone, this can still pass. (I would honestly say that you would be fine without citing the page number at all) Citations should be found in the end of each sentence, not each paragraph. I would suggest you change it to "custom-made". This does not sound like an American word to me, just an explanation of what the word means. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Driveby comment- one way to fix the page numbers is to do what I did at Wolfenstein 3D - have the book/manual in a "Sources" section, then have a reference "Book, pp. 3, 9", so that the page numbers are in the reference section instead of the text, without having to repeat the whole book citation over and over. --PresN 21:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer: I'm still nowhere near finished, but aren't page numbers required for FA? Surely anything that helps this reach FA also helps it reach GA? I used the word "custom" instead, as I'm not aware of it being specific to any engvar. What headings would you suggest for the development section? Adam9007 (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@PresN: Interesting. I may have to try that here, and especially on Ridge Racer (video game), where I recently had to abandon a FAC due to an incident that caused me to go on a wikibreak. The page numbers in citations was a major nitpick there. I'll come back to that article after this. Adam9007 (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't review FA, so I don't know its criteria. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer: Hopefully, most of the issues are now fixed. How close is this to meeting GA now? I still need to finish sorting out the citations though; I should have plenty of time to do that and other stuff on Sunday (tomorrow). Adam9007 (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• This needs a major copyedit before it's anywhere near to B class, let alone GA status. A quick read of the first couple of paragraphs made that clear. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your tagging in this edit. All of that should be obvious through the context. Type of what? Scroll, obviously. Not required for what? For progression through the story, obviously. Reward who? The player; who else? Whose task? The Silver Scrolls' of course (performed by the player, obviously). Do we really need to explicitly state every detail? Adam9007 (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Adam9007, you don't need to explicitly state every detail, but you do need to produce good, clear, and crisp writing if you want this up to GA status. I'm not here to try and get a rise out of you, and for you to respond in this manner is not a good idea: this is not my first time doing a GA review. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: But isn't not stating the obvious key to maintaining flow? I've reworded it, so hopefully it shouldn't matter now. Adam9007 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• • • I think that these problems originated from these short/occasionally choppy sentences. As I have said above, they made ideas look disjointed, and will probably cause confusion. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
      • @AdrianGamer: Is there a deadline for this? I should (hopefully) have this all fixed in the next couple of days. Adam9007 (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
        • The deadline should be tomorrow, according to the official guideline. However, my approach is that as long as someone is working on the article, I will not close it unless the nominator requests it/abandon the nomination. You can take your time refining the article. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
          • @AdrianGamer: How are the citations now? Have I done enough merging of sentences? How far is there still to go? Adam9007 (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• The citations look fine. (Its layout isn't part of GA requirement at all). I have several more questions:

• Problems were encountered, and the team doubted the game would end up as it did - What does this mean?
• I think the problems of having short sentences is not limited to the gameplay section. It happens throughout the article, especially the development section. I'm sorry for not being clear.
• The reception section in its current state is improved but I think it needs further paraphrasing.

— AdrianGamer (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer: How's the article now? Does the awards section need tidying up? I've been wondering if I ought to just replace the whole section with a table like {{Awards table3}}? Adam9007 (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph of the reception section needs slightly more paraphrasing. Is Gamezilla a reliable source? For the award sections, I would definitely prefer having a list like this one. It is slightly more easier to read, but this is optional. Once these are fixed I think most content issues I raised above are fixed, unless User:Drmies has more comments on it. AdrianGamer (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• AdrianGamer, I'll need a few days; I can't guarantee I can get to it today. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Unless I beat you to it; I should hopefully be able to do this tonight. @AdrianGamer: Yes, Gamezilla is a reliable source according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources. Adam9007 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer: That table is too complicated for me to construct manually, so I used Awards table 3. I don't know what years the last one is, and apparently the game was nominated for several more, but I can't reliably source it. Is the first paragraph okay now? Adam9007 (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the last two paragraphs in the article.

• "Certain critics, after spending more time...":
  • "Certain" is really not precise; in the end, only one publication (not individual critics) are referenced here.
  • "spending more time reviewing" sounds like original research, high school writing. There is no indication that the same reviewer spent more time and changed their mind; rather, it's the one publication that published a later review with a different evaluation.
  • "They cited...among reasons it ultimately disappointed" is a bit wordy.
  • That IGN mentions the game as overrated is unclear: did they report their own opinion, or others' opinions? Is it important? And if not (there seems to be no changing of minds after more time reviewing), perhaps it should be cut, and the first two sentences brought up into the previous paragraph.
• "Black & White was awarded...":
  • What is "the Best of E3"? I assume it's some competition, but it's not wikilinked or explained so its importance is not clear, 1999 (and later 2000) should probably be in parentheses. "IGN named Black & White as the Best of E3 2000's Most Innovative game" makes me think IGN runs that Best of E3 show, but the capitalization of "Most Innovative game" is inconsistent (and it's inconsistent with "Editor's choice award" earlier on).
  • "The following year..." sentence is unclear: the following year at the same competition?
  • For E3 we had "At the Best of E3", and later we have "In the 2002 Game Developers Choice Awards": why there are different prepositions is not clear to me.

These are not just simple copyedits, so I can't fix them for you. I mean, I could, but you might not like it, and what Best of E3 is, for instance, I can't explain. I see now that there is something called Electronic Entertainment Expo; linking that and explaining, in a few words, is the way to go--although that article doesn't indicate there are "official" awards. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Even I'm confused by all this E3, Game Critics, and IGN stuff. My understanding is that E3 is a show. Best of E3 seems to be some competition, and to make matters even more confusing, both Game Critics and IGN have Best of E3 awards (of the same names to boot), which seem to be different. For example, Black & White won the 2000 Game Critics Best of E3 Best of Show, but for IGN's 2000 Best of E3 Best of Show, it came second. So there seems to be 2 different competitions of the same name, with awards of the same names, both for the same show. Typing bestofe3 dot com redirects you to IGN's Best of E3 site. It's all extremely confusing. As for wording, I've reworded the other bits, but I don't see where "The following year" is. Didn't I delete it? I haven't listed to IGN's podcast, so I don't yet know the details about that. Adam9007 (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Adam, I'm sure all of it is fixable--in such cases, the better the sources are, the more easily it's fixed. I gained a better understanding of E3 after looking at the relevant articles and I'm sure together we can work it out. It's late and I just wrote up something really sad so I'm throwing in the towel for tonight; let's get back to it tomorrow. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: @AdrianGamer: Anything left? (other than the IGN podcast). In the absence of anything major to do, I'm working on Theme Park (video game) at the moment. Adam9007 (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

As I have said above, I think most content issues are addressed, so in my opinion, the article should be good to go. If @Drmies: has no additional comment then it can be promoted. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I opened up a section at random, and this is the result. You can't promote something to GA if it still needs copyediting, nor should reviewer and writer rely on someone else to do the copyediting for them. GA requires good writing--not average writing with errors and infelicities. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Wait: from the lead, "the game was highly anticipated. Ports for games consoles were in development, but cancelled. The game was noted..." That note about ports is not connected to the preceding or the following. Plus, there's nothing else in the article that I see about ports. Also, "the creature's set a Guinness World Record"--that's grammatically incorrect, and I don't know what the intent was or how to fix it. "ascinated with influencing people in a world since Populous"--it is unclear what "since Populous" is supposed to modify, or what "influencing people in a world" means. I guess that "world" means something technical, but that's not properly signaled here. "Multiplayer is supported" is, I gather, acceptable grammar in Wikipedia game articles, but it sure is ugly. Look--this is just the lead. That's at least five problems, and I fixed a few more along the way.

  I understand that this article was already substantial when y'all came to it, but if you take it over and take it to GA, you have to take ownership of all the old parts too--I see now that there was something in the old lead about ports; this was modified and kept, but its modification made it incomprehensible and material was placed around it that had no relation to it, nor was the information ever sourced or explained. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: The creature's AI set a Guinness World record. There's info about ports in the development section, and the note in the lead is connected to the development summary. And there are 3 types of leash; I'm not sure what else "There are three types" could be referring to? Adam9007 (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This is going to be my last comment. a. "AI setting a world record" is unclear, to say the least; what does a world record in AI even mean? b. I don't even see the word "port" in the development section. Even if it is there, and despite your protest, those sentences in the lead have nothing to do with each other: that the game took three years to develop is unrelated to ports for game consoles is unrelated to artificial intelligence. c. I don't know what else it could be referring to, but it's kind of weird to be talking about "a leash" and say how it can be used, and then say that there are three kinds of leashes.

I have spent more than enough time on this article and made enough edits to prove the point that it needs serious copyediting. That you cannot see that, worse, that you keep arguing that I am wrong when the evidence is in the edit history, that is your problem--if you can't see the problems then obviously you can't fix them. That's fine, but don't expect a GA-stamp of approval. Just now I saw yet another error (hint: it's in the sentence that starts "At E3 2000"). So no, GA status denied (sorry AdrianGamer, but content is not the only thing) until serious copyediting has taken place. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: The last paragraph of the development section is:

"A PlayStation version was in development and scheduled for release in summer 2001,[63] and a Dreamcast version in late 2001.[64] Both were cancelled.[65][66] PlayStation 2 and Xbox versions were due for release in 2002.[67] Versions for the Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance were proposed, but never materialised. A company called M4 would have co-developed alongside Lionhead, but Electronic Arts weren't interested in the Game Boy.[68][69]"

Are you saying you want me to change the word "version(s)" to "port(s)" or vice versa? EDIT: I boldly did it. The creature's AI set a record for complexity; I have added that to the lead, but the lead shouldn't go into too much detail, as that's for the body, which explains the record further. Adam9007 (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer: Hopefully, I've fixed the issues raised. But I may have screwed the lead up; I don't see how else I can keep the topics separate. Adam9007 (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer: I've done some copy editing per Drmies. It's amazing what a little strategic distance can do isn't it? I didn't see these issues before. Adam9007 (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Since Drmies decided that that would be his last comment, I think the best action is to request another reviewer to request this. From my point of view/GA guideline, GA doesn't need exceptional writing. As long as it adheres to most grammatical rules it should have no problem. A third reviewer is needed. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a third opinion rather than in depth review, but it's an important point. The first of the GA criteria is "Well-written": the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. This is not exceptional writing, but rather competent writing throughout. Yet I found several significant errors in the lead section, and more in Gameplay, at which point I stopped. (For example: Gold ones initiate a significant event, and silver ones give a task to perform and reward upon completion, although are not required.) My very strong recommendation is that you submit the article immediately to the Guild of Copy Editors; at the moment, they're taking about three weeks to complete a request, and this review could be held open pending completion of the copy edit if you wish. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Why don't you state what the errors are? I might be able to fix them without waiting 3+ weeks for the Guild of Copy Editors. Adam9007 (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Adam9007, there were simply too many issues in just the lead and the opening of Gameplay; I don't have time to do a comprehensive copyedit of the whole article, which is 3642 words of prose, and in my considered judgment that's what the article needs, and what would be required to come up with a list of changes; far better and more efficient to have someone just do a direct copyedit. Your best option at this point is the Guild; please submit a request. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Request submitted. Adam9007 (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for Second opinion: A request for second opinion has been made by Adrian who has expressed concerns about the general writing style of this article. Adrian's concerns are proper and the narrative prose currently is not up to normal peer review standards. Even in the lede there are sentences which are non-grammatical such as: "a creature who serves the player and whose personality is shaped its interaction with the player." At the very least a GOCE copy edit review and rewrite is called for, with the possible need for larger re-organization of the article if requested by GOCE to bring the current article up to peer review quality. That might help move the article forward. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer: The GOCE has finished copy editing the article. How's it now? Adam9007 (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but I think another reviewer is needed, after such an overhaul. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

AdrianGamer, I see that you've called for a second opinion. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that a completely new reviewer is needed to continue the review—indeed, to start over from scratch. (You're ending your participation here, right?) If this is the case, it might be best to put this back into the reviewing pool, with seniority intact, to find a new reviewer that way. Sometimes waiting for a second opinion can take even longer than waiting for a new reviewer. Adam9007, do you have any thoughts about which you'd like to see at this point? BlueMoonset (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: If it's necessary to get this up to GA... Adam9007 (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: How am I suppose to do this? Should I directly close the review or delete this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianGamer (talk • contribs) 14:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

AdrianGamer, thanks for replying. I'll take care of what needs to be done. This review should remain intact, so the next reviewer can refer back; I'll adjust the GA nominee template on the article's talk page so the nomination is set up for a new reviewer and will create a new review page when said new reviewer comes along. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black & White (video game)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cognissonance (talk · contribs) 22:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a lot of time on my hands. The review will be starting tomorrow. Cognissonance (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• artificial life — Link to Simulation video game
• strategy — Link to Strategy video game
• "Peter Molyneux led the three-year development of this highly anticipated game" — Replace "this" with "the" for a more formal reading.
• There is a wealth of knowledge in Development and release. More important points should be summarised with respect to the development.
• Establish that the game received universal acclaim.
• artificial intelligence — Link to Artificial intelligence (video games)
• Even with universal acclaim, mention the criticism (high system requirements, bugs). This may be followed by a sentence summarising the re-reviewed publications later considering it overrated.

Gameplay

• "Screenshot of" is not necessary.
• "the player's image in followers' eyes" — "the player's image as judged by his followers" seems more complete.
• "a good god, an evil one, or in between" — End the sentence with "in-between the two" to improve grammar and flow.
• "an evil god's temple is dark-coloured, sprouting spikes, and looking intimidating" reads like "an evil god's temple is ... looking intimidating". Replace with "fashioned to look intimidating".
• "Buildings are created in the Workshop, using wood to create scaffolds, placed to create a blueprint. Villagers then build it using wood" — As a reader, this confused me. "Buildings are created in the Workshop by manufacturing blueprints, using wood to create scaffolds. Villagers then employ the material to build the structures" would be less bewildering.
• Cite source 48 to add Tibet, Zulu and Cossacks. Make clear that these historical cultures helped form the basis of the tribes.
• soccer — Link to Association football
• "or by performing certain gestures with the hand" — For consistency, write "the Hand".
• believe — Link to Belief
• "every village on the island" — Replace with "every village on an island" to establish that it is set on an island without assuming the reader already knows.

Creature

• "The current creature can be swapped with a new one if the player desires" — "current creature" is a weird phrasing when there are three creatures to choose from. "One creature can be swapped with another if the player desires" is more comprehensible.
• "apes are intelligent and proficient at learning but lack strength, tigers are strong but learn slowly" — Replace comma with semicolon.
• "command the creature to go to specific place" — Fix grammar with "command the creature to go to a specific place".
• "One encourages the creature to pay attention when actions are demonstrated" — Clarify with "One leash encourages the creature to pay attention when actions are demonstrated". The following comma should also be replaced by a semicolon.
• "Beliefs are attribute lists that store data about various world objects" — Fix grammar with "Beliefs are attributed to lists that store data about various world objects".
• "the creature selects the belief that it has the best opinion about" — Fix grammar with "the creature selects the belief with the best opinion".

Plot

• Consider breaking the content into two paragraphs at the start of "Later, Nemesis destroys Khazar and steals his piece of the Creed" to easier navigate the writing.
• "The player begins as a new god created from a family's prayers" — Establish setting with "The player begins on an island as a new god, created from a family's prayers" and link "prayers" to Prayer.
• "After saving their drowning son, the grateful family is followed to their village" gives the impression that the family saved the son, not the god. Fix with "After saving their drowning son, the god follows the grateful family to their village".
• "a god named Nemesis. He desires to reign supreme as the one true god" can be clarified with "a god named Nemesis, who desires to reign supreme as the one true god". Link "one true god" to Monotheism.
• "Khazar reveals that he sent the vortex and asks for help against another god" — Improve prose with "Khazar reveals that it was he who sent the vortex and requests assistance against another god".
• "Lethys gives the player" — Minor nitpick: "Lethys grants the player".
• "Nemesis appears and invites the player to his realm" — Minor nitpick: "Nemesis appears, inviting the player to his realm".

Development and release

• Please include a fair use image (or two if possible) to illustrate the content, preferably in place of the boxquote. Suggestion: Peter Molyneux (summarise that the game drew elements from his previous projects Populous and Dungeon Keeper, which he also designed).
• "Black & White took over three years to develop beginning on 14 February 1998, and the game was released on 30 March 2001" — Reads as though "Black & White" and "the game" are different things altogether, and has problems with flow. Improve with "Black & White started development on 14 February 1998 and took over three years to create. It was released on 30 March 2001".
• Peter Molyneux — Link to Peter Molyneux
• "personally devoted the entire period to the game" can be clarified with "personally devoted his entire focus on the period of development".
• "where players felt they are in a world where they could do anything" — Past tense consistency: "where players felt they inhabited a world where they could do anything".
• "Molyneux liked the idea of controlling people in a world from Populous" can be clarified with "Molyneux had liked the idea of controlling people as a god since his previous venture Populous".
• "He was interested in good and evil" can be clarified with "He was interested in the concept of good and evil". Also, link to Good and evil.
• Mafia — Mafia (video game) or Mafia? Link to the applicable article.
• Lionhead — Link to Lionhead Studios
• "The nine-person team discussed the game and its content" — Establish team expansion and improve prose: "The expanded nine-person team exchanged suggestions for the game and its content".
• lip-synchronised — Link to Lip sync
• "team members questioned and competed with each other, and the result was better quality work than expected" — Improve flow: "team members questioned and competed with each other, resulting in a better quality of work than expected".
• "The game was developed by a team" — Limit repetition of "team": "The game was developed by a group".
• Remove repeated Populous wikilink.
• "The estimated release date was late 1999, but was pushed back to September 2000" — Correction: "Molyneux estimated the game would be nearly finished in 1999 and scheduled it for a late September 2000 release".
• Artificial intelligence — Link to Artificial intelligence (video games)
• Microsoft Developer Studio — If applicable, link to Microsoft Visual Studio
• "He hoped the 3D engine could be a refinement when compared to his previous games, and held high hopes for its standards. He instructed its programmers to" — Improve prose: "He expected the 3D engine would be a refinement when compared to his previous games, and held high hopes for its standards. He instructed the programmers to". The following colon is not necessary.
• engine — Link to Game engine
• "the team did not have rehearsals, so learned" — Improve prose: "the team did not have rehearsals, and thus learned".
• "The team did not want to use panels for casting miracles preferring a gesture system" — Replace with "They also resisted using control panels, icons and buttons for casting miracles, preferring a gesture system". "Control panels" should be linked to Control panel (software) and "gesture system" to Gesture recognition.
• "Integrating the storyline was found to draw the player in an unexpected way and this lead to the development of characters such as the advisers" — Clarify: "Integrating the storyline was found to draw the player through the game in an unexpected manner, which led to the development of characters like Sable, the Creature trainer, and the advisers"
• "The creature's artificial intelligence was a gamble" — Replace with "The creature's artificial intelligence was thought to be risky" for a less informal approach.
• "Richard Evans built the technology into a "character which appeared to live and learn like, say, a clever puppy" — Replace with "Artificial intelligence specialist Richard Evans built the technology into a character, which according to Molyneux appeared to "live and learn like, say, a clever puppy".
• "Molyneux wanted the creature to pass the Turing test" — Replace repeated word "wanted" with synonym.
• The sentence about the interface not using "panels, icons or buttons" should be removed as this has already been established in the previous section.
• "wizard's towers" — Replace with "a wizard's tower".
• Electronic Arts — Link to Electronic Arts
• "Molyneux commented that:" — The colon is not necessary.
• "the team felt like they'd run a marathon" — Replace "they'd" with "they had".
• "CD" — Link to Compact disc
• "Molyneux said Black & White is the most important and difficult game he had made" — Past tense consistency: "Molyneux said Black & White was the most important and difficult game he had made".
• patch — Link to Patch (computing)
• "A patch was released that allows" — Improve flow: "Another patch was released, which would allow".
• "The villager's artificial intelligence had to be capped" — Fix grammar, improve wording: "The villagers' artificial intelligence had to be restricted".
• "On the creature's artificial intelligence, Molyneux commented" — "Molyneux said of the creature's artificial intelligence," is more appropriate.

Reception

• This looks to be broad in scope, citing several reviews and creating a consensus indicating its most noteworthy praise and criticism. Speaking of which, the word "praise" should be replaced in a few areas with other synonyms, lest it be repeated ad nauseam.
• Consider adding "on the PC" to the sales information.
• "original ideas remarking that" — Minor tweak: put a comma after "ideas".

Accolades

• Guinness World Records — Link to Guinness World Records

Overall

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: The article meets the criteria in regards to being factually accurate, reliable, free of plagiarism, broad in coverage, focused, neutral, stable and illustrated, but its prose, grammar and lead summary will have to be amended for the article to pass the review. I am putting it on hold so that the concerns can be redressed. Cognissonance (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

@Cognissonance: I'm busy tomorrow, but have 2 free days after that. I should have plenty of time then. Adam9007 (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: I've made most of the changes. How's the article now? I'm not sure about the 3 tribes though. Zulu and Cossacks aren't in the final game, and I'm not sure if the source means it was intended for them to be, or if the tribes that are in the game are based on them. Is the sentence "a good god's temple is bright-coloured, and an evil god's is fashioned to look intimidating" okay? I used bright-coloured as good temples aren't necessarily white (only the player's and Khazar's are). For example Lethys's good temple if gold. Adam9007 (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Great work.

Lead

• "Peter Molyneux led the three-year development of the highly anticipated game, originally to feature wizards instead of gods" — Expand the development summary after this sentence.
• "Black & White received critical acclaim" — Move the entire sentence back so it starts the paragraph and add "universal acclaim".
• system requirements and bugs — Link to System requirements and Software bug

Development and release

• "Black & White drew elements form" — Fix grammar: "Black & White drew elements from".
• "including a Mafia game" — Replace with previous version: "including a mafia-style game".

Cognissonance (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: How's the article now? I got rid of "the game was noted for its artificial intelligence" because that's already conveyed in "reviewers praised the artificial intelligence". Adam9007 (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Pass/Fail:

   @Adam9007: Good to go. Cognissonance (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Black & White (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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zdnet.com/cgw/stories/main/0%2C11529%2C2607679%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.techtv.com/extendedplay/reviews/story/0%2C24330%2C3320151%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103063554/http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html to http://www.gamesmagazine-online.com/gameslinks/archives.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Mediaeval

Hi Adam9007. I was wondering what your logic was regarding the use of the less common spelling here, which you reverted. What's the benefit of using an archaic spelling instead of one that people are more familiar with? (see how many universities offer courses in Mediaeval studies versus Medieval studies). Apologies for the behavior/behaviour thing btw, my spell checked keeps slipping into US mode. Scribolt (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Scribolt: "Mediaeval" isn't archaic, at least not according to the major dictionaries I've checked: Oxford, MacMillan, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, and Collins. Perhaps you're thinking of "mediæval"? As for familiarity, it's not like the difference between "Jail" and "Gaol". It's kind of like the difference between "Realize" and "Realise": if you understand one, you understand the other (and I can't see any reason why most would not understand "mediaeval"). Also, surely the same is true for words like Encyclopedia/Encyclopaedia? I definitely have seen "Encyclopaedia" used in articles. I also notice you haven't made the same archaic and familiarity/commonality arguments for "connexion" and "reflexion", both of which are used in the article too. There's no particular benefit to using either spelling: I just don't see why the change was necessary. I know we should use the most common terminology or terminology that's common to all English varieties if possible, but I'm not aware of any such rule that applies to spelling. Adam9007 (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Archaic in the context of words means old and now uncommonly used, so I think this fits (see [[1]]). All of your examples seem to fall into that category. I would have used the same argument for connexion if I'd noticed it and in all honesty when I saw reflexion, I didn't know what it meant and assumed it was a technical term related to the rendering process. After quickly googling, I see it's the same as reflection? So, an example of why these things can lead to confusion, even for British English speakers (although maybe just ignorant ones in my case). I disagree with your statement that there's no benefit in using the common spelling of words instead of unusual alternatives, it reduces the possibility of confusion and makes the article easier to read and understand. Do you believe that the use of the spellings mentioned above provide additional information or improve the readability of the article? BTW, there's no rule I'm aware of either relating to spellings althought I haven't searched for one. Scribolt (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, after having asked around, MOS:COMMONALITY seems relevant if you believe it doesn't make difference either way Scribolt (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Scribolt: MOS:COMMONALITY applies to vocabulary, not spelling. By that logic, we should scrap -ise spellings and force the use of Oxford spelling in all BrE articles, as -ize spellings are common to both BrE and AmE. Adam9007 (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that both ise and ize are both commonly used forms, while mediaeval, reflexion and connexion are not in either British or American, so I don't think that argument really holds. Sorry to come back to this, but you've still not really answered my question, which I've asked twice now in different ways. What's the benefit of using the spelling that you reverted rather than the commonly used version? Seeing as you bought them up, please address this for reflexion and connexion too. You've mentioned in passing that there's no benefit in either way, so in that case I would suggest that the common form in both British and American English would be better for the readability of the article. However, maybe there is a semantic difference that I'm not aware of, so I'd like to get your thoughts. Scribolt (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Scribolt: you've still not really answered my question, which I've asked twice now in different ways. What's the benefit of using the spelling that you reverted rather than the commonly used version? Neither you or Oknazevad have explained how "connection" and "medieval" are better than "connexion" and "mediaeval" (which were used in the article first I might add; given the way I've been treated, you could be forgiven for thinking that "connection" and "medieval" were used and I changed them) respectively. The only argument I've heard is that they're more common. More common does not equal more correct. I have used "mediaeval" in 3 other articles that passed GAN, so either the reviewers didn't notice (which I doubt), or they didn't care. "Connexion" and "reflexion" are simpler and closer to their pronunciation (in addition to being more "etymologically correct" (the Latin used xion for those words, and the same goes for "mediaeval"), a key feature (as I understand it anyway) in Oxford Spelling (although this article doesn't use it), and theoretically less confusing. As for "mediaeval", I imagine it's the same with "encyclopaedia", and I know for a fact "encyclopaedia" is not archaic. Adam9007 (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: See my responses below:

• Neither you or Oknazevad have explained how "connection" and "medieval" are better than "connexion" and "mediaeval. This isn't true, please see: So, an example of why these things can lead to confusion, even for British English speakers (although maybe just ignorant ones in my case) and I disagree with your statement that there's no benefit in using the common spelling of words instead of unusual alternatives, it reduces the possibility of confusion and makes the article easier to read and understand..
• (which were used in the article first I might add; given the way I've been treated, you could be forgiven for thinking that "connection" and "medieval" were used and I changed them). This is completely irrelevant, you reverted the edits that removed these terms, so it's not unreasonable to ask you why or to assume that you believe that they improve the article. Or to ask you provide specifics as to your reasoning.
• More common does not equal more correct. This is completely irrelevant, no one claimed that the words less correct, only that they're not commonly used in any form of English and therefore introduce reduce readability and increase the risk of confusion for the reader.
• "Connexion" and "reflexion" are simpler and closer to their pronunciation. In what way are they simpler? They aren't commonly used. In what way are they closer to the pronunciation of these words? I don't pronounce them in that way.
• in addition to being more "etymologically correct" (the Latin used xion for those words, and the same goes for "mediaeval"). Could you please explain in what way these are more 'etymologically correct', and why that's relevant to a Wikipedia article? Scribolt (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Scribolt:

• This is completely irrelevant, you reverted the edits that removed these terms, so it's not unreasonable to ask you why or to assume that you believe that they improve the article. Or to ask you provide specifics as to your reasoning. No, the terms are the same: "connection" and "connexion" are the same word, as are "medieval" and "mediaeval". There were already perfectly valid spellings.
• This is completely irrelevant, no one claimed that the words less correct That's not the impression I got from Oknazevad's edits only that they're not commonly used in any form of English and therefore introduce reduce readability and increase the risk of confusion for the reader. How so? I can't see any reason "connexion" is less readable than "connection", or that "mediaeval" is harder to understand than "medieval".
• In what way are they simpler? They have 1 less letter. They aren't commonly used. In what way are they closer to the pronunciation of these words? I don't pronounce them in that way. I've always pronounced "connection" kon-ek-shun. Seems that "connexion" is a perfectly reasonable representation of the pronunciation.
• Could you please explain in what way these are more 'etymologically correct', and why that's relevant to a Wikipedia article? I thought I had, but I'll explain again. "connection" comes from the Latin word "connexio", not "connectio" (there's no such word as far as I'm aware). Same with "reflection", which comes from "reflexio". "Medieval" is a blend of "Medium" and "aevum", hence "Mediaeval". It's relevant because some articles use Oxford spelling, which, as I understand it, prefers "etymologically correct" spellings. That's why -ize spellings are preferred there; they're closer to the Greek root. But we don't have to be using Oxford spelling to use "etymologically correct" spellings. Adam9007 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Thanks for the reply, but in all honesty (and I'm open to the possibility that I might not be making myself clear) you again appear to be answering different questions to those I've asked.

• No, the terms are the same: "connection" and "connexion" are the same word, as are "medieval" and "mediaeval". There were already perfectly valid spellings. I wasn't arguing that they weren't valid spellings. You appeared to be upset that you were being treated in a certain way here even though you didn't introduce all of the spellings under discussion. If you revert edits that others regard as improvements, you should expect to be asked to discuss why you did it, and this is why I stated that it was irrelevant that you didn't introduce all of the terms yourself.
• That's not the impression I got from Oknazevad's edits Where did he say it was actually incorrect? Besides, I was addressing you, not them.
• How so? I can't see any reason "connexion" is less readable than "connection", or that "mediaeval" is harder to understand than "medieval". I've explained this multiple time above and again below, which you seem to keep missing.
• They have 1 less letter. Shorter words are not always simpler to read. Reflexion is very rarely used in comparison to reflection. At the risk of calling myself uneducated yet again, I personally have never seen it before and interpreted it wrongly. Non-native speakers will almost certainly not have seen it before. Therefore, someone who has never seen this commonly used term has to stop and think, does this mean what it looks like and should I substitute it with another word that I do understand? This process is completely unnecessary in this case because there's absolutely in the article that means that reflexion imparts anything to the reader other than making them stop to think and in my case leading them to the wrong conclusion. For zero benefit.
• kon-ek-shun even if you don't pronounce the t (which I do, but I appreciate accents vary), I still don't think that ek is closer to ex than it is to ect. The -exion pronunciation doesn't have the hard 'c' in at all. Even if it did, I see the phonetic closeness of a spelling to be irrelevant to whether we choose it for inclusion in a written encyclopedia.
• etymologically correct stuff. OK, I phrased the first part this question badly and you missed the important bit. Even if your original research here is correct, which it may be, the most important part which you didn't address at all, is why is any of this relevant to Wikipedia? I don't understand your preference for wanting to use these particular spellings, but put yourself in the place of the reader? Do they want something that they are more likely to understand and is consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia? Or something that's closer to the greek or latin root?
• This may all be moot bearing the discussions taking place at MOS, but I'm not going over all of this to try and kick you when you're down, I'm trying to show you that you're being asked good faith questions and you give the appearance of trying to avoid answering them. Scribolt (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Scribolt:

• Where did he say it was actually incorrect? Here
• even if you don't pronounce the t (which I do, but I appreciate accents vary), I still don't think that ek is closer to ex than it is to ect. The -exion pronunciation doesn't have the hard 'c' in at all. eks sounds similar to ex, but not ect.
• put yourself in the place of the reader? Do they want something that they are more likely to understand and is consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia? I can't read the minds of our readers, but I imagine that, for any given article, they just want something that's understandable. There's no consistency throughout the encyclopaedia, as some articles use American English, others British etc. Some articles use "color", others "colour". Adam9007 (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: So you were referring to a comment he made in the future that still didn't say it was incorrect, merely that anyone who didn't think it was obscure and archaic was wrong. You might disagree with that, I certainly don't, but you've ben reading things into what people have written that haven't been there. You seem unwilling to even entertain the notion that for many readers, the obscure spellings you added or attempted to retain might not be as understandable and you again failed to propose a benefit for your version. There's certainly limited consistency between British and American English articles, but as the terms here have commonly used and consistent spellings in both forms, again, that's not really relevant. Colour and color are different because each is uncommon in one version. Scribolt (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Awards section

I'm not sure if it's just on my end, but the awards section seems somewhat randomly ordered. At the moment it shows awards in 2001, then 2002, then 1999 and so on. Would it be ok to organise that section by the year? I may have missed something for why it's organised like that though.--Stikman (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks as though it's grouped by the awarding organisation (Bafta etc) although I had to stop and work it out. No objections from me, your way sounds clearer, although an alternative would be the existing order with some more intelligent formatting so the year isn't emphasised first. Scribolt (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, I can see how it's set out now. I'm thinking if the table template used is changed (i.e. from 'awards table3' to 'awards table2') it would let people sort it by year, result etc, which could make it a bit clearer depending on what the individual was looking for. If there's no problems with that, then I'll just change it. --Stikman (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

PlayStation version; did it really not exist?

I was reading the article and it says (pretty clearly) that the Playstation version of the game never existed. But I distinctly remember having had friends that owned that version of the game as well as even playing it (briefly) myself. So what gives? Is this a matter of article vandalism, or did I somehow end up in an alternate reality or something? Because I'm 100% certain the PSX/PS1 version did in fact exist, or at least it did in Sweden (games being available in Swedish was a pretty big thing/draw at the time.) Captain Seasick (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You'll have to find some credible evidence. It would be interesting if it really was available for PlayStation in Sweden, but I haven't been able to find anything about it (but I'm also searching in English). -- Primium (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)