Wikipedia

Talk:Batman: Arkham Origins

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Useful sources edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

This section reserved for addition of useful sources for expanding article at a later date: Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Don't know if the following can be pruned for development/gameplay info, or people for the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

This may contain additional info about the game's season pass. Mainly details on the "Initiation" Pack DLC - Mainstreammark (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reception refs

http://community.wbgames.com/t5/Official-Announcements/The-Benefits-of-WBID/m-p/13#U13 Does this info in regards to getting this skin, help in anyways? (I'm leaning towards no.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The info appears to be legit, but since it's coming from a community admin, I don't believe it to be reliable enough for verification, IMO. - Mainstreammark (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oh. I did not clarify. I'm fine with the reliability. It's the info that the One Million suit is acquired through using WBID. But I didn't think that was necessary, as we have not added how any of the other skins are obtained. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Images for Article edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

This article only contains one image (found in the infobox), whereas Arkham Asylum and City have multiple images within their articles which are really helpful for a means of visual identification. Some good areas for an image or two would include the Gameplay and Characters sections. There is no rush for this, but I'm just saying that at one point it will be mandatory to find some free images to use in this article. I can not do this because of.....personal reasons you could say. Thank you Arkham Nation. - Mainstreammark (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is absolutely NOT mandatory that additional images be added. Images should only be added if they can help enhance the content already stated in the article. So if free images come about that can do this, then we can. But it isn't mandatory by any means. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
That's odd I typed "nice" not "mandatory". I have got to start using a desktop. Anyways, I am glad that you are open to this idea. Hope some free images can be found. - Mainstreammark (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Like Favre said, images are to be used with a purpose, not for decoration, and are not essential. If one can be found fine, but at the moment one clearly doesn't. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking users should try and aim to find a free image of Smith or Baker (don't know if any are already on Wikipedia), perhaps even an image of the new Remote Claw or Shock Gloves (if possible). - Mainstreammark (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Alternatively, editors could use the Template:External media to provide links to non-free media provided to news sources. A link to an image of the shock gloves would be a fine example.--Cast (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Kirigi edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey guys. Should Kirigi be added to the Characters section? I think so because of this source. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-09-26-batman-arkham-origins-pass-includes-five-of-the-games-dlc-packs Tell me what you think. - Mainstreammark (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

No because he isn't part of the main game which is what that section is for and we have no idea what his role is, the only information available sounds like he is a challenge map boss, 'maybe', could just be in the background telling ninjas to kill you. Whichever it is will fit into that section when the information is available. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Further comments edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Further comments to changes on 29 Sep as the edit summary box isn't big enough. The season pass skins are not identified in any sources so they can't be listed, I didn't notice them in the added ones anyway so I may have overlooked them. I have been looking but no source has given them yet. The season pass is a discount option for what is otherwise individually purchasable/preorderable/downloadable content and so it itself is not notable to mention. Please note that using retailers as sources is not always effective as they are often region specific, the source being used for the Black Mask DLC for instance is no use if you are outside of America, even if you ask it to redirect you to the American site it takes you to the homepage, not to the information about the Black Mask DLC. The retailers are not notable as much as identifying the actual content. The Skin Packs are collections of individual downloadable contents like the Season Pass, and I think just confuse the issue more than just referring to the individual items, as we are then grouping some together and then switching to individually mentioning others, which themselves may be included in other DLC packs or retail editions.

I'm wondering why Favre came to the conclusion that Dick Grayson is not Robin in Arkham Origins. Has been confirmed by Holmes on numerous occasions. With less than a month away and having not to worry about premature edits from unconfirmed users, we can wait till after the game's release and see how things play out. For now, I think it would be best to leave things the way they are until then. - Mainstreammark (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Music section

If it is staying in this article, per WP: NFC the album art would need to be removed as it is non free content that is similar to the infobox image. If it is ever split off the image can be readded. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well what can we do? That is the official game cover and that is the official soundtrack album cover. They do bear striking similarities but with the level of authenticity, there has to be some sort of exception that can be made for this situation. Would you mind explaining what you meant when you said "If it is ever split off the image can be re-added." I didn't quite understand. However, if we remove the soundtrack cover, it will be deleted in a matter of days. There's no guarantee that WBIE will release an all new unique and different soundtrack album after the one they've already published. We are at a crossroads here. So I say again, what should we do? - Mainstreammark (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Dark is saying that if the info gets split to its own page (like it was originally) then the image can be added back, and you just use what you have there now, or reupload it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
What Favre said, the album cover is exactly the same as the infobox cover so it isn't necessary to retain it as it fails WP: NFC. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here is some response, as well as other issues brought up. For the skins, that was partially my bad. I had used this Arkhmverse source (yes I know it's a fan site, but hold on a sec), because they were one of the only sites to actually publish the actual press release from WBIE. However, looking at one of the few other sites that did publish this, Arkhamverse seemed to enhance the release with the skins in each pack. So that was my bad. However, I do believe that the skins should be listed in the packs as I don't think it would confuse the situation anymore. In my edit, I had all the skins that have been announced that correspond to the packs, and then the other leaked ones that are still unknown together. I didn't find that very confusing.

Next thing. Robin. I am still not convinced that this is Grayson, and the fact that we are getting confirmation from Holmes, who isn't even working on the multiplayer part of the game, isn't helping. We have a valid source, that confirmed from Splash Damage it is Drake, and all of the skins are Tim Drake related. None are any costume Grayson ever wore (except the Animated series one). The "classic" Robin costume is Tim Drake's first Robin costume, and you can tell because the cape is black with a yellow underside, while Dick's was all yellow. I don't know if this is just more WP:SYNTH on my part, but unless we have a better source confirming Dick Grayson, the article should either say it's Tim (because we have a proper source) or just say Batman and Robin, with Robin just going to Robin (comics). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I saw the Arkhamverse site but after googling for its version of the press release, i'm less convinced that all the other sites removed that list, and more convinced that Arkham Verse edited in the list of skins. Not that I question what the skins are, but it needs sourcing and for whatever freakish reason there isn't a single site out there that actually goes into detail about the skin packs. As for mentioning the packs themselves, they are a form of delivery, a grouping of digital content, putting "The Millennium Pack" in the prose doesn't enhance the detail and the name alone makes no sense, and some of the skins are available individual in various regions/outlets so it is pointless to specify that under certain circumstances they come together. As for Robin, I don't really know what is going on, but it probably is easier to just link to Robin rather than an individual version of Robin as its more the costume that is important considering neither character appears in story content. With the skin changes it seems like it can be whatever Robin you want it to be. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I just found an issue with your source Favre. Take a look at comment 28 here. The validity is now in serious question. - Mainstreammark (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

First of all, if we are to make a separate page for the music section, I can't take that responsibility. I did it once already (myself) and I just don't have the strength to do it again. Second, a source from Eric Holmes confirming Grayson is not invalid by any means, it's just as valid as the source about Drake. No disrespect intended, but a representative from Splash Damage, could have been misunderstood easily. If you can, try to find more valid sources that confirm Drake, as I can find a handful that confirm Grayson. But that wouldn't really be very professional. Blake brings up an excellent point, that we should link Robin to Robin's page, not Dick or Tim's. As for the skins, I think that classifying skins into packs would be good.....but only for those such as ourselves. Those who just opened up Origins' page can easily be mislead or confused by it. Blake is right, If we put a "Millennium" pack or something like a "Darkest Days" pack, many would be confused. I would probably even be a bit misunderstanding. For us it would be best to use packs, but for all the people out there who will read the article, it would not be. As Favre said, "I didn't find that very confusing". I believe him, but I also believe that there would be many who would find it confusing. As for the region discussion, I don't have enough knowledge on that to put up an argument, so I'll let you both come up with a decision that's best for all. - Mainstreammark (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Gioachino Rossini edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Well would you look at that. Turns out that "The Thieving Magpie" is actually a theme from an opera by Rossini. Rossini is commonly referred to by just his last name. Should be noted within the article. - Mainstreammark (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Modified release date in Infobox edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

As far as I have read it, the game is still coming out for those platforms on the original date, October 25, just the boxed copies are delayed. So the game itself is making its European release on time, we shoudl mention it in the article but to say the European release is two weeks late because of only the boxed copy is wrong. This doesn't apply to the WiiU I imagine unless it has a digital delivery service, but the PC one is making its date in one form. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was very unsure on how to add the info. I read it as the Wii U (regardless of form) was delayed the two weeks, while only the physical PC release was delayed that time as well. Would it possibly be better to just leave it as "WW October 25, 2013" and then add a note next to it, with the note saying, "In Europe, the Wii U and physical Microsoft Windows versions were delayed until November 8, 2013."? Or just keep that info in the release section? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I believe the infobox should still say "WW October 25, 2013", because on the same day the news source revealed the delay, Eric Holmes confirmed the release specifics, yet again in this video. However, the delay details should still be noted within the Release section of the article. - Mainstreammark (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
The delay should be noted in the article if only to record how reamed the WiiU version has been with this game, and we could add a footnote about the date. Realistically it's only the WiiU version which is unobtainable in any form before November 8 in the EU. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
That works for me. - Mainstreammark (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I will attempt an edit, based on what was said. Feel free to revert or modify further. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Users That Won't Be Editing the Article from October 23 Until Completion of the Game edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please list your user name here if you won't be editing the article from October 23 until game completion. - Mainstreammark (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • Mainstreammark

Plot edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

The plot currently contains 1112 words. The hidden note said between 400 and 700 words. It seems very well written at this point. Any ideas on how we could trim it down? - Mainstreammark (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll take a look at it, see if I can trim it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
It was trim, it needed copy editing, not dramatising. The point of the plot is to convey notable details in a concise way.
    • Batman locates Bane's headquarters and realizes that Bane knows Batman is Bruce Wayne... Meanwhile, Bane breaks into the batcave and beats Alfred nearly to death. Batman returns to find the Batcave in ruins: Alfred dies after requesting that Batman not feel guilty over him. Batman manages to resuscitate Alfred using Electrocutioner's gloves. Elsewhere, the Joker launches a riot at Blackgate, taking over the prison.
    • At Bane's headquarters, Batman finds that Bane has deduced his identity. He then warns Alfred about Bane's knowledge of him being Bruce Wayne, and requests that he take cover immediately...Batman then rushes to the Batcave, where he finds Alfred dying under a pile of rubble from Bane's attack. In his final words, Alfred tells Bruce not to feel guilty over him. Knowing that he now has nothing to lose, Batman attempts to use his shock gloves to resuscitate Alfred. After successfully bringing him back to life, Bruce reconciles with Alfred, rediscovers his purpose, learning that the Joker has taken over Blackgate after launching a riot.
One of these is not concise, it's saying the same thing in a much longer way. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
That was my point. I wanted to rewrite the entire plot in a detailed, dramatic, and descriptive manner, so we could trim it afterwards using precision and structure, resulting in a concise summary that contained all notable details required to make a good plot. The way it is now would be a great plot for a movie, but since it's for a video game, I thought it would be best to start off powerful, then work our way down to make it as concise as the plot seen for Arkham City. The current plot is by no means the final plot, there's still more trimming, wiki-linking, rewording, and copy editing to do. Think about it in a reader's perspective, which of the two points you've made up there capture your attention more? We still have work to do. I'm sure this will have a great result at the end. - Mainstreammark (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
What is the issue at hand? It was trimmed before, you massive expanded it out with a tonne of unnecessary detail and characters, you then asked for it to be trimmed, It'sbeen done, and you've reverted the whole thing. Interpretations of emotions, minor character mentions, and flipping back and forth between character identities is not good, the version I just added cut the bloated version down, focused on the major plot points and did so close to the word limit. You have no reason to restore the last version. You are NOT going to be able to keep your version and have it be 700 words. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm guessing that had a frustrated tone behind it. This is an article that I want to one day achieve FA status, and if you are absolutely sure that your version of the plot will be able to satisfy the conditions, then I'm fine with it. You're the one with more experience, and so, I'll trust you on this. I may try to provide some copy editing here and there, but for now feel free to revert it back to the way you desire. Let's see where this'll go. - Mainstreammark (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm not saying it is perfect, the article will get a full copy edit anyway as it moves up, but it wasn't possible to keep all the dramatization and reduce the word count. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Edit request on 28 October 2013 edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lady Shiva is voiced by Kelly Hu, as confirmed by the actress herself. https://twitter.com/KellyHu/status/394837236656906240 Could someone please update the synopsis accordingly? -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Warden Joseph edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Not to be lazy, but can someone source Warden Joseph's name being Martin. Here's the source:

Thanks. - Mainstreammark (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Commissioner James Gordon? edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Don't know who made that mistake, but it's incorrect. While Gordon may have been promoted as the new leader of the GCPD, he was never given a new title. Only the title of Captain was used throughout the game. Not sure if YouTube videos are allowed, but the proof is in there...

  • Character Bios - shown twice here. First the title of Gordon's profile is "Captain Gordon", and second his occupation is listed as "Police Captain".
  • Final Boss (SPOILER WARNING] - you can see and hear it on the 12:05 mark, where it is said by Gordon himself!

Unless if it's because YouTube videos aren't reliable-enough sources, I'll be happy to find an article of some sort, plenty of which that confirm this fact. So for the sake of accuracy, please change it to Captain James Gordon. Thanks for reading! :) 173.186.165.111 (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Done Good catch. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Anarky edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

An editor reverted my edit in which I removed the phrase from Holmes about Anarky's characterization based off of "stories from the 1980s," given the inaccuracy of the idea that there were stories (plural) about Anarky in the 1980s. While the source certainly states this as a fact, the problem is that Anarky debuted in the last few months of 1989, in a single story. All of the rest of the Anarky appearances were in the 90s and later, with most of the significant Grant/Breyfogle stories occurring in the early 90s, particularly in Shadow of the Bat. So while the statement I've deleted accurately reflects what the source stated, it is a completely inaccurate description of the verifiable facts. The objection to my edit was that the statement helps to distinguish between those early Anarky stories and the later 1997 stories, but since the source states he's referring to the stories from 1987, this doesn't carry much water. Either the phrase "from the 1980s" should be removed to make the language accurate, or it should be changed to something like "the early Anarky stories." The version now neither accurately reflects what the source says (since the source is egregiously incorrect), nor does it reflect the facts. Grandpallama (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is a problematic issue I was hoping wouldn't be raised, but I lean towards standing by my original phrasing of the sentence due to the larger argument I'll now be making. I want to make it clear though, I am willing to change my mind on the issue. I provided a much shorter explanation based on a single element of the larger argument, due to the space limit on the edit description field. I'll expand on my full objection now. This issue is complicated by Eric Holmes inaccurate explanation of the source for Anarky's characterization in the game. Grandpallama is absolutely correct that Holmes' statement is worded improperly. Lets break down why. Anarky was created by Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle in 1989, and between the two of them, only two stories were created for Anarky until the duo worked again on the Anarky limited series in 1997. Holmes' statement that the development team for the game drew their inspiration from multiple stories by Grant and Breyfogle may have been more accurate if he had named a specific story or series and given correct publication years. If it's the case that the developer team drew upon stories from the late '80s by Grant and Breygfogle, only a single story was their inspiration: Detective Comics No. "Anarchy in Gotham City", in the two final months of 1989. The duo then worked on a second story including Anarky when they collaborated on Detecive Comics No.620, "Rite of Passage", which was published nine months later.
However, because of this, Grandpallama is also incorrect in the assertion that several stories surrounding Anarky's early period would include anything beyond these stories. An "early" story for Anarky by Grant and Breyfogle only refers to these two stories. Though Anarky was used by Grant for more stories in The Batman Adventures, The Batman Chronicles, an annual by Robin, Shadows of the Bat, those stories were illustrated by men other than Breyfogle. So these are our options as I see them. Either we keep the present wording, basing the "late 80s" phrasing of the sentence as referring to a single story "Anarky in Gotham City" (1989), or we choose Grandpallama's phrasing "Anarky stories by Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle" which will draw in "Anarchy in Gotham City", "Rite of Passage" (1990), "Metamorphosis" (1997), and four stories from the 1999 ongoing Anarky series. I prefer my phrasing because it narrows the window closer towards what Eric Holmes expressed, without putting meaning into his statement beyond what I can prove. Thank you for pardoning the length of this statement. I know it's much, but this is a situation that needs to be fully unpacked. --Cast (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
An addendum: I had previously used Grandpallama's suggested rewording, "early stories" in my original wording of the sentence. This was challenged by Darkwarriorblake on the basis that it was too broad ("if no specific story can be mentioned about Anarky then is useless"). That is why I reworded it as it is now, and why I don't recommend it as an alternative. --Cast (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
No pardon needed--you lay out the question pretty well! Unfortunately, I hadn't realized there had been earlier tangling over this very issue. I can see why there might have been objections to the description being too broad or general, but in any discussion that involves adopting a general statement vs. a partially inaccurate statement, the former must triumph. That said, I don't think this needs to be a binary decision; I see other ways to increase the specificity of the statement without pulling us into incorrect territory. There is one story from the 80s, which would have been published in September-October 1989, based upon the cover dates of November and December. But I was unaware that only Grant had been involved in those frequent Anarky appearances throughout the early 90s (I'll admit I'm more cognizant of the comings and goings of the writers than of the pencillers/inkers). If that's the case, though, it makes it easier to specify the stories Holmes is referring to (although if he's like me, he just means all those early Alan Grant stories--but we can't speculate). If Breyfogle was only involved in those first two stories, then the only distinction that needs to be made is between those and the ones later in 1997-current. I think we could say "the original Grant/Breyfogle stories", "the earliest Grant/Breyfogle stories", or something along those lines. Those would retain the source's intent but also keep us from putting up anything too plainly counter-factual. Granted, it means that people could interpret Holmes beyond what we can prove, but since the source is inaccurate to start with, I think we have just the tiniest bit of leeway.
The fact that Anarky is so completely associated with the 90s means that, if the 1980s reference remains solely in play, other comics-familiar editors are also going to nitpick at that from time to time. He's such a 90s character that I was a little jarred to realize he was "born" just before.
Such are my thoughts, anyway. Now, it being Wednesday, I'm off to pick up my own stack! :) Grandpallama (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, I can appreciate your suggestions. Referring to "original stories by Grant and Breyfogle" remains problematic, because that could confuse readers to think this contrasts with "unoriginal stories by Fabian, Dooly, and Peatty"-- writers who handled Anarky stories besides Grant. How about that second suggestion? If we toss out dates, as that's the only part of Holmes' statement we can be sure is inaccurate, we can stick to "the earliest stories by Grant and Breyfogle," as you suggested. Still, it may be challenged again by Darkwarriorblake and others as too broad. While we have a source that gives us a useful idea of what acted as the inspiration for Anarky, a final result may be that we have to dismiss it entirely, as it is too muddled to use. Unfortunately, it's the only source where Holmes gave such an explanation for Anarky's characterization, or really for any of the characters of the game. No similar explanation is given for the characterizations of Copperhead, Killer Croc, or Shiva. It's a shame. --Cast (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm good with "earliest stories" or some such variant that feels right to you. If it gets challenged, the "challenger" would need to present an alternative wording that preserves the intent/meaning without sacrificing accuracy. Grandpallama (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
After returning several times to the original quote by Holmes, a close examination has led me to think we've been over thinking this all along. If we had to pull the quote from Holmes exactly, we can dissect his meaning pretty narrowly. "The inspiration for us really comes from those original Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle appearances-- back in the mid to late '80s, I think." Alright, so to break this down, at the tail end he says "I think" in reference to the time frame, so he's acknowledging that his memory on the date is potentially inaccurate, which we know it to be now. He also stated that their inspiration was the original "appearances" and not "stories". Was he referring to appearances by issue? If so, then he is accurate in referring to more than one in the late '80s. There was only a single story-- "Anarky in Gotham City"-- but that was comprised of two appearances over the course of two issues. In this case, we can amend the sentence in this article as I originally had. "The development team based their characterization of Anarky on appearances in the late 80s." Now if this seems too speculative, than we can always stand by part of Holme's quote: "The development team based Anarky's characterization on the 'original Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle appearances'." Standing by this, we only cut out the singular aspect of the quote we can't be confident in. Without casting any judgement on it's accuracy, we can simply omit it in favor of the half of the quote we can take stock in. That is to say, we stand by your current statement, but afix the quote to it so it's clear that this is what Holmes stated as such. This isn't our own point of view. Frankly, I still am willing to prefer the latter option. I think that since we were given a time frame of the late '80s, and Anarky did have appearances in the late '80s, I see no conflict. If there is an insistence on removing the date due to a lack of confidence, I won't fight this further. Just set the quotation marks to be clear this is Holmes being quoted.--Cast (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't feel overly invested in this, but I will say that I think the problem is the mention, at all, of "the 80s." Avoid that, and you keep the information accurate, and you also avoid future concerns by editors who will immediately note that Anarky was really a 90s character and try (as I did) to address the strange mention of the earlier decade. Grandpallama (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Barbara Gordon Voice edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Kimberly Brooks is not in the game, the credits didn't have her name listed so could anyone erase Brooks' name off the page?76.180.221.95 (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's definitely not Kimberly Brooks, no. I asked Eric Holmes on Twitter and he linked to IMDB saying it looked accurate. The cast list lists a Kelsey Lansdowne as Barbara Gordon - she's also in the game credits (as "Kelsey Landowne"). I'm not sure if that's a good enough source though, so for now I'll just remove Brooks. RadamSmetenskij (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the initiative Radam, but really, it's getting so frustrating with Eric Holmes. I don't know if we can use this, because we can't use IMDb as a source. However, if we want to start a discussion to reach consensus, saying that because the game's director linked to the IMDb page, and said "looks pretty accurate", does that mean we can allow the use of it? But then again, "pretty" doesn't mean it definitely is; there still could be discrepancies. Ugh. We also have an issue of WP:TRUTH, where we have an reliable source saying it is Kimberly Brooks, even though it is not the truth. Darkwarriorblake, what are you're thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Michael J Scofielld linked me to this on my talk page. I think what we saw with a lot of voice related sources for this game is they either assumed or were otherwise incorrect. It is hard to say the existing source is correct when the credits do not mention Kimberly Brooks at all, I cannot say if Kelsey Lansdowne is in there I haven't looked yet, but I think it is more likely given the variety of sources that it is Lansdowne than it is Brooks. If there is a source but it is questionable or clearly not the truth, we do not have to use it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Fact check for general description edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The general description says that the game takes place five years before Rocksteady's Arkham Asylum, yet this fact is never stated in the game, its manual, or in any official articles that I can find. Given that by Arkham City, we know that Nightwing and at least a second Robin are present, it's almost impossible for this game to only be five to six years earlier. I was just wondering if there's actually any official source that states that this takes place five years before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.137.166 (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

All info in the lead is sourced in the page, and thus, this info is sourced in the first sentence of the "Setting" section: [1]. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Lead sentence edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Because nothing can just be simple:

Vs.

This is apparently a huge issue for whatever reason, the first is the previous sentencing, the second is Y2kcrazyjoker4's change. He made multiple changes, this was a small fragment that was undone because his changes repeated two items of information already in the opening paragraph. Although it has been undone twice, both times with an explanation, Y2kcrazyjoker4 has redone it again, in the above second form, staring the same thing both longer and more awkwardly and repeating the info about WB Montreal again. Please give input into which version is more preferable, and I note that the first is clearly referring to Arkham Origins as the object and not "as if a game has self awareness". Maybe that particular element can be phrased better (and suggestions are marked in [] which fixes Y2kcrazyjoker's cocern in 11 characters), but Y2kcrazyjoker4's version is not it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • Thank you, I was just thinking of something but it helps give you an idea of how the text is/can be change[d]. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Deadshot voice edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Despite it being pretty obvious that Chris Cox is the voice of Deadshot, there's been nothing we can use as a sufficient source for such. However, this interview features Cox himself confirming he played the role. Since it's Cox directly confirming, this should be sufficient, correct? -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Not done Interview is from September 2012, and I listened to the whole thing, and he doesn't say anything. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago26 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Batman: Arkham Origins/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

Overall, this article is quite solid. I'll just bring up a few issues I think are problematic:

  • The "Critical reception" section is really long, almost a screen and a half on my decent-sized monitor. Are there ways it can be condensed? I'm thinking the two paragraphs about the city's size and activities; those could definitely be scaled down. Tezero (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Also regarding those two: the fourth paragraph of the section starts with "The game world was well received for its number and variety of side missions and distractions" but then turns into a blurb about its scale and size. This wouldn't be so bad, but then the fifth paragraph is all about side missions and distractions. Can these two paragraphs be, if not scaled down, at least mutually reorganized? Tezero (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Why aren't EGM's, GameFront's, and Kotaku's reviews in the table? Tezero (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Is GameFront even notable? It doesn't have an article here and is only referred to once. Tezero (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • The only issue I have not tied to Critical reception: The caption of the video is a little confusing. What exactly is it referring to? Tezero (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Why aren't EGM's, GameFront's, and Kotaku's reviews in the table?
      • The guideline for the table is to limit it to 8 reviews and prioritize news publications and format specific journals, and avoid just repeating similar scores which don't show the full range of reviews received. Kotaku doesn't provide a score unless I'm missing it, and EGM and GameFront's scores were similar to ones already present so for the sake of brevity they weren't included. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
        • 8? There are 9. I've also seen more than 8 in numerous GAs and FAs. I can't find anything about that restriction in the template's documentation, and even their example has 9. Tezero (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
          • "Using these will give most tables 2 aggregates, and 5 to 6 scores. This is not meant to prevent adding more references to the reception section, but it will usually give the reader a good picture of any game's reception without additional work." Now I'd swear that said 8, but regardless, there is nothing to be gained from adding more scores in there, you'd be literally adding scores for the sake of adding scores which is neither the point of the template or the reception section. Nine are used in this case because the guideline says to use format specific sources where applicable, so included the PS3 and Xbox magazine equivalents. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Reply
            • Alright, then, I won't contest it any further. (5 to 6 seems awfully low, I must say.) Tezero (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Is GameFront even notable? It doesn't have an article here and is only referred to once.
      • The reviews are pulled from Metacritic listings, so Metacritic thinks its notable enough to cover, and as many reviews are used as is reasonable in the prose to not rely on one reviewer, so using it once isn't something that is necessarily negative since it provides another view. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
        • Eh, I've never heard of that rule, although I have seen numerous reviews removed for lack of notability, but what the heck. I'm not gonna keep this from GA status just for that, although its inclusion does add an extra line to an already large section. Tezero (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
          • It's inclusion presents a counterpoint to a criticism. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
            • Fair enough. In that case, refer to it as something like "Web publication GameFront" just so readers aren't like "Wait... what's GameFront? Did I miss something? Was it mentioned earlier?" Tezero (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • The "Critical reception" section is really long, almost a screen and a half on my decent-sized monitor. Are there ways it can be condensed? I'm thinking the two paragraphs about the city's size and activities; those could definitely be scaled down.
      • I've cut down some marginal things and moved things together, but it's going to be long, its analysing aspects covered by several entities, in line with FA Batman: Arkham Asylum and GA Portal 2. You essentially have 3 paragraphs of game related content, one about multiplayer which sadly can't be avoided and then misc stuff that isn't big enough to warrant its own section. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
        • Eh, okay. It's a little better. Tezero (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • The only issue I have not tied to Critical reception: The caption of the video is a little confusing. What exactly is it referring to?
      • It refers to gameplay, you'll have to give me more information because I'm not clear what is confusing about it, but I wrote it so it will make sense to me. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
        • Is it Detective Vision? The Freeflow combat system? Upgrading of his abilities? You may want to put what's pictured. Or is it all of them? The video wouldn't load. Tezero (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
          • It's all of them, the video depicts a segment of gameplay which incorporates everything mentioned in the caption. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Also, I just remembered this; it's why I didn't put "yes" for NPOV. "Arkham Origins's boss battles were one area of improvement over its predecessors; they offered dynamic, multiphase conflicts with their own stories." Says who? Tezero (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • The sources in the text. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
      • Would you mind adding a disclaimer for subjectivity, like "Critics agreed that Arkham's..."? Tezero (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking the time to review/improve the article Tezero! DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 17:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Port edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
  • A) You don't put the disputed edit back then ask for discussion.
  • B) "developer

The popular name(s) of the game developer(s). This field is for the game development company (e.g. Nintendo) or, if confirmed by primary sources, the name of the team that developed the game (e.g. Nintendo EAD). In the case of a game made entirely by one person, use the designer field instead. The name(s) can be wikilinked. Individual development tasks handled by different companies (e.g. scenario, programming) and ports should not be mentioned in the infobox but in the article text instead."

  • C) the lack of Wii multiplayer and DLC is mentioned in the article, who ported it is not important in that regard. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
It is also unsourced, regardless of the valid (and true) claims Dark makes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, sorry about adding the edits back in after asking for discussion. I couldn't think of another way to say that we should talk about this his. I have to say, those guidelines really bother me and I have to question if they are really being followed. Pretty much every page I think about that mentions a port has the developer noted on the sidebar. If I can show you guys some examples: both Mass Effect (video game) and Mass Effect 3 had port developers, which are noted under the main developer, Bioware. The game Deus Ex: Human Revolution also has port developers noted for multiple platforms, including PC, Mac, and Wii U. If you look at Epic Mickey 2: The Power of Two Wii U developers are also noted below the main developers. Finally, the reason why I believe Arkham Origins should note the developers of the Wii U SKU is because it was already done for the previous game in the Arkham series, Batman: Arkham City. WB Games Montreal actually did the port for that game, and they receive clear credit for it. If you go to their wiki page, in their list of developed titles you see the Wii U SKU of Arkham City. If you go to the wiki page of Human Head you see the same thing, their titles include the Wii U version of Arkham Origins. I believe this should be noted if only to keep consistency. I realize that it was un-sourced now and I will try to remedy that, did not know developers could be sourced. That's my argument for keeping Human Head as additional developers for Arkham Origins. -Zsxd (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I didn't see this reply or I would have responded. If Human Head can be sourced then it can be mentioned in prose, but there is nothing notable about their contribution. I'm not in favor of Montreal being mentioned in Arkham City's infobox either but at least they created a distinctly separate SKU with some additional features and used that experience to create this game. Beyond yourself I've never seen any mention of Human Head being involved in anything to do with the game, they don't need to be in the infobox, per the previously quoted guideline. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 20:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

"generally positive reviews" edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is rather ironic that POV is restored with an edit summary saying "Says who?", as that is precisely the point. Who says these numbers are "generally positive" rather than "mostly positive", "positive", "mixed to positive" or anything else? If 75-ish% is "generally positive", at what point would it be "mixed"? 65%? 60%? Where is the line between "generally positive" and "mostly positive"? 80%? 85%? Where did you get that line? Throughout these types of articles, we end up with on-going, slow motion edit wars from editors who draw the lines at different points and generally believe that their opinions are "facts". Instead, state the bare facts: who reported what. If the numbers are obviously positive/negative/whatever, it will be obvious to the reader and adding the statement does not improve the article. If it isn't obvious, adding your opinion doesn't resolve that. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Recent IP edits edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Regarding these additions: First, the game as it was released was 5 years before Asylum. What happens at a later point is irrelevant, because this game, if you played it today, would still be five years before. Next, we don't have to mention Batgirl here either. Again, what happens at a later point in the franchise isn't known for this game. Someone will not gain or lose any info with this info not in the article. As for the whole "Relation to Rocksteady-developed Arkham games" section, most of that is not needed. The first paragraph of the proposed section can be moved into the development section (not outright deleted). The second is completely unnecessary. There are many sources already in the article stating it is part of the Arkham series. We don't need Hill "confirmation" on it, or the very improper line "segments of the player community openly questioned..." The whole third paragraph is already covered in the succinct line in the development section, "Although Rocksteady provided advice on technology, game mechanics and its engine, WB Montréal developed the story independently.", so it is all not needed. And regardless, most of that quote in that paragraph is "fluff", which can be boiled down to the sentence that already exists. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

First, even if the game as it was released maintained a "five years prior" timeline, minimal mention within the main campaign of the game itself makes that fact irrelevant, since that timeframe is never explicitly established in either this game or in Arkham Knight. The fact that a new, canonical entry revised the timeline so that this entry instead takes place eight years before is relevant information for both this game and the series at-large, and I simply disagree with your assessment of it as useless/baseless information. When an event occurs in any series -- whether it's a film, TV show, or video game -- subsequent entries that have continuity impacts on the series as a whole and one game specifically are relevant to the affected work in question. Wikipedia articles do not need to be classified as "time capsules," especially when it concerns a video game series with a floating timeline, as the Arkham games are. In the event that a sequel to Arkham Origins is released with a notable reflection of the altered timeline, then this article will then be required to reflect the reality that it currently occupies: as having taken place eight years prior to Arkham Asylum.
Second, I don't disagree with the idea that the relevant information can be simplified or streamlined and placed more appropriately, but discussion among fans and in review outlets about the game's legitimacy as an entry in the series alongside the Rocksteady-developed games have taken place. It would not take long to find instances where both fans and other outlets have openly asked about this matter, notably due to the documented ways in which the game openly contradicts several narrative aspects established in Arkham Asylum about the characters' histories, particularly where the Joker and Harley Quinn are concerned. As the primary authority of the creative direction of the series (in addition to originating it), it is relevant to include the fact that Rocksteady themselves and Hill in particular endorse Arkham Origins as the legitimate sequence of events at this point in the characters' lives, and as legitimate additions to the continuity of the series as a whole. As minor as it may be in the wider scheme of things, that is a retcon in the series at-large. As I'm sure you're aware if you're a comic book fan, simply having a later issue in an ongoing series does not necessarily mean that all aspects of prior issues are in-continuity. Batman #399 and #404 are part of the Batman ongoing, but issue #404 takes place after an unacknowledged continuity change in the wider shared universe (as an example).
By employing the outright removal of the entire section as you did in your first edit on the matter discourages the act of good faith, and discussion here would've been more productive (and pleasant) if it was your first stop as opposed to your last. --CmdrClow (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Favre, and the timeline setting source is a youtube video of gameplay on a fan page in which a side character makes an offhand estimate, the estimate being ten years, so I don't even get where the 8 comes from. The rest is fluff and unnotable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 82 external links on Batman: Arkham Origins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 10:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Batman: Arkham Origins. 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: 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) 23:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Batman: Arkham Origins. 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: 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) 19:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Time of the game edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Batman Arkham Origins happens eight years before Asylum, not five. In Knight, it's said Firefly and Deathstroke fought Batman ten years prior, and since Knight is 15 months after Asylum, so Origins is 8 1/2 years before Asylum. Please correct this at the page. Thank you. 170.79.34.9 (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I figured this would be the case. Since I already challenged this edit before, I won't bother re-adding it myself, as the sentence was written before Knight was even released. Any uninvolved editor reading this can make the change themselves; as someone who hasn't played and has no way of playing Arkham Knight, I made a poor choice. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Please provide a reliable source for this that isn't your original research. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Content dispute over tech issues edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

@Dibol and Darkwarriorblake: Now that the page is fully protected, please share your concerns in regards to the back-and-forth content dispute over critics concerns with the technical issues. On one side I'm hearing they were not a focal point for critics, but on the other side, I'm hearing they were major. Please explain. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Per my edit comment "There is no mention of [technical issues] in the critical reception, and the section relating to them doesn't mention that there was any significant backlash or that it was a part of the criticism, which is where you are inserting this claim here". Arkham Knight had technical issues, those were notable, these were some minor issues, there's no sources to any kind of significant notability, and as I explained to, and was ignored by, Dibol, putting it where they were in the lede implied they were singled out by critics, which is not evidenced in the article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Uh, the technical issues with Arkham Origins were not insignificant. Glitches were save files are corrupted up to the point no one could progress is pretty significant. Outside of official forums, at least one media outlet gave some coverage on it. On top of this, even the technical issues subject had some news coverage. As it stood, putting that information in the lead at least gives the reader some idea in the heading that such issues are more prevalent in Origins than Knight. By the way, Mass Effect: Andromeda had a similar issue that is widely documented. What makes Origins exempt from not having a similar entry?Dibol (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 82 external links on Batman: Arkham Origins. 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: 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) 13:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Batman: Arkham Origins. 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: 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) 15:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Batman:_Arkham_Origins&oldid=1210191932"