Talk:Ex illis
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ex illis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find video game sources: "Ex illis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Recovered Dead Link edit
I found the dead review link in the wayback machine. I was going to read them and add them as references, but someone else seems to be editing the page. https://web.archive.org/web/20101114074228/http://www.tabletopbattlefield.com/ExIllis_Review Slimy asparagus (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Slimy asparagus: That was me. Go for it. I'll stay clear. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am happy to let you work on it. It's not high on my list.Slimy asparagus (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- UPDATE: Okay I have read the reviews. I guess it passes the notability test but not entirely in a good way. Now to adopt a neutral point of view. The archived review has some positive updates though. Slimy asparagus (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Reception section edit
Okay I tried sandboxing a new reception section: User:Slimy_asparagus/sandbox#Reception. As I said above the dead link should be easily recoverable. I am not terribly happy with my prose. But still I thought it was a start. And I think those links could be useful. When I tried copying it over to the main article I got a big warning. So if someone could have a look. What I was adding was certainly not "non-controversial" as both sources are very critical of the product. But they do largely agree on the specifics.Slimy asparagus (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)