Talk:Shadowfire (video game)

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Chaheel Riens in topic Game/manual inconsistencies

multiple shadowfire edit

I have started the ball rolling and moved the Tanith Lee novel Shadowfire from plain ol' Shadowfire to Shadowfire_(novel).

At some point a disambiguation page needs to be created, but I haven't got round to it yet. -- a_man_alone (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Cites & Refs edit

Page contains multiple refs & citations - unless anybody disagrees I'll remove the requirement. A screenshot may find its way in as well. -- a_man_alone (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Screenshot edit

Added animated GIF flicking between same game locations for both versions of game. a_man_alone (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Enigma Force article split. edit

I'm removing this template, as there's been no discussion around it, and there doesn't seem to be enough will or intention to create the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Game/manual inconsistencies edit

As per WP:PRIMARY - "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" The game itself corroborates these statements, and is why Zoff's pet needs its own source - because it no longer happens as the bug was fixed. Not only that, but it was unique to the Commodore version, so ZX and Amstrad users would never have seen it anyway. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is complete nonsense. You would have to play the game multiple times to discover these instances, with therefore it would require "further, specialized knowledge". If these were important, they would have been published somewhere. Stooob (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
That's your opinion. As per BRD, I've tagged it with a CN section tag, and I'll look for supporting material. I believe a month is the usual time per etiquette, especially for material that has been long-standing in an article.
If the material was only added in the last month or so, I'd be in agreement, but that's not the case here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Material removed has been there for years - I am not "adding unsourced claims and finding sources for them later" - I just clarified a couple of points on already existing material. I'll not revert again, because it's clear you're prepared to edit war to get your own way. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply