# Talk:Dungeon Siege III

Leaks are not notable without coverage from reliable sources (I cannot find any). None have been provided, and even without the copyright violating links, the text is still little more than an invite for people to download the torrents. It has no place here. Rehevkor ✉ 10:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
That is just a narrow minded interpretastion, there is no promotion of these materials, this is information the public deserves to know - why dont we hide all guns because it attracts kids to buy one for themselves is that your point? News is news, i can give you a hundred links confirming my story but you will just complain that my sources are linked to P2P networks, as I have already deleted my original source. You are a warpath sir and you need to cease and desist. There is nothing wrong with the content i posted it is 100% credible and it is not a promotion as you say, i once saw a film that took place in brittain where the government controlled everything and like you wanted to remove all temptation and most information that they didnt want corrupting its citizens. Frankly you make me sick with your little edit wars and your weak reasons and accusations. Good Day.--206.248.184.185 (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You have not provided any sources. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, a core policy. And I have read 1984, actually. And personally I'm an advocate of piracy, but that is totally irrelevant here. Rehevkor ✉ 12:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
You are a liar and you know it, i provided a source but you made me remove it because it has reference to P2P who have been known to facilitate copyrighted material, id be glad to recite it shall I?--Jpheonix (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from personally attacking other editors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such its no editor's right to decide whether something is "true" or "false". Iff a reliable source covers such leaks in detail, we can include the information here. If the only sources you can provide are unreliable, then we cannot accept the information, even if it's correct. Please read the policy Rehevkor linked above. See Spore (2008 video game)#Controversy as an example of a video game article where such information was validly included (note the sources provided). Regards SoWhy 12:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)

Jpheonix. The .nfo file from the torrent does not constitute coverage from reliable sources, you are advertising the torrent. Do you have any further sources or discussion to bring to the table here? You are acting against consensus. Rehevkor ✉ 15:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I have a ton of independent sources for this but you will not accept any of them clearly, as above you have stated that I am promoting the torrent, which is utter bullshit - until i know more of how to procede despite the storm you have stirred up this is the best I can do, but yes hundreds of sources.I realize this is a bit ground-breaking and none of you are used to this detail about the realities of piracy but the information is completely relevent to the article i suggest we step back and consider that--Jpheonix (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So provide the sources: but read WP:NOTMANUAL first. Even if a notable source says that the torrent exists, we don't need to tell readers how to find it - and we certainly don't need to tell them how to download it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Then please provide these sources, policy permitting. If any of them are considered suitable, as in reliable secondary sources, showing coverage and establishing the notability of the leak, then I will gladly support it's inclusion into the article. Please don't make assumptions about other editors, it does not help the situation. Rehevkor ✉ 16:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Well then please in the specific case tell me what kind of source you will permit and exactly in what format i should post it, you say users dont have to see something that could provide a torrent, how could I block that AND provide a source for the page.--Jpheonix (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. But note that what goes in articles depends on Wikipedia policy, and on talk page consensus, not just on the opinion of one individual. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
To summarise what has already been said, we need a secondary reliable source, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. What usually makes a leak notable is a news site reporting on an early leak. As I had said, I have tried looking myself and found nothing, otherwise I would have already put it in the article. Almost every game, album, film or even book gets leaked to some degree, it's routine these days, without some kind of coverage to establish how an individual leak is notable it should not be mentioned here. The appropriate core police here is Wikipedia:Verifiability; "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question." So far consensus is not to include this information, you should really follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle, gain a new consensus, before adding anything to the article regardless of what sources you have. Rehevkor ✉ 17:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
You people really turn me off to this process of contributing, it just isnt worth it to battle and fight with people like you who have nothing better to do honestly, its a flawed system for my patience level.--Jpheonix (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
If you think that the way to proceed is to "battle and fight with people", rather than checking to see how Wikipedia works, and what sort of content is suitable for articles, then I'd suggest that you might do better elsewhere. We have tried to explain to you why your edits aren't appropriate to an online encyclopaedia, but you just don't seem to get it. This isn't a blog, this isn't a newspaper, and it certainly isn't a guide to pirating software. The system isn't flawed, but instead your understanding of it seems to be. I am sure that there are plenty of other places online where you can contribute more usefully. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this whole leak debate has died out or not, but I thought it'd be cool to voice another opinion.  While I understand credible sources are necessary and that Jpheonix was approaching the inclusion of the leak info in a terribly immature way, I think the information still deserves to be stated.  Even if a news outlet or other gaming news site didn't review the leak, it still did happen.  Unless this argument has been presented and sorted out already, I think the leak at least warrants a sentences or so in the article.  No huge sub-heading or even referencing where or who leaked it, just a mention that the game did appear on p2p or torrent sites prior to the official release date. Farlo (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
We are not really judging the merit of the information itself or claiming it did not happen. But Wikipedia:Verifiability applies to any information that is included in articles, so there is no real way to include said information without reliable sources. If you can provide such sources, we can include it. Regards SoWhy 19:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

As a short explanation: I tagged the article with {{update}} since the game has been released now and the plot section should contain the plot of the game as well, not only the backstory. Regards SoWhy 10:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done it myself now that I got the game and played it :-) Regards SoWhy 21:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As I played through the game, I noticed a few familiar voice actors from other popular gaming franchises (i.e.: Liam O'Brien (known for Dragon Age: Origins, Dissidia Duodecim Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy XIII etc) and Crispin Freeman (known for Gears of War III, Kingdom Hearts, .Hack// etc.)). Basically, I was wondering whether voice actors would be added to the article; I believe that Crispin Freeman does the voice of Lucas Montbaron. 
I understand that this matter is hardly a top priority but it's certainly interesting (I'm a big Liam O'Brien fan / Crispin Freeman fan). Eventually, I might try to look in to this myself but I've never edited any Wiki's before so I'm fairly worried about doing something wrong... User talk: not_a_user  — Preceding unsigned 22:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC) 

Listing Valve as a distributor is incorrect in my view, Square Enix are just using the Steam digital distribution platform (something that is not uncommon these days). Valve themselves don't seem to be taking any active part in the distribution beyond licensing Steam to them. Listing Valve here would be like listing Good Old Games as a distributor for every game in their catalogue. Regardless of that,it's unsourced. Rehevkor ✉ 23:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As evident from my revert, I agree. A "distributor" is someone who distributes, i.e. markets it, for example by supplying retailers, helping with advertising the game, etc. Valve doesn't do anything like that, all they do is offer a platform to buy and/or use the game on. Sure, patches are distributed via Steam but not the game itself. It would be different if it were a Steam-only title but it isn't. And of course, Rehevkor is correct when he points out that any such claim needs to be sourced. Regards SoWhy 22:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed the expansion to be merged with the main article as the expansion was rather small, so its existence as an independent article is questionable. The expansion's article is a stub as well.Billybobjoe997 (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Support, per reasons above (expansion doesn't merit its own article). Indrek (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I have merged Treasures of the Sun to the base article. I have also changed its status as an expansion to 'Downloadable Content,' the reason being that Treasures of the Sun was never released on its own as a normal expansion would be. It's only being distributed online, so logically it would be considered DLC. Billybobjoe997 (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dungeon Siege III. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110627085621/http://www.egmnow.com/egmi/issue/249-3.html to http://www.egmnow.com/egmi/issue/249-3.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718194217/http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/dungeon-siege-3/review.html?tag=summary%3Bread-review to http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/dungeon-siege-3/review.html?tag=summary%3Bread-review
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dungeon Siege III/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 20:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Review in progress (poke me if nothing is here by weekend.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

In general, this is a solid start, but there's a few issues that have to be addressed. In particular, I think the article needs a lot of work on being accessible. It really feels like I'm expected to have played the previous game to understand this one, as much of it is written in relation to the predecessor rather than explained for the reader.
Lead:
You've got just one line in a paragraph all by itself for the beginning with no further elaboration, and then a whole paragraph of well-nigh incomprehensible plot details that don't feel like an introduction to the plot at all.  Done
Prose:
The game takes place in a fantasy medieval world with geographic variety in open and closed environments (dungeons). The player controls one of four predefined characters with one of the other three characters accompanying them. In previous Dungeon Siege titles, multiple characters could be active at the same time—First, you should probably state what kind of game Dungeon Siege is, as currently the only mention of action role-playing is in the lead and inbox. Secondly, I don't know what "active" characters means—I assume it's that you could control multiple characters as the human player, but I can't be sure. I'm also not sure why this is the most important details to tell readers about the game.   Done
What's co-op mode? What's host? You have to either explain these terms somewhat or lose them.  Done
Are fighting stances and styles the same thing? Done
We get mentions of selling and transmuting items before we get any indication you can actually buy gear or how you obtain it.  Done
Jeyne Kassynder rallied the people of eastern Ehb and the Azunite Church against the Legion—who?  Done
Following a long and brutal campaign, she managed to kill the entire remnant of the Legion in a battle in the Rukkenvahl Forest and the royalist army of young Queen Roslyn has been driven deep into the mines of Glitterdelve, bereft of almost all their power. Okay, first you say she didn't kill all the Legion, so killing the "entire remnant" sounds like she did. Secondly, royalist army implies loyalty to the king and it's not clear why the presumed princess and Queen are at loggerheads and which side is which; and finally, do we need to know details like the name of the forest or the mines? This stuff gets repeated later on but it's not really any more important there.   Done
He is also a descendent of the first Lady Montbarron, the protagonist of Dungeon Siege, who is commonly only referred to as "The Farmer" Lady Monbarron is known as the Farmer, or is it Lucas or Hugh? It's unclear from the construction.  Done
reopen the grand chapter-house there Is this a Legion chapter-house? I'm not sure what the importance of it is. Done
Meisters—these guys are?  Done
Kassynder's capital, the Spire of Azunai on top of Mount Jhereb—again, why is this stuff about the Spire and the Mount important? You're hitting readers with tons of proper nouns for stuff that doesn't matter.  Done
she is revealed to be an archon, a member of a servant race to the lost creator gods—we already heard about this in the character section. Done
Any more details on exactly what changes in the ending?   Done
previewing a "guardian" and an "archon" class.—not sure why these are in quotes, because we've already gotten archon explained and guardian never comes up, so might make more sense to just say they demoed two character classes.  Done
Not really sure we need the quoted profanity of "fuckton" to talk about the items in the reception section. It's colorful, but it's also not that illuminating.  Done
Images:
File:Dungeon Siege III screenshot.png needs a better fair use rationale; what key game mechanic positively reviewed by critics is being discussed? Why is it essential to have an image versus description? Etc. Also, was it a self-made screenshot? The source just gives the game, which is not specific enough.  Done
References:
Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 1, 3, 6, 15, and 25; didn't spot issues.
A few of the links I clicked on timed out for me or redirected away from the original content (esp. the Dungeon Seige website) so those should all be double-checked and archived (or in the case of the ones already archived, deadurl field adjusted.) Done
Some missing work/publisher fields etc throughout the article that should get cleaned up Done
—Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'll try and get to all of it during the next week and will ping you once I'm done. Regards SoWhy 19:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I made a first pass and hopefully fixed that stuff I indicated above as done. I'll try to make a second pass to handle the rest and sprinkle references where needed tomorrow. Regards SoWhy 16:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: I think I got everything you mentioned. Please take another look when you have the time. Thanks again! Regards SoWhy 21:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I've gone through the article again and didn't see any big remaining issues. Passing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)