# Talk:Broken Sword

I have been trying to disambiguate some of the articles that link to Congo.
The section of this article named Broken Sword 3: The Sleeping Dragon states
The Knights Templar return in another globetrotting adventure, taking the protagonists to Glastonbury, Paris, Cairo, Prague and the Congo.
As congo is linked there I wondered if anyone knew if the game refers to Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Belgian Congo, Congo River basin or maybe just Congo River.
If anyone knows could they fix the offending link. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.210.52 (talk • contribs) 

How about to link or mention "Broken Sword - The Shadow of the Templars" one of most successful PC adventure games titles, in connection with Islamophobia in a France? I think it's the only adventure game title, with hundreds of Islamophobic remarks, which made quite big commercial success.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.72.244.250 (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC) 

congrats on whoever cleaned up this article. I saw it a couple of months ago and it was all other the place, i would have done it myself but i didnt know where to start. good one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.134.79 (talk • contribs) 

This line is self-contraditiory: The GBA version has several bugs that made completing the game impossible. (Please note that even with the bugs the GBA version is still beatable) Either this game is or isn't completable. So I have removed it until we have a source that says one way or the other. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"the GBA version is completable (obviously), but you can do things in a certain order that breaks the game, preventing you from finishing it", answered by Revolution's Joost Peters. -- Lightkey 23:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The game is completable, I have done it myself, however I did encounter one of these bugs and it did require me to restart the game. However, I could recall everything I needed to do to get back to that point, and doing so took me less than an hour. In fact given the stunning voice acting and beautiful artowkr in this game, having to restart was a joy :P

Except the GBA version has no voice acting... Liam Markham (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"It has been confirmed since August 2nd 2006 that this will be the final in the Broken Sword series, as the hero George Stobbart will die towards the end of the fourth installment."
By whom, and is this spoiler necessary? --Dandelions 02:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Eh, rumors I've read is that someone will die... However speculation includes, Nico or George Stobbart... I don't think anyone knows who will die if anyone dies69.225.9.90

Does Broken Sword 2.5, a fan-made game, really need to be on this page?  It strikes me as being most unencyclopedic, and I'd be inclined to remove all mention of it. --  H. Carver 21:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fan made games must cite reliable, secondary sources. I have placed a maintenance tag in that section for now. If nothing is forthcoming, it should be removed. Marasmusine (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, still no sourcing, so I'm removing it. Marasmusine (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies regarding the inclusion of external links. Relevant to the links included in this article are WP:EL and WP:NOT. Specifically: Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, point #11; and WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. Justification for the inclusion of any link into this article is the onus of those who wants the link added. Mindmatrix 15:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I take full responsability when adding those links, and your reasons aren't revelant enough to stop users to add "contributive content" to the article. Those links have been double-checked, and have nothing to do with spam. Also, the content of these websites can bring extra infos about the games not present on the article. Firstwind (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this edit says it all. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 15:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Say what??? could you be a bit more specific Firstwind (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Your... edit... was... reverted... by AntiSPAM bot. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 23:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Irrespective of this discussion, I've removed two links. One, to ripway.com, has DNS issues (it doesn't resolve); the other is in French, and since equivalent English sites exists, there's no need to include it here. Mindmatrix 16:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Well done user Mindmatrix, i think the link section is now clearer and the diversity of websites about BS is fine. I'm satisfied with the current situation and up to leave it like this. Firstwind 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ahem - I still think the other three links should be excised; don't misconstrue the fact that I left them there in my last edit as an indication that I support their inclusion - I clearly do not. Since the article was protected, I left them there for the benefit of the discussion, in which you are the only person that supports their inclusion. I'm still waiting for more input on this. My initial point that these links fail the various WP policies is still valid. Mindmatrix 22:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not waiting for you to approve it you know. If you really think that the remaining links fail with Wikipedia policies, bring good reasons to do so and give some proof, if you do not follow the policies, i'll put them back. Firstwind 14:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I won't express my opinions on this matter, having past experience with User:Firstwind editing it could be considered unfair. However this article has certainly been protected for too long already. Maybe a RFC? Mthibault 18:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I already stated this above: "Justification for the inclusion of any link into this article is the onus of those who want the link added." You have failed to demonstrate why the links belong, per the policies cited, which is the proof I've given to you. Your simplistic tactics of trying to turn the argument on me won't work. Further, claiming or asserting that I'm not following policy is disingenuous at best, and more likely a poor attempt at trolling. This seems to be your modus operandi, and it's quite tiresome. You have one more chance to provide valid reasons why these links meet the criteria cited in the policies - if you fail to do so, they will be deleted. Mindmatrix 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all we do speak English here, i don't need your constant mindless reports and foreign expressions. I think you gives a high estime of yourself, it's not up to you to give people a chance, this is so pathetic! You seem to say that i don't follow the policies and you do, you should read carefully Wikipedia policies and make contributive additions instead of making such a mess and bothering "real" administrator to protect an article. What can i say more, if you see the article better without fansite links go ahead and change it, we'll see next. I expect to see "little rats" such as user Mthibault... to follow this discussion, and this thought is not an agression but a good designation for such users. Firstwind (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I really don't know what to say. After carefull reading of WP:NPA I choose to ignore this this time as I said at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Firstwind&oldid=176153388. Mthibault (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You've essentially edited three articles; I've created nearly 300 new articles, and substantially expanded numerous more. To say that I should "make contributive additions instead of making such a mess" is a clearly biased interpretation of the situation. Further, the Wikipedia community has clearly expressed guidelines and policies regarding external links. You have chosen to ignore community consensus and are forcing your own views. The policies I cited above state that one should avoid links to "social networking sites (such as MySpace or Fan sites), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET". The links you keep adding are clearly fora, to which this policy applies.
You state "it's not up to you to give people a chance, this is so pathetic" - no, it isn't my duty to give people a chance. I simply enforce policy which has been determined by community consensus, but it appears you're unwilling to work within the Wikipedia community. Regarding your comment about "bothering "real" administrator to protect an article" - administrators are equal, and I don't summon others to do "real" work. If you choose to dislike me, that's one thing. To imply anything about me is your opinion, not a statement of fact.
As far as modus operandi is concerned - it's a valid english expression found in any dictionary (for example, at Merriam-Webster). It is not a "foreign expression", but rather a loanword. Also, the next time you make personal attacks gainst any individual, you will be blocked from editing "no questions asked". To state that "little rats" is "a good designation for such users" is the kind of anti-social behaviour that is not welcome here. Mindmatrix 18:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Those comments are more than two months old, this former dispute has been solved already, so you're making more mess than there is here. I don't pretend ownership of this article, i'd just like to add two links, and it's not because few other users are against my decision that mean that i'm wrong. You also didn't always showed good intentions in your previous edits, and anyone reading this should take a look at the conversation below done by an administrator. Also after the first dispute ended, and the article got unprotected, the new links kept on the external links section, but then more than two months later, suddenly user h carver removed the links so i put it back and this new dispute started (again). Who's the most incivil then???
Firstwind  —Preceding comment was added at 20:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't mean you're "wrong", but Wikipedia is built on consensus. - Dudesleeper /  Talk 21:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,
I was asked to take a look at this matter and thought I'd drop a short note. 
This dispute revolves around three issues: links, civility, and article ownership.

Firstwind

Please listen carefully. Wikipedia works by consensus, and so what you have said above really only means you are content the links are okay. It cannot mean they are going to be okay for everybody. You were told at ANI about 4 months ago, that disruption to editing, OWNership of articles (as if you have a say on them more than other people) and ignoring others and consensus instead using personal attack is not right. But I don't see any sign it has changed enough yet. What would help a lot is to be prepared to discuss the links you like, and understand a bit what others feel too, and be prepared in the end to accept others views as well as ask them to accept yours.
As an encyclopedia, we are often very selective about links. It's not unusual for good links to exist that are left out due to "already got enough good ones". That might be what's up. But in any case you need to start working with others. Working in a way that is "by yourself" without others doesnt work here. You also need to discuss the article not the people, so comments like "little rats" are not okay, and if I hear of incivility again then you may end up blocked perhaps, which would be a shame. So please take care to be civil and use good words. 
The other thing that might help is, instead of arguing over policies, and accusing each other of not having a clue, may I suggest visit WP:3O and ask for an opinion on the links in question? That way you will get unbiased answers and views. It is incivil to argue this way; if there is a problem, then discuss and find an answer that works, or seek help to do so from others in the community.

Everyone else

Yes it was wrong to say incivil things. If it repeats it will be a problem, and if disruption continues it's a problem. But even so, don't over react. And if you feel the links are wrong, then try to explain why as well, and find agreement. But don't be incivil either.

I won't be mediating, but mediation is open if anyone wants it, and I think it would be the best answer for everyone. Please see WP:MEDIATION. I'm going to leave my comnments there, but I hope they will be taken note of. If the incivilities continue from either side, please let me know. I'll be glad to come back. Meantime though, communicate and seek help, and discuss. Don't just attack each other. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if this is in the pipeline please? Thanks  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 16:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no article on George Stobbart. If you want to read about the character, you are directed to the "Broken Sword characters" article. Going to George's entry directs you to the "George Stobbart main article" which is just a redirect back to Broken Sword. I hate it when this happens. Should the character list be edited so that the information that no longer exists is available? Atypicaloracle (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Also true of Nico Collard. - Mister Smythe (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please translate this article into Dutch, because it is a very popular game in The Netherlands too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.169.94 (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 

I was solicited to offer up opinions on how to improve the article, so my thoughts follow as such:

I don't think you need to name all the games right there from the get-go in the lead. I'd take a more macro focus--the first game, when it was released, who's developed and published the games, how many have been made, when the last one was.
The second paragraph should prolly give more of an overview of the plot and gameplay elements common to the titles. Not having played the games I was somewhat confused when it started talking about Templars :)
I wonder if you really need the game list, at least on its own. Much of it is duplicated in the "development" section. Perhaps you could shunt those "vital stats" like release dates and platforms into a table that can accompany the development section?
You really should summarize the reception of each of the games, in addition to providing basic aggregate scores. That's probably the biggest hole in coverage this game has.
"The Shadow of the Templars and its sequels were critical and commercial successes, selling more than four million copies and earning over a hundred million pounds." Where's the source for this, and why isn't it mentioned in the body of the article? Everything in the lead should be.
I'd be careful of allowing press releases and marketing lingo get into your prose. Take the following passage:
"The new features include an exclusive interactive digital comic from Dave Gibbons, fully animated facial expressions, enhanced graphics, high quality music, a context-sensitive hint system, diary, and a Dropbox integration which facilitates a unique cross-platform save-game feature, enabling players to enjoy the same adventure simultaneously on multiple devices. It also featured full Game Center integration – including in-game achievements.[29] The Mac and PC versions followed in early 2011.[30]"
What does "fully animated" mean? "Enhanced"? "High quality"? Who says it's got a "unique" save system? Who says players are "enjoy"ing the game simultaneously? Just be careful to be more neutral.
Overall it's a great start to the article. If you have any further questions ping me on my talk. Cheers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on the first point.  In particular, regarding the "development" section, I feel that *it* should be split into sections, per game, or expository detail moved into each games' own page.  The one section is too long.  As a compromise, consider producing a section for BS1&2 combined (as that's a coherent development "era"), then small separate sections for BS3, BS4 and one for the Kickstarted "Broken Sword: The Serpent's Curse", effectively BS5.  Each has a notable aspect to it.  Specifically;  BS3, first poorly regarded foray into 3D;  BS4, first poorly regarded foray into outsourcing development);  BS5, first well regarded foray into crowd-sourced funding.  And so on.  Also, BS1 has a particularly notable puzzle (the goat), which has several references, and a legacy of it's own.  Beyond that, we need either to enrich each section so it stands on it's own, within the context of the article, or trim it back and migrate information into the main articles. 216.51.42.66 (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Broken Sword. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.revolution.co.uk/
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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Broken Sword. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131203040209/http://www.thegamingliberty.com/2011/05/tgl-interview-charles-cecil-talks-broken-sword-and-more/ to http://thegamingliberty.com/2011/05/tgl-interview-charles-cecil-talks-broken-sword-and-more/
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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Broken Sword. 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/20120608072641/http://www.revolution.co.uk/bs3 to http://revolution.co.uk/bs3
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120608105848/http://www.revolution.co.uk/bs4 to http://revolution.co.uk/bs4
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120202063435/http://www.gamespot.com/broken-sword-the-smoking-mirror/reviews/broken-sword-the-smoking-mirror-review-2538230/ to http://www.gamespot.com/broken-sword-the-smoking-mirror/reviews/broken-sword-the-smoking-mirror-review-2538230/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303215546/http://whatculture.com/film/broken-sword-the-movie.php to http://whatculture.com/film/broken-sword-the-movie.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303215546/http://whatculture.com/film/broken-sword-the-movie.php to http://whatculture.com/film/broken-sword-the-movie.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120126065318/http://revolution.co.uk/?m=201104 to http://revolution.co.uk/?m=201104
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) 00:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Broken Sword. 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://archive.is/20120715113527/http://revolution.co.uk/?page_id=5&game_id=9&platform_id=0 to http://revolution.co.uk/?page_id=5&game_id=9&platform_id=0
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130311061840/http://www.micromart.co.uk/gaming/games/410/best-pc-games-2013 to http://www.micromart.co.uk/gaming/games/410/best-pc-games-2013
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) 09:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)