Talk:Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None

message: Yes I've struck again. And it's looking better than ever. Hopefully even FA-style better.--Paaerduag 14:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One small edit:  I have obsured the revelation of the final two suspects, the game murderer, and the original novel murderer!  While many people may know this information from the novel, in the spirit of Agatha Christie and mysteries in general, it is in poor form to reveal the solution to the story.  At the very least, a spoiler alert should have been given.12.184.155.131 20:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. Don't forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a book catalogue or a game review site. It is expected that the solution to the story is given. See also WP:SPOILER for the official guidelines. Kariteh 20:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info.  Using the guidelines, I would still suggest that at the very least, Spoiler tag the murderer in the current game as which is a "new" twist, unlike the original "older" ending.  When reading a plot summary of a mystery, the ending is rarely revealed. So, I did not expect to read it here, so it was an "unexpected" revealation. 12.184.155.131 21:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blitzkrieg

message: I don't understand the significance of this sentence, but if it has relevance to the game, I don't want to change it. "And Then There Were None is set in 1939, between World War I and World War II,"   Obviously 1939 is after World War I, so why it is necessary to mention this?   If it's significant that it is set before the declaration of World War II, could it be said that way?  eg "And Then There Were None is set in 1939, prior to the outbreak of World War II".  Rossrs 14:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure.   A post-war psyche 21 years after World War I ended doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but you've read more about this subject than I have so if that's the impression you got, it's most likely valid.   I think it probably should be changed because if it's just an impression that you got, it's probably not essential to the artice.   If it was a theme they wanted to explore in a strong sense, any research would have revealed this without any ambiguity.  I can understand a pre-war pysche - the tension in Europe in 1939 must have been incredible.   Rossrs 11:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right, and you've convinced me ;) I'm changing it to "before WWII."--Paaerduag 13:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Between the wars

message: I changed the Agatha Christie articles to a 'High' rating as I believe that, considering that Christie has only sold less books than Shakespeare and the Bible, that games based on her works are of incredible importance and aren't obscure. Given the source material of these games, I do believe that a 'High' rating is justified. Thoughts? Paaerduag 01:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it's now almost two years later, I've downgraded the importance to "mid" and would be tempted to go further. Although I understand your reasoning that Agatha Christie is an important author, that does not make a game based on her work important in the field of adventure games. The game appears to be a minor addition to the genre compared to, say, The Secret of Monkey Island. GDallimore (Talk) 17:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 'High' rating

message: I'm requesting an additional look at this article for one reason:  the references list supported by Paaerduag includes a link to Gameguru Mania, a site which Google has flagged as containing malware.  In order to protect Wikipedia users, I removed the link, and after Paaerduag reverted that change, I scrounged up another reference to replace the offending link.  Paaerduag was still not satisfied, claiming that a "diversity of links" was necessary (the article has a few references to Gamespot articles, and my reference was to that site as well).  So, I'm asking for a few more eyeballs to look at this issue since I believe that the community will agree with me that my changes do not harm the article while protecting the Wikipedia community.  Thanks much.  --DachannienTalkContrib 12:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original notification from Google that I saw occured when searching for any terms such that a ggmania.com link appears in the results.  Google also reported the site to stopbadware.org.  It appears, however, that Google may have done an about-face on this matter, or possibly Gameguru Mania cleaned up its act or the act of one or more of its advertisers, because Google no longer reports that site as being hazardous.  This change occurred just today, because earlier today the site still had a notification on its result.  Stopbadware.org is going to conduct its own review of the site, and given that there is now a possibility that the malware problem has been resolved, I'm happy to stand by while that review is undertaken.  While the specific issue here may now be moot, I still steadfastly believe that we have a responsibility to avoid directing Wikipedians to malware-infested sites whenever possible, just as we avoid linking to spammy, advertising-filled sites.  --DachannienTalkContrib 02:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This issue seems to be resolved, at least for the moment, so I'm removing the RFC tag. Pairadox 07:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GGMania link 

message: What's the source for the release dates? When I added the Wii release date from mobygames, I noticed they also had several others. Their NA release date is October 30th. while the article says October 30th. Moby also claims the game was released before February 2006 in both Spain and Germany. Any reason for this discrepancy? Davhorn (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Release dates

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: Same as Sliding puzzle? Шизомби (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "slider puzzles"? 

message: I just turn on wikipedia today, after about a year of inactivity, and what do I find, but the feature article I wrote on the MAIN PAGE!!!!! I am in a state of disbelief - imagine the surprise I felt!!!!!!! This is incredible. That's two FAs that I've had on the main page now :). --Paaerduag (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WOW 

message: I think that the article should be moved to something like "Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None (video game)", seeing how the title could be VERY easily confused with And Then There Were None, the actual novel by Agatha Christie. When I first saw this was featured article yesterday, at first glance I thought that the article was for the book. What does everyone else think? Scootey (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Disambig names are only for cases when there's more than one article of the same title. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Coming here from WP:VG as part of an effort to audit video game FA's that have not been through a formal review process since 2008. I find this article below the current standards for FA's.
*The lead is broken up into five choppy paragraphs that should be merged. There are more choppy paragraphs in Gameplay and Development.
*The prose is a mess of awkward and redundant phrasing, and needs a copy-edit for concision. In the first paragraph of Gameplay for example, there is needless repetition of terms like "the game", "the player" and "inventory", making the prose dull to read. There's use of "didn't" and "wouldn't" in Development, as well as "the player plays". Often, the prose becomes very dense with redundant phrase pockets that disrupt flow. "One aspect of And Then There Were None which has garnered some criticism is the game's graphics". There are many examples of sloppy prose throughout the article, but the general gist is that work is needed from top to bottom.
*Gameplay is poorly organised and difficult to follow for the non-player. For example, "After completing a certain trigger event, the next chapter begins"—what does this mean? Many gameplay elements aren't explained clearly. Another big problem with Gameplay is that it wanders off into facts about the gameplay's design that belong in Development.
*The Plot section is disproportionately long and full of excessive detail that needs to be significantly trimmed. At over 1,300 words, the Plot is nearly twice the length of our project's guideline of 700 words.
*There are dead links and the reference formatting is inconsistent. Some references are missing publisher and author fields. IGN should be wikifyed in keeping with the format of (most of!) the other refs.
I'm going to leave it at that for now, but I think there's lots of work to be done and I may have to send this to FAR. Pinging major contributors  and , and notifying the project. CR4ZE (t • c) 11:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you still like to have a try at fixing up this article? Otherwise I will have to send it to FAR. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status as a Featured Article 

message: I might look at fixing this up, but the references make my eyes bleed. Any opposition to converting the refs to list-defined? czar ♔ 16:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should do whatever helps your effort to save the article. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like I'm too late, but maybe at a later date czar ♔ 20:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDR 

message: I think we need to cite the game itself to give it some reliable sources. It is just impossible to find any online.Wuzh (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Synopsis section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061018183259/http://gamechronicles.com/reviews/pc/agatha/attwn.htm to http://www.gamechronicles.com/reviews/pc/agatha/attwn.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070609040409/http://www.agathachristiegame.com:80/attwn/index.html to http://www.agathachristiegame.com/attwn/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified