Talk:Uncharted 2: Among Thieves: Difference between revisions
m Banner clean up using AWB (8434) |
m deprecating defunct WP:VG task forces using AWB |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header}} |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
|action1date=03:20, 27 January 2011 |
|action1date=03:20, 27 January 2011 |
||
|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Uncharted 2: Among Thieves/archive1 |
|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Uncharted 2: Among Thieves/archive1 |
||
Line 21: | Line 15: | ||
|topic=video games |
|topic=video games |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{WikiProject Video games|class=B|importance=Mid|naughty dog |
{{WikiProject Video games|class=B|importance=Mid|naughty dog=yes}} |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Miszabot|small=yes|age=50}} |
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Miszabot|small=yes|age=50}} |
||
{{Archive box|auto=yes}} |
{{Archive box|auto=yes}} |
Revision as of 01:12, 23 June 2015
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Uncharted 2: Among Thieves article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Uncharted 2: Among Thieves" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 50 days |
Uncharted 2: Among Thieves was a Video games good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Uncharted 2: Among Thieves article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Uncharted 2: Among Thieves" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 50 days |
This page has archives. Sections older than 50 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Drake recovering the phurba
The way it is written now, I think it is just a little incoherent. One sentence it says that Drake has survived a train wreck, the next it says there is a flashback and Drake decides to take part in a heist. Then the very next sentence it goes back to the present in the train wreck again. A sentence referring to a flashback four months ago sandwiched within two sentences that are referring to events in the present. And then in the next paragraph, it goes back to the events four months ago again. It just doesn't flow well.
The way it was written earlier, I didn't find any problem with it. It flows much better in my opinion. We don't need to tell the story in the plot section in the same exact order as it is in the game, scene for scene. It only needs to convey the arc of the story. What's more, after Drake's shot the propane tanks and the train falls down the cliff, there is the cutscene where Drake recovers the phurba (the phurba pick-up scene is shown twice in the game), so putting the part where Drake picks up the phurba in the middle of the plot section would follow the order as it is told in the game anyway. The important thing is, I found the earlier version reads much better than the one as it is now. 130.216.213.184 (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Game Of The Year edition
Information about the GOTY editionis listed twice, under both Special editions and Downloadable content. Obviously the info should be merged, but under which heading? JaffaCakeLover (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I deleted the GOTY mention under Downloadable Content, as the mention under Special Editions was properly referenced and stated that all listed DLC was included in the GOTY edition. I think that sounds reasonable. Jagmastercd60ce (talk) 3:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Merging awards article into this
The list is too big, I don't think that it should be done. TGabunia (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Therefore, wouldn't it get its own article? That would have been the reason it got its own article in the first place. Merging would only cause the awards section of this article to be too big, and then it would be suggested to be made into its own article... It already has been done, so why take it away? --114.241.30.19 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)