Talk:District 187: Sin Streets

Rewrite

Arghya Roy wrote at the deletion discussion page:

I don't know why did u make the article too short,what's wrong with that?why the hacking section was deleted?it's about the security system of the game.my straight opinion is i don't like it.I need answer.You guys had problems with my sources, why did u do these major changes without confirming me?why u edited the picture section, where is the requirements?I want my own written article back.

Another thing that the game i'm going to tell u that i'm playing the game from september '12, so i took it but the game's official release date is 20th Nov '12 , not 27th. Arghya Roy (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This should be discussed here because it's basically a content dispute. I removed the "Hacking" section because there never were reliable sources confirming its content, it read like an essay, and it contained clearly off-topic content. In the version I edited it was completely unsourced, and the only source that even mentioned hacking security was this one, a copy of this article which for all I can tell is user-submitted content without any editorial oversight and thus not reliable - and even if it were, all it says about security is that District 187's approach was the reason for massive lag problems that delayed the launch for a month and apparently still are only fixed in a rather haphazard way. Similarly, I removed the requirements because there was no source for them; I believe even the unreliable sources only mentioned the required amount of disk space. And regarding the release date, Metacritic says it was November 27. I suspect they got it wrong, but you'll have to find a better source for the correct date. Finally, you don't own the article, and by writing content on Wikipedia you automatically agree that it may be edited by others. Judging by the opinions already expressed at AfD I don't expect you would have enjoyed "your own" article much longer anyway. It seemed bound for deletion. Huon (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

ok thanks for replying.I didn't know the requirement in the picture section need ref support too?,I didn't find any article like of this type.[1],[2],[3]- do we need to put these links as refs i.e. references?If the community is so concerned about sources why they don't look the sources at old articles or when those were created.articles like counter strike:GO,CS: CZ and some old other types of articles really contain some bad sources but were accepted.Arghya Roy (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Everything should be supported by sources, though for uncontroversial and non-promotional details such as the system requirements a primary source might do. Regarding insufficient sources in other articles, I already pointed you towards WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: Yes, there are other problematic articles out there, and we haven't managed to fix them all. That's no reason to create more. Besides, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive cites reviews from IGN and GameSpy, and Counter-Strike: Condition Zero cites the BBC. Those are sources this article can only dream of. Huon (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on District 187: Sin Streets. 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/20121119051646/http://d187.netmarble.com:80/ to http://d187.netmarble.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121221224116/http://district187blog.com:80/ to http://district187blog.com/

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on District 187: Sin Streets. 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/20130217030610/http://www.zam.com/story.html?story=31136 to http://www.zam.com/story.html?story=31136
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://d187.netmarble.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://district187blog.com/

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) 12:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)