Talk:List of GoldSrc mods

This article was nominated for deletion on 12/12/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Unreleased mods?

Is is O.K. to post unrelease mods? Danm36 16:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No. --InShaneee 14:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Other mods..

So I take it once a mod is released retail it's not considered a mod anymore? -- Kflorence 04:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess so Danm36 16:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a mod if it can't run standalone. If it can run standalone, then it's a game.

With Steam this is difficult to decide. You can for example purchase Counter-Strike without buying Half-Life. Steam will then download Half-Life (the game on which CS is based), but it won't allow you to play HL, only CS. This is because Steam has a content management system, controlling which software the user has access to. --Pizzahut2 19:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There is still a strong concept of mods in Steam. The cited example of Counter-Strike has been stand-alone for a long time and I would not consider it to be a mod any more. However, I still think it should remain in the list due to it's origins as a mod and that it is probably one of the most significant, influential and popular mods. --AJanuary 10:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Azure Sheep?

What about azure sheep. good game. i played it.

Here are the awards:

- [ ten four ] Silver : http://tenfourmaps.telefragged.com/php/review.php?gameid=hl&levid=azure

- 3D Action Planet: Any way you look at it, Azure Sheep is a great, top notch, single player experience that any Half-Life fan should try out. If you are tired of all those single player episodes that are too easy, you have another thing coming : http://www.3dactionplanet.com/features/reviews/azuresheep/

- Hanger16.com: 5/5 , Gold Award. http://web.archive.org/web/20050530005344/www.hangar16.com/Features/Reviews/AS_revu.htm

Quite a few here: http://halflife.multiplayer.it/azuresheep/reviews.asp

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brontos (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 November 2006

Sounds good to me. --Pizzahut2 18:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion logs of mods listed in the article

• Azure Sheep
• Point of View (mod)
• Sven Co-op

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pizzahut2 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To do list

• Adding the mods listed at Category:Half-Life mods.
• Somehow categorising the page, according to the current AfD discussion. (Any suggestions?)
• Writing a mod article for Sven Co-op.

--Pizzahut2 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This might be good to know when editing the article: Wikipedia:List guideline#Purpose of lists --Pizzahut2 19:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the standard to-do list thing at the top. Hope that's OK --WikiSlasher 02:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ehhh

You people are getting rid of a lot of mod pages. Uber555 12:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very strict when it comes to notability, however deleting Sven Co-op was a bit over the top imho. --Pizzahut2 13:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What the!?!?

Your deleting some of the greatest single player mods for some unknown reason. POV and Azure sheep are excellent finished hl1 mods so why delete them? 88.104.45.235 18:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason for a deletion is given in the deletion log, see the links above.

• Azure Sheep: The deletion is the result of a discussion amongst Wikipedia editors, which can be viewed here.
• Point of View was deleted because no one contested a proposed deletion. The reason for the proposal was "Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR."

--Pizzahut2 19:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Those were the reason to be deleted the page. Cant they just be listed? (without a page) --Snewerl 10:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but wouldn't it be best to start adding mods everyone agrees with? That's the ones in the Category:Half-Life mods. --Pizzahut2 13:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldnt the mods be added because of notability instead of agreing with? In Azure Sheep case, it was reviewed by the above sites and it was reviewed by a magazine also. Shouldnt that make for notability? Snewerl 20:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

They got removed from the list because someone thought they aren't notable enough. So instead of adding / removing / argueing, why not add the mods where everyone agrees they are notable first, and *then* add other mods or argue. --Pizzahut2 01:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I gave up on trying to add/fix stuff in Wikipedia. It is wasted time. You try to do something and it is deleted just because some admin decides it. Waste of time. Snewerl 08:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Gunman Chronicles?

Gunman Chronicles is listed in Category:Half-Life mods, however I don't think it was ever released as a mod, so not sure if it should be in the list of Half-Life mods. --Pizzahut2 13:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say it fits the wikipedia definition of a mod for all but made by the public, which I would contest with. Unless you can find another suitable name to give it (I'm sure there's one rattling about in the back of my head but I can't think of it) I would suggest it stays. --AJanuary 10:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Gunman Chronicles used the Half-Life engine, but it is not a mod because by definitions Half-Life mods (or total conversions, in Marathon parlance) require the original Half-Life game to run. It is a stand-alone game, and thus not a mod. If it is still listed I'm going to delete it. --Edwin Herdman 23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory

This article concerns me, it seems to be a list of external links, but Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. I was going to go ahead and remove the entries with no article of their own, but saw that there are some references that attempt to assert notability for a few of these externally linked entries. Does anyone want to have a crack at making some proper articles for these entries before this list is cleaned up? Marasmusine 11:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, mods without their own article should be deleted from the list, and same for the Half-Life 2 mods. If the mod is oh-so-notable, someone should go ahead and write an article and see if it lasts. --Pizzahut2 15:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Better, thanks. Marasmusine 15:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not a requirement for inclusion of information in an article. It only restricts the possible topics for articles themselves. 67.9.148.47 (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If a mod doesn't fully satisfy the general notability guideline, but otherwise has some other claim to importance, then go ahead and add it to the list. Verifiability policy still applies, so the entry will require citations from reliable, independent sources (so something other than press releases or user-submitted directory entries). Marasmusine (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Afraid of Monsters

http://mods.moddb.com/6145/Afraid-of-Monsters/ I want to add this to the article, because there's only one game in the horror category currently and this mod is more than worthy of attention, but I can only find a bit of "notability" on it. A google search for the name in quotes gets 60k hits and the creator got an award from Moddb for it. According to that google search it was already listed here but removed. I doubt the same standards of notability for articles apply to individual things inside a single article. I don't know, it's at least a s notable as the four mods listed under "Based on or related to the story of the original game", anyway. Anyone have a good reason not to mention it? 71.175.116.83 10:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

To avoid this list becoming a directory (per WP:NOT), entries ought to have their own article. To have an article, it needs to be notable, the guideline to which is here: WP:N. The important bit is: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

If the award is 'reliable', that is there is some editorial control over the way it is issued (and not just based on user-submitted votes) then I suppose you could have a go at making an article. Marasmusine 12:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This might help you, good luck. --Pizzahut2 12:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll start with your stub, pizzahut (which means I'll have to sign up an account on that wiki, something I've refused to do in months of editting here. Ironic! :P). Should be easy as cake to make sections on the monsters and effects used in the mod, the creator, the development, and the awards from moddb. 71.175.124.112 18:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be glad to help, drop me a note if you go ahead with this. Marasmusine 19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So apparently I need to have a PC copy of HL2 and it's SDK in order to make an account on their wiki. I have HL2 DM and Lost Coast thanks to their latest ATI promotion, but that's it. Hm. I guess I'll have to spruce it up offline or something for now. 71.175.124.112 19:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NS screenshot gorges hive.jpg

Image:NS screenshot gorges hive.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell wrote this, a 6th grader?

"This excellent single-player mod trilogy begins..."

"A team oriented first person shooter mod, that was designed to be fast and furious."

"A team-based, tactical FPS that requires teamwork, and strong communication between players. This is probably the greatest Half-Life 1 mod that nobody has heard about. It is based strongly on realism. for example, you do not have a health bar, nor are you given information about how much ammo you have left. When you are reloading, rounds don't just magically transfer to another clip, if you didn't use them, you loose them."

Wow, these are astoundingly terrible descriptions. Extreme amounts of opinion and POV, and what seems like a bad advertising campaign for Hostile Intent. This is just amazing.

Not surprised though, this is probably a less visited article so not too many people will notice anything like that. I'd edit it if I knew anything about the games, but I'll leave that up to the pros.

Someone else please notice this for crying out loud. Vicious203 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This article needs constant maintainance to remove promotional material. You can help by removing promotional material where you see it, you don't need to know anything about the games. Marasmusine 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hostile Intent

Hostile Intent is a mod. This is a list of mods. Thus, it is perfectly relevant. See the website: http://www.hostileintent.org/. It has a forum. There are 1000 members, and keep in mind not all players will use the forums. I'll create the article shortly, so hold your delete buttons until I do that. --Huo Ma Ke

This is not a list of all Half-Life mods. Wikipedia is not a directory. All mods listed here should assert their notability, using independent references, like any other subject. If your article can show this, then add it to this list. Marasmusine 06:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

THAT IS WHY I HATE YOU. I used this article as a reference! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.125.20.130 (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any other mods using references to prove anything...but apparently, Wikipedia sucks a *lot* more than I thought it did, so I'm just gonna leave now.--Huo Ma Ke 12:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Challenge all unverified material wherever you see it. When I made my previous comment, I hadn't yet looked at the specific mod articles. I have now, and they are mostly all appalling. It's a shame you are leaving, when you could help whip this whole subject into shape. Marasmusine 16:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss something?

I was under the impression that video game modification articles aren't allowed. If it's not too much trouble, can someone fill me in on the current stance regarding modification articles? MastaFighta (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Afaik they are allowed if the mod is notable. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the reply. MastaFighta (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Paranoia / award

Paranoia got a Mod DB award (editors' choice 2007), not quite sure if it should be added and which category it is though. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wanted!

Wanted! was originally bundled with the commercial (retail) version of Counter-Strike, see Counter-Strike#Sierra. According to an archive of the official website, it was reviewed in PCGamer UK and PlanetJeux. [1] It was reviewed at tenfourmaps, it didn't get an award though. [2] PHL content: featured mod, review by Jabberwocky featured mod, review by Stylez --Pizzahut2 (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Operating's edit summary ("wanted was created and released by valve software, not a third party"): It was created by Maverick Developments (3rd party) and published by Sierra (as part of a bundle, see above). This bundle isn't available anymore. Apparently Valve was involved as well, since the archive of the website says that Maverick Developments had a contract with Valve. [3] As for the mods (Absolute Redemption and Wanted!), afaik they were originally free, then made commercial as part of the CS deal, and then they were made available again for download. The developer's website expired, but the official download place still exists, although it went through two name changes. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's notable. And nothing in your comment above changes that. It was a high quality mod, commercially produced and released with cs. Operating (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant the discussion located at #To-do: references. Sorry I should have given the exact location of the discussion in the edit summary. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Earth's Special Forces

I added Earth's Special Forces to the list. MastaFighta (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why Was Earth's Special Forces Removed?

Since no explanation was given. MastaFighta (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Mods in this list should "be notable" (i.e. it should be possible to verify their notability using references in either the list or and in the mod's article) and ideally have their own article. Either way Such mods should have references to reliable sources. If the mod has its own article, these references can should be provided there as well. See Wikipedia:N#General notability guideline for definitions of notability, reliable sources etc. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. MastaFighta (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To-do: references

Article needs references, so I'd suggest following: look in the mod articles for references, check which of them acknowledge the short descriptions in this article. Remove what is unsupported, or at least add a {{fact}} where no reference can be found. Example edit for Absolute Redemption. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixing Wanted! might be a good start - need to find a reference for its inclusion in the Counter-strike bundle and perhaps the redlink can be fixed with a redirect to a subsection in that game's main article. Marasmusine (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's not notable anymore because it's unavailable. Vivendi Universal, who bought Sierra, stopped publishing Valve titles after a legal battle, also affecting the CS bundle. The official website of the Wanted! mod is gone, too. The mod is mentioned in the article about Counter-Strike including a reference as well. Operating kept adding it to the article, so there is an edit dispute. You may want to review this and the next following three edits. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah :> Zap it. Marasmusine (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed (after zapping didn't work [4]). --Pizzahut2 (talk) 10:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this proposal is to redirect Amxmodx geronimo and AMX Mod X into List of Half-Life mods. First, lack of discussion indicates lack of opposition to said redirects, and both mods are almost identical to Poke646, which has just been redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poke646. MuZemike 23:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I propose that Amxmodx geronimo and AMX Mod X both be merged into List of Half-Life mods. I do not believe that either mod is able to establish notability as independent articles. However, the content can be easily placed here in the context of the list of mods. The plan would be to merge both into a new section of server mods. Please discuss below and indicate whether you support or oppose the merge. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sad but true / or how the whole "Wikipedia is not ___ " mentality killed it

By strictly (blindly ?) enforcing these rules on what should figure in the article, Wikipedia is completely missing the mods and their history, and the same applies to any "underground" culture, not selling t-shirt of its own references yet for hipsters.

There's an article on Counter-Strike only because it's one of the most played FPS in the world, the only criteria is the popularity.

- - -

"Wikipedia is not a directory". Oh well, with that skeletonish article, it's not a directory, it's a popularity certification website !

Seriously, if I want the top5/top10 most played mods, I don't need Wikipedia : such top list are everywhere online on hundreds of website. This is not the first article to suffer from that narrow-minded mentality : "I don't know it myself and the top 5 newspaper (NYT & similar) never made a paper on it, IT ISN'T NOTABLE ENOUGH FOR WIKIPEDIA = REJECTED, problem solved".

I saw this happens on more than 20 articles about mods, website dealing with mods, events dealing with mods. Wikipedia keeps on deleting everything, all the time. Despite the specialized press articles about their importance, despite the well-known awards, despite the amount of players that played them, despite the stand-alone commercial sequels which spawned from the original mod. Even the article with more than 5 Wikipedia important articles linking to it got deleted.

Same point all the time : "I don't know it, so it's not notable enough".

-

Some case are extremely funny : Wikipedia deleted several times an article about a community-base news website (= not living off advertisers = not classified as "notable" by Wikipedia standards). Then, after 4 or 5 years, that website grew so big it spawned other specialized websites, several projects, got several thousands visitors per day and was making cash. Suddenly, Wikipedia became perfectly okay with it, just by looking at the big numbers it changed everything. Of course, people from that website gave up on Wikipedia several years ago, so the article remains poor and inaccurate (a simple copy-pasta of the About section). Another victory for the "notability" criteria.

-

Another example : there's an article on Natural Selection 2 (because of the bazillions articles and awards it received, it's one of the most promising indie dev coming from the mod community), but Wikipedia repeatedly deleted any articles or additional informations regarding Gloom, the Quake II mod that spawned Natural Selection on Half-Life 1 (one of the most important mod of Half-Life 1, in terms of gameplay, graphics, level design, strong community)(funny to note Natural Selection was not accepted on that "list"... the game was such a success they made their own studio for the sequel and already sold (LOOK, THERE'S MONEY, IT MUST BE NOTABLE !) more than 20 000 pre-orders of the game - still not on the list, he he). The Gloom mod also spawned Tremulous, a Q3 Engine spiritual sequel to Gloom, still receiving updates and patches. But no, Gloom is still not notable enough.

What are the consequences ? People are living in TOTAL IGNORANCE : in the Youtube comments, on the blogs, on the forums, they're saying that Natural Selection is a rip-off of Tremulous, some say it's the other way around, some say we can't know, etc... All that ignorance, simply because some Wikipedia members refused to let the Gloom article exist, and the mod very chaotic development history (one of the reason of the existence of Tremulous and Natural Selection) doesn't help with that total lack of information.

Once again, only because the topic was the "game modifications", so most Wikipedia members don't know anything about it, an enormous part of the modding History was removed from Wikipedia.

-

All these articles on modding are now a total joke : there's AT LEAST 15 excellent singleplayer mods out there, that "list" only shows 3. Where is Paranoia, with its modified OpenGL that allows near-Source engine quality graphics and many exclusive new feature to HL1 modding ? Where are Azure Sheep and Poke646 ? And I'm not talking about the inter-linking desert created by that "CHASE THE NONE-NOTABLES" crazy witch-hunt.

Again, just look at Natural Selection 2 : not a single mention of Gloom and the Team Reaction devteam. So the concept of Natural Selection/Tremulous appeared all of a sudden, from nothing, by magic ?

Imagine a second an article about the Gaza trip without an article about the History of the state of Israël (especially in 1948/1950' era), an article about the USA without the American Civil War just because "it's too old and no one talks about it nowadays, it's not notable enough for the Wikipedia standards", or an article about the Internet without an article on the early dialup connections and BBS. This is EXACTLY what is happening with the "game modifications" : the early and extremely important projects and mods that shaped and are shaping the future of gaming for the next 10 years are discarded, only the latest "big hits" are kept on Wikipedia.

-

Also, that witch-hunt of the "not notable enough" is strongly against the art in video games. Many students or artists projects are made as "mini-mod", exploring a short but very original concept.

Of course, less than 50 000 people played these mods. Of course, these mods never reached the traditional newspapers - (because they don't care at all about new art form). And Wikipedia still refuse to talk about that art form, it wants to shut it down, "until" it become pretty useless to add it on Wikipedia : once everyone in the street is fully aware of it and there's enough documentations on mainstream medias to get that knowledge, Wikipedia role became very secondary : it's just a deposite of badly copy-pasted articles written by newspapers. Is that the objective of Wikipedia ?

-

I never thought Wikipedia could close itself to the outside world that much. I would have more chance to have an article on modding published in a generic newspaper running on ads money in their "Technology Art" section, rather than have an accurate article on Wikipedia. It's a shame.

-

Oh, and don't bring out the "rules are necessary, we have to deal with them, you can help us build a better article by discussing [ed: for months for a freaking mod addition]" BS again, it's written nowhere you have to enforce every single rule blindly like a crazy Inquisitor, even in civil law legal system the judge has to interpret the law, rules without conscience is a terrible error. Instead of adapting the rules for each case, you're using a set of necessary rules to turn a constructive elaboration of an article into a bad faith and hypocrisy contest to clean such articles, and I'm tired of such never-ending "debates", here just to dress up a respectable list of important Half-Life 1 mods.

-

So the complete list of important mods will be kept outside Wikipedia (I started doing mine, will complete it with 2 other bloggers I found using Google), on fans website, in the "underground" world, while Wikipedia will keep on spreading ignorance about mods with its inaccurate articles full of missing informations. Be assured I won't bother Wikipedia with that content, you'll never ever see a bit of it.

It's kinda sad that anyone wanting to get accurate informations will have to find former mod-players, digg the WebArchive database, simply because Wikipedia refuses game modifications.

-

Not true ?

=> "I was under the impression that video game modification articles aren't allowed" MastaFighta (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If a passerby have the strong impression mods aren't even allowed, it might indicates the criteria are way too restrictive and hostile to that topic, nope ? think about it

-

The notability criteria was made to prevent anyone putting its own personal original content on Wikipedia (like their own garage band), in the case of mod it would be a "2 maps 3 reskins" mod. Sadly the zealots of article "cleaning" are using that rule to keep true masterpieces away from public knowledge...

Wikipedia, I am strongly disappointed :/ --88.177.158.231 (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)