Template talk:Half-Life series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Half-Life)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the Valve task force.
 

Comment[edit]

The Combine aren't really a character - maybe there should be a list of enemies, or is that overkill? Orange Goblin 14:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I've place Combine (Half-Life 2) here because they play an important role in the Half-Life storyline, mainly as an oppressive alien race that had appear to have conquered Xen and was connected with the Black Mesa incident in Half-Life, prompting them to attack and colonize Earth, which led up to the events Half-Life 2. ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 11:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC) ╫
Perhaps the inclusion of the Combine is pushing it a bit, but this template isn't that full anyways. It could use a few more additions.Amren 17:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Hopefully this isn't too many new additions. If so, just cut what's not needed and remove the template from those pages. --Charron 20:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Although I do think all those items are notable, the template is really huge and bulky now. I'm not a template expert, but I think we need one now to slim it down using some wikisyntax magic ;).Amren (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
That's what I was afraid of. Should it be split in some way into several? I'm afraid to do so since it could cause certain pages (the games themselves, mostly) to be even larger, with the gaps between tables. --Charron 12:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it seriously needs to be split; just look at it! Has to be the largest navigational template I've seen on Wikipedia. This one template could be split into multiple ones, such as {{Half-Life-games}}, {{Half-Life-mods}}, {{Half-Life-characters}}, and so forth. And, if every entry related to Half-Life must be findable from any given page, an article such as List of Half-Life topics/articles is always plausible. 'Tis just a suggestion. -- gakon5 (talk)
I'm willing to do it if no one has any objections, though I think the List of Half Life topics is overkill. The Half Life article contains links to other articles that will have the templates anyways. Amren (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
You think this is big? You should see Template:Discworld. --Yar Kramer 21:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Woah! I figured someone would link me to a bigger one, it's a big Wikipedia out there. -- gakon5 (talk)
It's a big template, too. --Yar Kramer 01:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

TF2[edit]

The template currently lists TF2 as an "official mod," when it is suppose to be released as a stand-alone game (if it is ever released, that is). Shouldn't this be under the "Games" heading? Nufy8 03:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

If that's moved, then DoD:S should be moved too, since it's being sold independently as well. But I'm not going to split hairs over if "Games" should be in-canon HL games, or just released-independently games. --Charron 01:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
DoD: Source isn't being sold independently that I know of (the Day of Defeat article seems to agree) - it's only going to be available through Half-Life 2 packages. Nufy8 01:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I must've misread an article along the way somewhere. My fault. --Charron 02:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think about it, does TF2 even belong on the template? How is it related to Half-Life, other than the fact that it's going to be based off of one of its mods? All of the other games have a direct correlation with HL, be it an expansion, a game that started out as a mod, or the main games themselves. TF2, as a stand alone game, would only share the same developer. Should it be removed it? Nufy8 03:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, so you're classifying it as just a game based off the source engine? I guess it would be wise to just remove it then, regardless of the fact that the TF was a mod.Amren (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Gunman Chronicles[edit]

Is GC really an official mod? Wasn't it just a total conversion that went straight to retail? Many games share engines from a previously released game, but are not official mods of the original - Jedi Outcast as a total conversion using Quake 3's engine, for example. Should this be removed, or am I missing something? Nufy8 22:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Well then, if no one has any objections, I will go ahead and remove it. Nufy8 01:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Seeing as it was officially supported by Valve and published by Sierra, I think it's as official as Counter-Strike or Day of Defeat, both of which were released as stand-alone products. I see your point though, so I'm reluctant to change it. Anyone have any ideas one way or the other? --Sum0
Yes, however, CS and DoD both began as mods before they went retail, so although one does not necessarily need Half-Life to play CS: Retail, one can still play CS through its original modded sense; that is, through Half-Life. Nufy8 13:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Odessa Cubbage[edit]

I've noticed this charactor is listed as a Major Charactor though it says differently in te article.

I've removed the "major" part in the template. Nufy8 19:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Adding the Decay characters[edit]

Now that articles for them have been created, should Doctor Gina Cross, Doctor Colette Green, and Doctor Richard Keller be added to this template? They are at least as, if not much, much more, important characters than, say, Cubbage. There's also the Decay and Blue Shift scientist Dr. Rosenberg, but his article has not been developed yet.

I ask because I guess according to this discussion this template is already somewhat big. - MarphyBlack 05:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Grouping Episodes[edit]

Seeing as Episodes One through to Three are a part of the same story arc as Half-Life 2 itself, I propose this structure:

Half-Life 2 (Episode One, Episode Two, Episode Three)

Based on the mods and Combine sections, which use the same technique. --Tom Edwards 21:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that. Thunderbrand 23:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you beat me to it! I'm not sure about having Lost Coast in the group though. It's hardly core canon. --Tom Edwards 17:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I dunno. If you want to you can remove it, I have no objections. Thunderbrand 17:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Why would HL2:LC not be canon? The headcrab shells have to be fired from *somewhere*, won't they? Of course canonically Freeman never made it to St. Olga's, that does not mean the location does not exist. -- Jordi· 18:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It ties in with the game, but not to the extent of the Episodes. I'm only suggesting that it be moved outside the brackets. --Tom Edwards 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean now, and agree. Listing HL2:LC along with Ep1 etc. is like listing Half-Life: Uplink with Half-Life: Opposing Force and the other HL1 expansions. It shouldn't be that prominent. -- Jordi· 19:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that we know Episodes One through Three are supposed to represent Half-Life 3 [1], this should probably be revised, right? MarphyBlack 06:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so right now. They might be in place of HL3, but they are still very much tied to HL2. Plus, Valve have never explicitly ruled out an HL3 (or HL4, depending on how you see it). --Tom Edwards 10:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Other Companies[edit]

Should we add these companies (and some other things) to "See Also" part of "Half-Life Series Template"?

  • Barking Dog Studios (See Barking Dog Studios article)
  • Rogue Entertainment (See Condition Zero article)
  • Ritual Entertainment (See Condition Zero article)
  • Namco (Developers of Counter-Strike Neo. See Counter-Strike Neo article)
  • Taito (Developers of Half-Life 2: Survivor. See Half-Life 2: Survivor article)
  • Rewolf Inc. (Developers of Gunman Chronicles. See Gunman Chronicles article)
  • Sierra (Old publishers of Half-Life 1 and expansion packs. See Sierra Entertainment article)
  • Vivendi (Old publishers of Half-Life 2. See Vivendi Universal article)
  • Captivation Digital Laboratories (Gearbox Software cooperated with this company to create Blue Shift)
  • Valve and Gearbox Workers (Gabe Newell, Randy Pitchford) --Barneyinblue 12:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that the current list is adequate. Gearbox were responsibly for HL canon, and TRS are currently contracted by (or at least working for) Valve. The others aren't anywhere near so relevant to the HL franchise as a whole. --Tom Edwards 12:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The High Definition Pack[edit]

I just created an article on the High Definition Pack and I believe it's probably worth adding to this template due to its significance in the HL community thingamabob. However, I'm not sure where would be the best place to put it. It's not a game, nor it is really "Technology". I've placed it under "See also" for now, but I'll certainly take a recommendation for a better placement. MarphyBlack 17:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

CS:Neo[edit]

Shouldn't this be listed under "Other (Source):" instead of "Other (GoldSrc):" ? I thought this was just a remake of CS:Source for the Japanese market. -HumanZoom 11:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's a remake of CS 1.x. Take a look at some screens. --Tom Edwards 11:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The graphics look oddly similar to Source, but hey maybe that is just me. I downloaded the movie that was included in the external links and it looks closer to CSS than 1.6, but seeing how it isn't I'm just going to write if off as an awesome upgrade to the visuals. Thanks. -HumanZoom 14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
There may or may not have been a Source-based version of Neo released in 2005 (http://www.system16.com/hardware.php?id=544). As most of the relevant information elsewhere is in Japanese, it is difficult to tell. Whether non-PC games should even be included in this template is a different issue altogether. -- Jason Jones 22:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Uplink and Lost Coast[edit]

These simply do not belong in the template under "main series." Uplink is a gameplay demo for Half-Life. Lost Coast is a technology demo illustrating HDR lighting. It is a major mistake to include them with the main canon. If this content were meant to have been included in the games, it would have been included in the games. Instead it was cut and used for demos. I advocate putting them in the "Other (Source)" and "Other (GoldSrc)" categories. I tried doing this a few days ago and it was reverted. Now I am appealing to the talk page. -- Jason Jones 12:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. They are not part of the official storyline. Both of them are cut from the official storylines. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 11:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Coast[edit]

I was wodnerig wheather someone (or myself) could add a section devoted to the Coast and Highwya 17 as seen in Half-Life 2.

Player characters[edit]

Worth separating player characters from "Characters"? There probably aren't enough characters to merit this, but it would make the template slightly easier to follow. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really sure. The player characters are already sorted before others, which seems sufficient enough to be identified with importance. I'm OK with any split though; either way, the box will still look fine. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 10:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC) ╫
Actually, the two characters from Decay are shuffled down a bit. That was actually what made me think of it first of all. That and the absence of the playable Vortigaunt character also from Decay (which could be linked to the Vortigaunt page or something). Well, not that I've ever played Decay ... --Plumbago 08:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
No need to sort them, just make each one bold like in the Games row. --Tom Edwards 12:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Btw, would it be a good idea to spruce the box up a little with a more fitting color (say, orange)? ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 10:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC) ╫
A while ago someone changed it to orange and it looked bad ([2]) I thought all nav templates should be the same color, no? Thunderbrand 16:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Orange has a certain HL-appeal to it, but the blue's good. You could always test out a new scheme here just to see what it looks like, get some votes, etc. While orange is always going to cause trouble (too dark, and it's brown; too light, and it's eyesight-irritatingly pale), the previous orange scheme isn't helped by its use of yellow text. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I have two revised versions at my sandbox, which includes the proposed character split (while player-controlled Vorts were featured in Decay, they are only featured in a bonus stage and may not be considered to be prolific player characters). Decided to go further and put alternate lines seen in Template:Sonic, as it does help split the subsections better and rid of a bit of monotony in the box.

As for the general consensus of color schemes, there appears to be some navboxes with some out-of-the-box color schemes:

Some of these boxes indicate that if a sufficiently strong color is used in a title bar only and the rest uses softer color, it shouldn't be a problem. This has also been applied in the second sandbox revision of the Half-Life navbox. Comments are welcomed. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 11:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ╫
Nice work. I'm still not certain about the orange, but it's much better with black text. Regarding the player character issue, I think splitting them off works better. Emboldening them doesn't make it clear enough. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Made the planned changes; the second version looks to be much better than the first version, so the changes on the former was selected. This section is open to comments from others of the box. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 12:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC) ╫

Vortigaunt problem[edit]

The Vortigaunts aren't an enemy anymore, so maybe we should think about moving them from the Enemies section?

In terms of gameplay, they're far more noticeable and prevalent as enemies rather than allies. And the vortigaunt page describes their different roles in HL and HL2 pretty clearly, so there won't be confusion. I reckon leave as it is. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Episode 2 gameplay videos have come out, and it seems that they are going to be quite important as allies (i.e. the Antlion caves). How about separating it into 'Enemies (Half-Life)' and 'Enemies (Half-Life 2)'? Also, maybe we could have a 'Allies' section (e.g. Vorts and Citizens could go in there). Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeefRendang (talkcontribs)
We do have a list of enemies in Half-Life 2 article to begin with. However, I'm more on the creation of a "List of NPCs in Half-Life series" article (instead of "list of enemies"), since it helps avoid the argument of whether certain aliens are enemies or allies (consider the aforementioned Vortigaunt and the Antlion for examples). The question of whether we should separate the list by titles depends on the length of the article. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 20:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC) ╫
I was thinking of an NPCs article too. But we're talking about the template here, so maybe we should just merge the 'Other Characters' and 'Enemies' into one whole 'Non-player Characters' list. It's more consistent too, since the template has a list of 'Player Characters'. BeefRendang 08:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for the misunderstanding. Anyway, as far as the template is concerned, the number of article links in both sections is on the excessive side; merging all NPCs into one section may complicate the reader's ability to locate a specific character. I'm thinking about separating them between humans and non-humans (pretty much covering all aliens, including Lamaar, but also the robotic Dog and the Combine humanoids), which, considering the current arrangement, would only require a few wikilink moves and the renaming of relevant sections. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 14:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC) ╫
Thinking about it though, it's a pretty tricky situation if there are plans to go ahead with this arrangement (there are some interconnections between aliens and humans affiliated with the Combine). Comments from other editors are appreciated. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 15:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC) ╫
Agreed, it is rather complicated. There are NPCs of which there are only one in the entire game (e.g Alyx, Dr. Breen) and there are NPCs which have multiple instances (Combine Soldiers, Citizens). And then there is Mossman. Perhaps we should re-organize it into somthing along the lines of 'Friendlies (Half-Life)', Friendlies (Half-Life 2)', 'Enemies (Half-Life)', 'Enemies (Half-Life 2)' and then 'Characters'. Friendlies would list the multiple-instance friendly NPCs, enemies would do the same for, well, enemies and characters would list all characters in the whole series, like Gman, Alyx, Eli and Kleiner. Other editors, do please comment. It would help a lot. BeefRendang 05:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Portal[edit]

Given that Portal will be set in the Half-Life series, shouldn't it be moved up to the 'Main series'? -- Jordi· 11:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I think it depends on how closely the story is involved with that of the Main Series. 67.172.204.135 03:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, maybe Portal really should be in Main series category. It will be definitely set into Half-Life story universe (it's mentoined in Portal article and references). Polaris 20:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not, Portal's story is not relevant to the plot of any Half-life game. Even if they do share the same universe, any intertwining of the two narratives is nothing more than a jokey crossover. Portal is a prime candidate for the 'Other Games' section.134.131.125.49 (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that states it's a "jokey crossover"? TH1RT3EN talkcontribs 16:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The games themselves, perhaps? The only references made in Portal to the Half-life universe are jokes. For example, projector slides showing Aperture Science's performance records vs. Black Mesa's, the joke being that the graphs show BM's results/funding allocation/whatever as being hundreds of times greater than Aperture's. The only references in Half-life 2 to Portal's universe, so far, are to supposedly dangerous technologies developed by Aperture which will probably play more prominently in Episode 3. Whatever these technologies are, they are not shown to have or hinted at having anything to do with Portal's story. Furthermore, the tones of Portal and Half-life are so starkly different that it would be extremely odd for Portal to be considered part of Half-Life canon. The situation is perfectly described as a parodic crossover (subsection of Fictional crossover).134.131.125.49 (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You're forgetting the Aperture Science shipping vessel mentioned in Half-Life 2: Episode Two. The joke on projector was showing what AS wanted compared to what they actually received against Black Mesa. And the section in the navbox is not necessarily regarding canon, but how the games can be grouped together, and the information provided in the games shows a connection between them. Whether it's canon, spin-off, side-story, or etc. has not been specified and is up to speculation. This was also discussed a while back on the other Valve navbox: Template_talk:Valve_games#Portal. TH1RT3EN talkcontribs 18:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the AS shipping vessel when I mentioned their technologies. I agree with you that it's possible (though unlikely, I'd wager) that the Portal plot will feature much more prominently in Episode Three; however, since there is currently no substantial narrative connection between the two, I would say it is more prudent to treat Portal as a side-story/parodic crossover, at least for now. The real question here is not whether or not Portal should be in the main series box, but rather, does it fit better in that box or in the Other Games box. 134.131.125.49 (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I feel that ignoring the cross-referencing between the games based on assuming they are meant to only be jokes is speculation, especially without a source. The cross-referencing does exist. However, I see no harm in having a Portal series section under the Main series section in the navbox. TH1RT3EN talkcontribs 18:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
But assuming a substantial link will be revealed in the future is even more speculative than the wait-and-see stance. Maybe a Portal Series section is the best compromise. Good idea.134.131.125.49 (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead[edit]

I'm removing the left 4 dead link because it has no reason to be on a template named half life series. It has nothing to do with the half life series. You might say, what about Counterstrike and Day of Defeat. Well, those are famous mods for half life and half life two. Left 4 Dead is not a mod and its storyline is not related in any way to the half life storyline. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 07:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It stays out unless it is released hand-in-hand with a Half Life project. That's my vote anyway. Clockwork Apricot 14:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You are correct, it does not belong. 134.131.125.49 (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Cutting down/Splitting up this template[edit]

This template is, IMO, excessively bloated. With only one section on the actual series, and eight sections on mods, loosely connected games, in-universe material, tech and other minor topics, it's high time we cut down or split the template (as WP:ZELDA has done with different major topics), opting for both simplicity and specialization. It may be useful to use {{CVG Navigation}} in this case. I've outlined a few proposals on how to split this template.

What says you? ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 14:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC) ╫

I have a similar issue: what's with the recent expansion of Key Events? We do not need articles on individual moments from computer games, when it comes to the HL series if not in general. It's pure fancruft. Unless someone can come up with a decent reason for the existence of The Lighthouse Defensive I'm going to remove it and the others like it from the template, and start article deletion debates if needs be. --Tom Edwards 15:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. I've actually having doubts with the recent forerunners of this form of article (namely, Battle of Black Mesa and Battle of City 17, which were created by a different editor), but articles on very brief and unimportant battles is just too much. I echo your sentiment to AFDs these articles if their notability is questionable. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 18:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC) ╫
I would also support the deletion (or revert back to the redirect) of Black Mesa Incident. While the incident itself is a very significant event to the story, there's nothing here that isn't already included in, say, the plot overviews of Half-Life and the other game articles, as well as the Black Mesa Research Facility article. This particular article happens to include a bunch of nonsense speculation (Seriously, estimated casualties?) and some downright incorrect information (The Gene-Worm is not a commander, it is written as if Race X was working alongside the Nihilanth, etc). MarphyBlack 18:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the 3 three links:Attack on NLO | Lighthouse Defensive | Siege on Nova Prospekt. This is due to the fact that they are dead links and link to new edit pages.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 23:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated all of the remaining articles from speedy deletions, with a recommendation of merges into the existing articles on each event's location. --Tom Edwards 22:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the Seven Hour War article. Black Mesa Incident, Raid on Black Mesa East, and Battle of City 17 can all go, but the Seven Hour War article has been around since November of 2004. This a significant event not already covered in any other article. MarphyBlack 01:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Last revert I did.[edit]

The template was broken, using Firefox 2 with plugins disabled, on at least two pages:

A mate has confirmed it was broken for him, too. Thus the revert. --Pizzahut2 23:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Template needs to be updated[edit]

"Key locations" and "Key events" should be merged back into one again as Raid on Black Mesa East was recently deleted, leaving Black Mesa Incident and Seven Hour War the only two working links under Key events (I still believe that the Black Mesa Incident article should simply redirect to Black Mesa Research Facility, but I digress). However, the template has been locked because HL2 is going to be featured on the main page soon, so I can't make the edit myself. The dead link looks ugly. :( MarphyBlack 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Splitting up the template: Redux[edit]

This is somewhat continuing the above discussion, but on a slightly different note. I believe that the template can be split up into several games, because looking at the template as it is right now, it's labeled "Half-Life series", yet it covers many games having no relation to Half-Life itself. While I haven't done anything particularly fancy in regards to the layout and design, I made a couple early draft templates of what I think the current template can be boiled down to:

I'm not sure about the placement of "Technology" still included in the orignal Half-Life series template, but I think this is a much greater improvement at keeping everything in the template closely related. Unfortunately, two game links were lost since I couldn't think of a place where they would easily fit in: Deathmatch Classic and Ricochet. They're not part of Half-Life, yet they aren't part of their own series outside the Half-Life-related games. MarphyBlack 02:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do that immediately so the gigantic HL2 template can be off the counter strike articles! --frothT C 09:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll put the CS template on its pages tomorrow if that's ok --frothT C 09:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The CS one is now at Template:Counter-Strike series --frothT C 00:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. We need to use this newer template.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 08:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, I made the changes to the HL2 template. I also put the DoD and TF templates on their respective pages. And I also took the "technical" row out of the HL2 template since it belongs on all four templates and made it into its own template, Template:steam technical, which is transcluded into each game's template. --frothT 11:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Good job, folks. The new arrangement looks fine, although more could be done to split up the HL series' sub-topics. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 11:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC) ╫
Well I guess I changed it again. Looking at the article on team fortress I couldn't help but think "think has absolutely nothing to do with all of those technical articles" so rather than transclude the technical template into each game's template, I've transcluded a nice template that links to each of the other four main Valve games. This interlinks the CS pages, the DoD pages, the TF pages, and the HL pages, something that should have been part of the universal HL template but never was. I'm not sure what I'm going to do with the technical template, though; it's certainly not applicable to all of the articles in any of those games' pages so I'm hesitant to transclude in the template. I guess I'll transclude directly from the HL1, HL2, CS, CSS, and DOD pages since those seem most relevant. --frothT 11:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OK the current arrangement is (in this order):

  • All pages have their game's series box.
  • The articles Half-Life, Half-Life 2 and all of the CS and DOD and TF articles have the "Steam technical" box. Few of the HL template's articles should be linked to anything but half-life, but the CS and DOD and TF articles basically all are the games of their series.
  • The articles Half-Life, Half-Life 2 and all of the CS and DOD and TF articles have the "Valve games" box. Few of the HL template's articles should be linked to anything but half-life, but the CS and DOD and TF articles basically all are the games of their series.

--frothT 12:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tom Edwards has expressed his disapproval over the "Steam technical" template by reverting several article changes. So this is the rationale behind a "technical" navigation box.
All of the links in Template:steam technical were originally in the giant Half-Life box. When it became obvious that it was ridiculous to have info on HL enemies linked from Counter-Strike, a separate counter-strike nav box was created (and soon after DoD and TF) nav boxes for their respective series, along with another "Valve Games" nav box to link each game together (they previously were unlinked). Unfortunately, the "Technical" row in the HL template applied to all four valve games, but it was still only in the HL template. So I took it out of the HL template, made it its own nav box, and transcluded it onto the CS, DoD, and TF pages (since these are the Source/GoldSrc powered games that use VAC and SteamIDs), as well as the HL and HL2 front pages. The "Steam technical" template was also transcluded onto each article that appears in the template, in traditional nav template fashion to facilitate consistent navigation. Tom I don't know how you can say those links have nothing to do with "Steam Technical" as they share those resources (goldsrc/source engine, common steamID, etc) via steam, which distributes these common files. And all of those links were originally in the HL template's "Technical" row. If you feel "steam technical" is a poor name, revise it. I'm undoing your reverts --frothT 19:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Navbox reduction[edit]

As expected, A Man in Pink or the likes showed up to cut down the box. Given no one has actually commented on any further splits of the navbox, I'm assuming there is no objection to this and will just go ahead creating new sub-navboxes for specilized topics. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 13:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC) ╫

Possible suggestion: JavaScript to make the clicked sub-nav appear within the parent template, instead of sending people to a new page. That's without a doubt what I'd do on a private site. --Tom Edwards 18:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. The VG navbox guideline never specified anything about boxes pertaining other elements of the series, so it's safe territory. But I have reservations doing this in the parent box, Pink Man recommendation suggests that specific links should be minimized in the box, even hiding the sub-boxes in it would still create a rather cluttered design. But it may be a good idea to merge all of the boxes on the game's characters, concept and places into Template:Half-Life topics, separate from the navbox listing the games. A link to Template:Half-Life topics can be provided in Template:Half-Life games. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 05:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC) ╫

GLaDOS[edit]

GLaDOS is a enemy but she is not in the enemy's bit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.53 (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Decay Characters[edit]

Why where they even removed? They're still player characters and in a game considered to be canon, so why were they removed? I noticed that their articles were deleted without any good reason as well... NarooN (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the articles, but they were removed from here because they became redlinks. TH1RT3EN talkcontribs 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
They got removed, because some of the users/admins find them not encyclopedic. You can find some of the removed information here:

http://www.halflife2.net/wiki/index.php/Wikipedia_Articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Half-Life_%28series%29/merge --Barnz (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

HL mods[edit]

S@bre removed HL mods with this edit under the notion that they aren't HL games. I beg to differ. The reason these should be included is because they are official mods of Half-Life sanctioned by Valve. That is to say, Valve owns these games. The template header states, "The Half-Life series and related topics." TFC, CS, and DoD should be included. I don't see how it is justifiable to leave Codename: Gordon but not those three games. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This template is commonly used alongside {{Valve games}}, which contains most of the same games. To have them listed on both, when they are in reality nowadays very disconnected from the Half-Life series and are independent products in their own right is not very efficient. Having them on this template is like putting Warcraft on the {{StarCraft}} template. Codename Gordon by contrast is a clear spin-off in the Half-Life series, and relates to the promotion and marketing for HL2. TFC, DoD and CS are not, they merely started as mods on the engine before becoming full products independent of the Half-Life series, so they are far better placed on {{Valve games}} alone than here. -- Sabre (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I can see how they should belong on the Valve template. However, Codename Gordon is just as much a mod as the other three games. ~ UBeR (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
But Codename Gordon can clearly be associated to Half-Life in ways that the others can't: its essentially a non-canon marketing product for HL2 (dare I say "gimmick"?), and it has Freeman as the main character, planting it squarely in the realm of the Half-Life series. Its not really a mod anyway, it runs off of Flash Player. CS, TFC, DoD, (Gunman Chronicles,) they merely started life as mods before evolving into standalone products, their connection to the series doesn't extend any further than that. -- Sabre (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal template[edit]

I know this sounds mad... but is it better just to merge Half-Life template and the Portal template into one template, or maybe link it somehow. TY 203.215.119.229 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)