Talk:F.E.A.R.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review F.E.A.R. has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Good articles F.E.A.R. (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article has an archived CVG peer review that may contain ideas for improvement.
CVG To-do:
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
To-do list for F.E.A.R.: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Expand Development if at all possible
  • Tidy up Plot section and related subsection
  • Locate game's script for use as plot citations → Mostly done (Thanks Delta)!
  • Have several editors extensively copyedit article
Archive
Archives
  1. First Archive
  2. Second Archive (May06 - Aug06)

Contents

[edit] IMI Tavor vs. SA80

It's clearly the Tavor. The SA80 scope is in the wrong place, and doesn't have a trigger guard. Xihr 22:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Archive of past discussions

I took once again the liberty of archiving past discussions. They all seemed to be concluded and are all still available if anyone feels the need to consult them. Berserker79 08:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons list

Following the deletion of the "weapons' article" I've been the one to first come up with the table layout for the list of weapons in F.E.A.R., but to be honest I never liked it much: it somehow disrupted the layout of the page according to my own taste... I remember I've turned it into a bulletted list with shorter descriptions, but it was reverted to the table. Now, I think I've come up with a better idea: a collapsable sidebar. The list is there, the reader just has to click to show the full list with the descriptions.

If you don't like it revert, but please drop a line here. If someone likes better to have the list shown when the article loads and have the reader choose if to collapse it, then change the code to suit this need. The only thing that still bothers me is the arrangement of the paragraphs: what's the use of having the weapons paragraph before the game features and synopsis? That ought to be moved down imho. Berserker79 09:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Features should be at the top, not Gameplay IMO. The layout just doesn't seem right. CABAL 12:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Definitely agree that Features should be on top, then follows Gameplay, and then maybe Atmosphere. Good job with the weapons, Berserker! Delta 20:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like we are back at discussing what is the better layout for the sections. So, "Features" get moved to the top after the intro. "Atmosphere" comes next (not sure about this one). Then "Gameplay". "Synopsis" follows with "Plot" "Characters" and "Arsenal" as its subsections. I'd keep the rest as it is.
BTW, a further issue I've been thinking of: should we "merge" F.E.A.R. Combat into this article? There's almost nothing there and Combat shares the multiplayer features of F.E.A.R. which are described here. Berserker79 07:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
As long as the article doesn't grow large enough to rival Godzilla... (You just KNOW someone's going to stick a Merge request on that page sooner or later) CABAL 11:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. Merged Combat with F.E.A.R.. Don't know if I overlooked something, but there wasn't pretty much to merge anyway. Also, I've done some additional editing, rearranging the layout, adding the Combat logo picture, removing some redundant wikilinks and sentences (e.g. the Combat stuff from "Future developments"). Berserker79 13:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • For some reason, this list has once again become a section. Upon deleting it, my edit was reverted. This section needs to go, per WP:NOT. JimmyBlackwing 23:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Jimmy. If people here want this article to be featured, the list will need to go. That there is an article on Half-Life 2 weapons doesn't mean much. FAs are judged based on the article itself, not any subarticles. However, lists of game elements have been prone to deletion via AfD, so at this rate the article onHL2 weapons is much more likely to be deleted via AfD than to make FA or even GA. And, even beside that point, lists detract from the brilliant prose required of featured articles and should be used only sparingly. — TKD::Talk 00:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The current layout for weapons is just plain bad, I agree. I had become quite fond of the collapsable sidebar on the other hand. :) All right, if getting to GA or FA needs the "Weapons List" to be sacrificed, so be it. Couldn't we just add some kind of mentioning of the weapons included? I'll try to put my hands on it now, then see if it's worth something or should be cut as well. I just hope we shall not have the usual round of anonymous edits adding weapons lists back anyway... Berserker79 07:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Extending my prev comment: I've cut the list and reworded the paragraph to simply give an overview of the available kinds of weapons in the game. I think this could be something satisfying everyone, unless it is against WP:NOT as well. Berserker79 07:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
        • This is much better, and should be perfect with a bit of fine-tuning. Great job. JimmyBlackwing 08:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

With the name being "F.E.A.R." and not "Fear", "FEAR", "FeAr", or something of the sort, I find the addition of "(video game)" unnecessary. Someone would not accidentally stumble into this article if it was gone. It is also misleading, as F.E.A.R. is, in fact, a computer and video game. I propose a move to F.E.A.R.. JimmyBlackwing 22:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Upon further investigation, I have discovered F.E.A.R. (single). However, this may be remedied by simply placing "{{otheruses}}" at the top of this article. It is infinitely more likely that someone would be looking for this topic (evidenced by F.E.A.R. redirecting to this page). JimmyBlackwing 22:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as I remember this article was once called F.E.A.R. before that was turned in a disambig page, then a redirect (since there were only 2 entries in the disambig and most people looked for the game). Until a while ago this was "F.E.A.R. (computer game)", but owing to the incoming release of the Xbox360 and P3 ports someone moved to "F.E.A.R. (video game)". I'm all in favour of renaming it to just F.E.A.R. and use the {{otheruses}} tag. Berserker79 12:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I support this move as well. It seems far more likely that someone typing in "F.E.A.R." is looking for the game, rather than the single. And I appreciate your help Jimmy for getting this article up to FA status. Delta 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem. JimmyBlackwing 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Just throwing in my vote too. CABAL 07:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I was looking into what is needed to make such a move: apparently the wiki software does not like to do moves to an already existing article unless it is a redirect with no history and apparently this does not apply to F.E.A.R.. I'm going to try it (and hope I don't mess the whole thing) otherwise we're going to need to place a request on Wikipedia:Requested moves for an admin to do the job. Berserker79 09:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You need to place a tag on this page. Most proposal have a more formal discussion area - proposal, and then support / oppose. -- Beardo 12:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Adding it now. Got an edit conflict while adding the tags, probably we were editing at the same time. :) Berserker79 12:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move —Mets501 (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

F.E.A.R. (video game) → F.E.A.R. – The addition of "(video game)" has been deemed unnecessary after discussion, as most people typing F.E.A.R. are likely to search for the game. The F.E.A.R. (single) can be conveniently linked with a {{otheruses}} tag. Needs admin intervention because of redirect history. Berserker79 12:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support as per request. Berserker79 12:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose; not convinced most people will be looking for the game - I for one had heard the song, but had never heard of the game. I think disambiguating as current helps. Aquilina 19:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think it would make sense. -- Psi edit 19:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The game is more topical and popular. Xihr 19:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The game is most likely more notable than the single. Delta 20:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The current system is extremely clumsy and nonsensical. JimmyBlackwing 22:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The probability that one is looking for the game is considerably greater than the odds for the single. CABAL 04:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

  • In response to User:Aquilina's opposition, I present the fact that "F.E.A.R." does not redirect to a disambiguation page. Instead, users are redirected here. A user searching for the single would have better luck with the proposed system, as the single would be linked directly from this page via {{otheruses}}, without the hassle of the enormous Fear (disambiguation) page. JimmyBlackwing 02:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That's assuming the status quo is the correct position! I would have F.E.A.R. redirecting to a F.E.A.R. disambig between the single and the computer game. I would just like to see some proof that the game is more searched for than the single, that's all. Everyone seems to be sure of it, but no-one has justified it yet. Aquilina 11:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the need for some proof is understandable, however I'd just like to point out thay F.E.A.R. had been briefly a disambig, until someone came up with a "having a disambig page with just two entries is useless" concept and turned to a redirect. Moving the game to F.E.A.R. and placing a {{otheruses}} tag on top of both articles seems the simplest thing to do in my opinion, I'll try to see to get the proof you ask in the meantime. Berserker79 11:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Only if you are sure no-one will come up with anoyher F.E.A.R. in the future. If they do, we may want a dab page as the main page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beardo (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 October 2006.
Sorry, but that's a pretty silly criterion. No one can ever possibly know that any page won't develop further ambiguities from new terms that come along. Furthermore, plenty of Wikipedia pages already exist with this model, where the main entry is not hidden behind a disambiguation page, but instead points to other uses. By your criterion none of these should exist, and yet there are so many of them that criterion cannot be sensible. Xihr 22:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] JimmyBlackwing

While I have no problem with your edits or see any errors, please use the preview feature to limit your edits. It makes it hard for users trying to compare previous versions or look over changelogs. If you need, try copy and pasting the article into notepad, editing it there, then copy and pasting it back into Wikipedia to preview it. Thanks. Enfestid 12:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

1. Well written? Pass
2. Factually accurate? Pass
3. Broad in coverage? Pass
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? Pass


Additional comments :

The only thing I could say is avoid words like currently or so as wikipedia tries to be a time-independent encyclopedia but that is minor and for an expected event, I can't find an expression that would remove this and become less time-dependent.
After a read through, this article has compelling prose requested by GA and FA, it also meets the requirements of GA and A-class and so I have stamped it with A-class. I cannot unfortunately help you more as I do not know the game and can only judge as an external reviewer. Good luck with the progression of the article. Lincher 01:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Lincher 01:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correcting outdated information due to expansion pack

I have removed the line: No artificial intelligence-controlled characters fight alongside the player. as you do fight alongside NPC's (Holiday mainly) in the fear expansion pack extraction point. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 12:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I did a "partial revert" changing the removed sentence to: "No artificial intelligence-controlled characters fight alongside the player in F.E.A.R., except for some sequences in the expansion Extraction Point.". The "No NPCs fight with the player" sentence still applies to the main game, in spite of what is seen in the expansion, so I felt it was better to allow for some clarification rather than removing the whole sentence. Berserker79 13:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Its a lot clearer now and it whats I meant to say. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 07:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons?

What happened to the weapon section?

  • It was pure cruft, and game guide material to boot. It has been removed in hopes of getting this article to featured status. Please do not re-add it. JimmyBlackwing 04:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/2E/e/Talk%7EF.E.A.R._e228.html"