Template talk:Half-Life series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Comment

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)

[edit] TF2

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)

[edit] Gunman Chronicles

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)

[edit] Odessa Cubbage

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)

[edit] Adding the Decay characters

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)

[edit] Grouping Episodes

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)

[edit] The Other Companies

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)

[edit] The High Definition Pack

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)

[edit] CS:Neo

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)

[edit] Uplink and Lost Coast

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)

[edit] The Coast

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

[edit] Player characters

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) ╫

[edit] Vortigaunt problem

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BeefRendang (talk • contribs).
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)

[edit] Portal

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)

[edit] Left 4 Dead

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)

[edit] Cutting down/Splitting up this template

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 | Seige 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)

[edit] Last revert I did.

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/l/Template_talk%7EHalf-Life_series_e148.html"