# Talk:The Orange Box

This is in regards to the request at the VG Assessment page.  I'm rating this article as B-class, Low-importance.  Here are a few tips to improve it!
I'm rating this as B-class, but proposing it for A-class, which by tradition needs a second assessor to agree.  I think that the PS3 frame rate section is too long for the issue, and that the reception and development sections could be longer.  I also recommend making the tracklists hidden (see Music_of_Final_Fantasy_VI#Final_Fantasy_VI_Grand_Finale for what I mean), though I think the little symbols your using are cute, with the lambda for HL1 and the oval for portal.  I recommend submitting this to GAR, and after cleaning it up more, sending it to FAC.  --PresN (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks PresN. -- Sabre (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed on the A-class. The issues presented by PresN are not big enough to keep this article from warranting an A. Furthermore, I upgraded importance to "High" instead of "Low" because this is a landmark release in a recent and new development of the way video games are released. User:Krator (t c) 22:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I also agree on both the A-class and High importance - I'm not a WPVG representative, but I've been watching the development of this article (and playing the games of course) since the days of the TF2 preload and think it would be well worth a shot at FA. It's in my watchlist to keep the vandals down, and I'll help to keep the todo list running (very good idea, that template). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Yay! I've removed the PS3 frame rate section and incorporated part of it into the Development section and the other part into the Reception section and added some more criticisms from reviews to it, hopefully ameliorating all three problems of the PS3 frame rate section being too long, and the Development and Reception sections being too short. I like the tracklists being two columns, so I'm trying to figure out a way to preserve that while making it hide/show. If there isn't a way, I don't think it really impairs the article, seeing as the track lists are short. clicketyclickyaketyyak 23:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

S@bre managed to fix it. Didn't know you could do that col-2 thing. Nice work. clicketyclickyaketyyak 15:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel that we've done enough work on this to put it up for GA consideration, especially with Clicketyclick's expansion of the Black Box section. -- Sabre (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Some minor issues, but nothing that can't be fixed later. You might want to source this statement: "...The Orange Box features five complete games compiled into one retail unit. It is the first of Valve's products to use indepth player statistics and achievement awards through the Steam system." Good job. David Fuchs (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, this is very exciting! I ref'd the passage. I think. It's sort of a roundabout ref, because I don't think there is any site pointing it out, but the Orange Box games are the only ones that have gameplay statistics currently, and I've tried to show that by using a cached page (because I'm sure future games will be released with reporting mechanisms for data collection). At the bottom, there are six items listed. Only four of those are to do with games and Day of Defeat has no statistics right now. The other three are from Orange Box. clicketyclickyaketyyak 04:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Gabe Newell quote about the PS3 being 'a waste of time' seems irrelevant to the article,or at least biased, and would seem to me to be relevant only as criticism on the PS3 page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.49.73 (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 

It's a properly sourced and notable statement. xenocidic (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it helps establish context for the following paragraphs in the section with a view from the developers. -- Sabre (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about "Gabe Newell explained..." is he actually explaining why Valve didn't develop the PS3 version, or is he simply offering his opinion on the PS3?  It just seems a little bit ambiguous and potentially misleading. LosHavros (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
As the managing director of game development and co-founder of Valve, I don't think it's just "opinion" but speaks moreso to company strategy. xenocidic (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you say that this rationale can be derived implicitly from the article by the majority of people though?  LosHavros (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

on the issue of users buying their orange box cheap online, I don't think it is fair to say they tried to circumvent their EULA. It sounds biased, as if users tried to cheat steam, when in face one might argue it is the other way around. In the end of the day most users were probably not aware of these regional issues, and just hoped to get the game cheaper - and ended up having to buy the box twice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.100.166 (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 

I think there's a related issue here. In the Philippines, the Orange box was sold on retail PC but later it was pulled out because users cannot register and says 'Invalid Product Key'. Since The Orange Box will never be released in the Philippines (Or any other country that Steam does not recongnize) on Retail and expects all potential buyers in those countries to have a credit card, DSL, and a lot of patience. 203.76.206.76 (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Peggle bundled with the Orange box too? Seems like it should be mentioned. Scott Ritchie (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Orange Box comes with a sample version of Peggle called Peggle Extreme. It is mentioned under the Promotions section of the Wiki.
No, Peggle isn't bundled with the Orange Box.  If it was, it would be the odd one out because it's not an fps.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpfan1234 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 

The original Peggle isn't, but a special (cut-down and themed for the Orange Box games) edition called Peggle Extreme is. Being a different genre doesn't mean Valve can't sell it in the same package. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the release date delayed until October 10? I remember that, because that is my birthday. (Edit: Or perhaps that's when it was unlocked. See: http://www.steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=news&archive=yes&id=1237&cc=US.) Steam mentions it was "released" on Oct. 10 (see: http://www.steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=news&archive=yes&id=1186&cc=US). Also, some other Wikipedia articles mention the Oct. 10 release date. Also note that in the infobox, where it states Windows (download), that article writes October 9, though the source referenced is dated as October 10. I am fairly convinced the "release date" is October 10. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the lead reads, "The Orange Box is a video game compilation produced and published by the Valve Corporation for Microsoft Windows and the Xbox 360. It was released on October 9, 2007, as both a boxed retail copy and a Windows-only download available through Valve's Steam service. A PlayStation 3 version was later produced by Electronic Arts, being released on December 11, 2007, in North America and in Europe."
I think, however, it should read something like "The Orange Box is a video game compilation produced and published by the Valve Corporation for Microsoft Windows, the Xbox 360, and the PlayStation 3," so as not to downplay the PS3 version (and because, as a matter of fact, it is a game for each of these systems). We can then explain the different release dates in subsequent sentences. (See above section about Xbox and PC release dates.) ~ UBeR (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed AP Shinobi (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The awards section as it is now is a mess and has been torn apart from the heavy cleanup that we put together. We cleaned up the text as too many awards were being referenced. We also wanted to say why the awards were won, not what awards were won. Doing this means that the reader understands what was recognised as outstanding in the game, not how many "Game of the Year" awards a website gave it. I would strongly suggest having a discussion on it here rather than reverting back and forth, as the prose is rapidly degenrating. It's not something you want to be doing while the article is a Featured Article candidate.
There are three sections: the awards for "The Orange Box", the ones for "Portal" and the ones for "Team Fortress 2". That's all that's needed. If you feel the prose should be changed, please talk about it here. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 00:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Note the peer review here. Please, let's build concensus here then implement it on the article in one go in a way that everyone can agree. Gazimoff WriteRead 00:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Possible solution: GOTY awards can be listed in the existing Template:VG Reviews template, beneath the mc and gr aggregate scores. The more descriptive awards can be kept in prose. clicketyclickyaketyyak 05:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It should also be noted that we have five main articles linked to here. These articles should have the detailed award information, while this article should contain a summary of the key ones. There is a place for this award information. I just don't think that here is the right place for it.Gazimoff WriteRead 08:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
GOTY awards for The Orange Box are not appropriate in any of the five linked articles on each of the games included in it. (edit:) Just checked through the edit warring. I see what you mean now by this not being the place for that information and how having nine refs in a row really crowds up the Awards section. On the other hand, The Orange Box did win important awards on its own (rather than games within it) that aren't listed. These could be either worked into the section or stuck in the reviewbox (though the amount might pull the reviewbox down to overlap the references section. Might be easier to write it out.)
And something else got to me; the article mentions some awards that Portal and TF2 got, but it doesn't talk about Episode 2 at all, despite that game also premiering with Orange. And yes, it did win awards. It got:

Shooter of the Year — ShackNews
Best AI in a Mainstream Game — AIDev.com
Best Level Design (PC) — 1UP
Best Story — Voodoo Extreme
Additionally, I do think it is worth listing the number of awards each new game within the package won as well as how many the package itself won. I, for example, am curious how the games stack up against each other. Episode 2 won 4. TF2 won 10. Portal won 76. And keep in mind this is despite TF2 getting a higher average critical score than Portal. Interesting, no? 
If people agree that the GOTY awards for Orange, the awards that Epi2 won, and/or the number that each new game within Orange  as well as Orange itself won should be mentioned, I'll work it in. clicketyclickyaketyyak 15:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I thnk it's important to bear in mind what the games were recognised for, such as level design, puzzle games, music, art direction etc. So it's probably great to say that "The Gazimoff Saga was recognised as being one of the best games of the year, being recognised for it's unique game design, distinct art direction and innovative soundtrack.",
instead of "The Gazimoff Saga was awarded Game of the Year and Best Game Design from IGN, Game of the Year and Best Soundtrack from Gamespot and Best Soundtrack and Best Level Design from GameSpy". It's much more informative to the reader who can understand what the awards mean without having to understand the relevance of the various sources. The Academy awards are mentioned as an equivalent to Oscars or Baftas. Hope tis makes senseGazimoff WriteRead 16:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe the most important (read prestigious) awards should be written out in prose. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I know they're like the Oscars; I'm pretty sure I was the one who added them in in the first place. :oP But I see what you mean. I'm just suggesting that it reads "The Gazimoff Box was recognised by seven different critic sites as being  the best game of the year...." and "...Gazimoff: Episode 2 won a total of four awards, being recognized as the best shooter of 2007, having well-programmed NPC AI, and excellent level design and story...." Something like that. clicketyclickyaketyyak 17:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To me, it's critical that we don't completely ignore a category of reviews/awards/reception, etc, that being  all the video game websites that provide regular coverage. Considering their job is to cover video games and compare the best against each other, if Orange Box wins an award from them, it's important to note. If the video game websites that regularly provide coverage of video games are recognizing Orange Box for excellence in this field, it's very relevant to this article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
We really cannot simply list every award that the game has received, nor should we attempt to fill up a paragraph with nothing else than what award was received from who. Clicketyclick's approach strikes me as the best, we should say why awards were received and not what awards were received. A couple of notable high-end examples (ie not a magazine's editors choice award) should be given - these can be put into the VG Reviews field - and if possible an estimate of how many awards have been won (if it can be sourced) should be included. But we cannot just rattle off awards won. A reader who has no familiarity with the subject is unlikely to be interested to know what awards were won from everything else, but what they were awarded for. "The Orange Box won multiple game of the year awards, as well as awards for x, y and z" is far better than "The Orange Box won a game of year award from IGN, along with x y and z from IGN, and x, y and z from GameSpot and x, y and z from Spike, etc etc". We should find trends and note them (its probably a good idea to pepper it with examples from the more notable awards though), as opposed to listing the raw data. That's how it should be done when dealing with reviews, thats how it should be done when dealing with awards. -- Sabre (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I did something. Is it too detailed do you think, and do you think we should still list some specific ones in the VGReviews table? clicketyclickyaketyyak 21:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this article has gone to FAC, I was wondering about the possibility of pushing for a featured topic on the package. We've got six articles to play with, with this one acting as the main one. Of those six, only Episode Two is not a good article or featured article - Team Fortress 2 passed its GA earlier today. Of course, this is dependent on The Orange Box passing its FAC, and Episode Two being brought to GA. I imagine after that having one more article become featured (Episode One comes to mind) would solidify its potential. Its just a thought. -- Sabre (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You only need 20% to be FA/FL for a FT; 2 of 6 meets that, though, yes, it would be nice to have the Orange Box article itself there.  I'm not sure how well it would fly at the FTC; I'd have a feeling they'd be looking for a HL2 or overall HL featured topic, given that Orange Box is basically the equivalent of a FT save for being a released package, but it can't hurt to try once Ep2 is to GA. --MASEM 13:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Will HL2 go through an FA review in the process of FTC? *bites nails*
Seems like you didn't need me for TF2, Sabre! I just have one more essay and an exam and then I'll be around to provide more substantial help on this. clicketyclickyaketyyak 14:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with the idea. We should work hard on those other articles, especially if The Orange Box gets promoted to FA. Cheers. ~ UBeR (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Episode Two just passed GA. clicketyclickyaketyyak 14:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest you let this article pass FAC before going to FTC. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 14:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that's very sensible. But how long is this process supposed to take?! Can I canvass? Am I allowed to canvass? clicketyclickyaketyyak 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I nominated the topic then noticed that this discussion was here. Whoops! In any case, you'd like to canvass for what? You guys are also free to help out at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Half-Life 2: Episode One. Gary King (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
For people to check out the article and give their support/oppose on The Orange Box FAC. I think the only reason it hasn't passed yet is because it needs more votes. Does it normally take this long? *taps foot* EDIT: I'll come help you with commentson Epi1 just after I finish expanding Boom Blox because I planned on doing that today, which should only take a little while. clicketyclickyaketyyak 16:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As I was reading over the article, I noticed that the passage talking about the censored German version of the game that I remembered was no longer there. I looked back through the history and found the change, which was done because "no better source could be found," and admittedly, the source we had in there was a little... well not very official. But any old google search will show you that German players have been clamouring for hacks to fix this, and that these hacks have been created for them, so it really isn't a hoax.
With help, I tracked down two sources which I feel are acceptable. They are from German websites dedicated to tracking and recording the censorship that video games receive in Germany editions, since Germany has a robust history of censoring video games. Even if you can't read German, the volume of screenshot documentation will adequately convey exactly what it's saying to you and makes the source more trustworthy. Additionally, the detailed source is noteworthy enough to have a page on German Wikipedia: Schnittberichte.com — if you're wondering what's going on on the talk page, the first section is about avoiding POV by discussion first on the talk page and the reply thanks the poster and states that they do not see any more POV in the article. The second section is a challenge, asserting that the article is advertising and has no value. The response that ended that discussion was that the complainant's edits were reverted because they were advertising and his retaliatory allegations made in revenge are not needed because the article is very relevant. 
And just because a source is not in English does not mean it cannot be used in English-language articles as there is a reference format to account for non-English language sources.
Team Fortress 2—detail (source 1)
Team Fortress 2—summary (source 2)
Half-Life 2: Episode 2—detail (source 1)
I have the full translations of the Team Fortress 2 articles thanks to German speakers I know. The Epi2 article basically confirms what was previously removed from The Orange Box article about fading bodies and red blood being coloured grey, and this was done to all the Half-Life games included. So with your approval, I will reinsert and rewrite the section on censorship. clicketyclickyaketyyak 22:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I think there's some field somewhere in the reference template that denotes if its in a foreign language. If not, just throw in "(in German)" between the end of the reference template and the end of the reference code. Ie: |accessdate=2008-05-08}} (in German)</ref> -- Sabre (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I dug around for sources myself for it but couldn't get anywhere with it. If you've got a reliable source that will stand up to scrutiny feel free to re-add the content Gazimoff WriteRead 12:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 Done clicketyclickyaketyyak 15:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the Portal screenshot has been listed for deletion. You may wish to follow the discussion here. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the image has been relisted here. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 03:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Most software pages on Wikipedia have license in the infobox . Is this not common for gaming software? Or is this something that would be okay to add to the infobox? I do not see mention of any license on the entire page, save a link to the generic Wikipedia eula page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.69.173 (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC) 

The license is assumed to be proprietary. If not, you could assume the same license as the game engine. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I found that the PSM3 Review needed a citation. I went ahead and looked up the review on their website, and found it here. I'd edit the article, but I'm a newbie when it comes to editing articles (it took me a while to try and make that link), so I was just wondering if someone could put in the citation. (rct2guy (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

Team Fortress 2 and Half-Life 2: Episode Two lists both retail (Orange Box) and Steam dates as October 10, The Orange Box lists retail as October 10 and Steam October 9 and finally Portal has both dates as October 9. I guess some of those dates are incorrect. --Mika1h (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I found this: Play Magazine review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

 Attention, all contributors to the Valve Task Force and the articles it constitutes!
I am here to announce that I will be re-vitalizing the Valve Task Force, aimed at universally improving articles constituting Valve Corporation, their employees, associates and products. This specific task force has been dormant for quite some time and with two very notable releases coming out this year, I feel like this is the appropriate time to re-stimulate the general aim of this group. For those who are not already members of the Valve Task Force, feel free to add your name to our members list and contribute to whatever articles you feel your contributions may prove beneficial for. Valve, its products and notable employees have proven to be essential to the progression of the video game industry, so I'd like to make a call of arms for this cause. DarthBotto talk•cont 22:11, 08 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Orange Box. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071018040247/http://www.gamespot.com:80/xbox360/action/halflife2episode2/review.html?mode=gsreview to http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/halflife2episode2/review.html?mode=gsreview
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080423033626/http://www.oxmonline.com:80/article/features/mag/oxm-2007-game-year-awards?page=0%2C0 to http://www.oxmonline.com/article/features/mag/oxm-2007-game-year-awards?page=0%2C0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Orange Box. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110609091850/http://www.gameinformer.com/NR/exeres/E7D23547-2154-494E-8F0E-CB166B0C3562.htm?CS_pid=646931 to http://www.gameinformer.com/NR/exeres/E7D23547-2154-494E-8F0E-CB166B0C3562.htm?CS_pid=646931
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110609091926/http://www.gameinformer.com/NR/exeres/CC5D6661-7A87-4DF4-831C-1D37F4374975.htm?CS_pid=270019 to http://www.gameinformer.com/NR/exeres/CC5D6661-7A87-4DF4-831C-1D37F4374975.htm?CS_pid=270019
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on The Orange Box. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011063436/http://computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=173003 to http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=173003
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.steampowered.com/activateATI/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/halflife2episode2/review.html?
Corrected formatting/usage for http://orange.half-life2.com/Awards.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112010508/http://bestof.ign.com/2007/overall/21.html to http://bestof.ign.com/2007/overall/21.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205011724/http://www.gamespot.com/best-of/specialachievement/index.html?page=16 to http://www.gamespot.com/best-of/specialachievement/index.html?page=16
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226012417/http://bestof.ign.com/2007/xbox360/13.html to http://bestof.ign.com/2007/xbox360/13.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131117080859/http://bestof.ign.com/2007/pc/12.html to http://bestof.ign.com/2007/pc/12.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029200206/http://goty.gamespy.com/2007/special/29.html to http://goty.gamespy.com/2007/special/29.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080108065839/http://goty.gamespy.com/2007/multiplayer/11.html to http://goty.gamespy.com/2007/multiplayer/11.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Orange Box. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/halflife2episode2/review.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218015322/http://kotaku.com/gaming/awards/spike-tv-video-game-awards-winners-losers-and-boozers-331592.php to http://kotaku.com/gaming/awards/spike-tv-video-game-awards-winners-losers-and-boozers-331592.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Orange Box. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416034103/http://www.bafta.org/awards/video-games/video-game-awards-nominations,99,BA.html to http://www.bafta.org/awards/video-games/video-game-awards-nominations,99,BA.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The lead reads

The Windows and Xbox 360 versions were produced and published by Valve Corporation and released on October 10, 2007, as a boxed retail copy. A Windows-only download through Valve's Steam service was released the previous day.
however, the infobox says that both versions released on Oct 10. Which one is correct? I'd also like to add that the release is not covered in the body and thus completely unsourced, which shouldn't be the case with a GA. Lordtobi (✉) 20:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that "earlier day" came from some people west of the Eastern Time Zone where the game unlocked the previous night. Steam says it was the 10th, so we should stay with the 10th. --Masem (t) 20:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Even Easties like me saw the Oct 10 release date on Steam[1] while the compilation was actually announced for the day prior.[2] So was it the retail version that released early? Lordtobi (✉) 20:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
It appears the game was delayed by a day.[3] So yeah, the lead is definetly incorrect. Lordtobi (✉) 20:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I was going to add that given that the IGN article claimed the PS3 version would also be out the same day, when it was pushed back a lot, I'd go with everything being released on Oct 10th. --Masem (t) 20:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know the release date of The Orange Box for MacOS. On the article currently it states May 2010 with this ref [4] but the article only lists Half-Life 2 as being released not The Orange Box package/compilation itself. It may be worth noting that the List of Valve games article does not list macOS as a platform. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)