Talk:SourceForts

message: I added citation for the release date (which was actually a day later than written) and up all other uncited information as best I could. If there's anything else you guys arn't sure about, stick a  on it and I'll try my best to clear it up. --Khuskan 18:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: It must be noted that the 2.0 format is jlf's format. 
Guys, I'm really trying to keep this article as non-bias as possible. I know that there are two sides of looking at the whole NF/SF fight, and that it is hard to find any middle ground. But please don't just say "jlf was a jerk, nick is right, here's why" or vice versa. Anything that there is disagreement about should be labeled as "controversial", because it is, and this allows you to then describe both side's view of the matter.
Finnegar 
----
Acutally, Knifa is a personal friend of mine! --Saint-Paddy 10:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old stuff 

message: Why are we up for deletion? You seem to be going around putting all HL2 mods on your list, is there something wrong with a mod article?
:I like this mod , but i hate it's community, especially since they've put the global ban list that PERMANENTLY rejects your steam id and prevents you from being accepted into the most played server. I'm on that list , and if this article is being removed from wikipedia, i couldn't care less anymore since i hate what it's community does to their players. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.186.67 (talk • contribs) .
::--The vote for deletion has already taken place (several months ago, I posted the above comment in January), with the majority choosing to keep the article. I'm afraid I don't know anything about any global ban list, is there some way to request removal, on the forums perhaps? Either way, choosing to delete an article because of a disagreement over their punishment methods doesn't seem like a fair idea. Finnegar 21:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you look at the record of this deletion suggestion, it was marked no consensus. I however completely agree that this "thread", for lack of a better word, is silly :) -- Sirius81 16:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? 

message: I've tagged large sections of the article with "unreferenced" or "fact" tags. Don't see it as an attack, this page just needs to be way more encyclopedic. The both history sections reek of WP:OR, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt by tagging instead of deleting. I've also removed a part that gives advice to new players to read up on something (can't remember what exactly) and points to the SourceForts forums. Please remember WP:NOT, among other things, it is not a game guide and not a newssite. -- Sirius81 17:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some minor changes so far, I'm going to try to be bold and clean this page up a whole lot more. The history section, regardless of it being unreferenced, is way overdone, it is longer than, for example, Counter-Strike's history. Some information regarding milestone releases might be interesting, but that is about it, perhaps some info regarding the whole NeoForts issue if I can find a source for that. -- Sirius81 14:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted a lost of the unnecessary bits in the history section.  This should clear that issue up.  I understand the need for citations, but a lot of the information regarding the NeoFort's issue is first-hand and not much exists on it besides a few IRC chat logs. --Stieffers 18:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted almost the entire version history and summarized it in an infobox in the history section on top. I did it while you made your edits and this was my first edit conflict, I think I merged our changed, but please verify ;) -- Sirius81 18:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Completely rewritten history section, with references this time, it is only a few lines now, but that is all that could be verified (so far). -- Sirius81 22:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your History changes.  The NeoForts conflict was a very large scale event, and I've often used this page as a reference for people who have not heard about it, or do not fully understand it.  --Stieffers 00:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, do you have a link discussing the whole NeoForts issue? I've spend some time looking for sources; interviews and reviews and such, there aren't much. The ones I did find I used as references and should be in the references section. What I am worried about, and made me start this whole topic, was that the history section seemed to be Original Research, someone who wrote an analysis from what he personally remembered, and, as that link explains, it does not belong here. -- Sirius81 03:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I want to note that I'm trying to make a proper article of this, I'm not mindlessly tearing it down ;) In fact, I want to show all those request for deletion guys wrong about having articles about mods :) -- Sirius81 16:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and cleanup 

message: I've expanded the gameplay section somewhat, I found it odd there was barely a description of gameplay at all, which is the most important thing for a mod, especially this one that used essentially all HL2DM art. The prose is still quite ugly and it contains a list of classes, I'll try to improve that some more. English is not my native language though, so bear with me :) -- Sirius81 | Talk 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gameplay section 

message: I've rewritten large parts of the article, linked lots of things etc. ANY OTHER MAJOR CHANGES OR REVERTS OF MY MATERIAL SHOULD BE DISCUSSED HERE FIRST. Please do not randomly dissect the article without prior discussion - I am hoping to raise this to featured status. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewrite 

message: Any screenshots of SourceForts on this article are no longer , now as per this forum post in this thread by Taylor Stieff, head developer, they qualify as GFDL 1.2 or later. All screenshots of SourceForts should therefore be tagged and licensed as below:
=== Licensing ===

Released by GFDL license readable at this page.
A copy of the email conversation that prompted the thread has been sent to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, and is available on request. Thanks. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 20:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing of SourceForts screenshots 

message: I'm not familiar enough to tell you what is or isn't most important, but this article has too much about dev team resignations etc. that simply isn't useful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.110.134 (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive Politics 

message: I removed the list of maps and classes in the mod. They don't contribute to the article and only serve to make this article seem like a game guide.Eik Corell (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content removal 

message: Wow. The original team certainly didn't leave the project in very good hands. 3 years of bickering and the end result is absolutely nothing. 88.14.36.64 (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domain expired 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on SourceForts. 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/20110711071737/http://planethalflife.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Reviews.Detail&id=13 to http://planethalflife.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Reviews.Detail&id=13
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Okay, let's talk about every new update to the page like what I've read about on how it should be. I want to make this page 100% factual. The links in dispute have been added to all official channels that have been considered valid. The Moddb has links to all issues discussed in the edit history. 
If you have not played this free game, play it before editing information that is common knowledge to a day 0 player. This game is a Capture the Flag game. There is 2 teams, red and blue, both have flags. The only image on this site even shows the flag.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick12506 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't include version histories and change logs. You should take a moment to read our policy on verification, the manual of style for video games (in particular, WP:VGSCOPE), and the guideline on reliable sources. Our personal experience playing a game is not good enough for adding things to Wikipedia, as that would be original research.-- ferret (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This game is a decade old, all the articles about this game are long gone. What do you suggest we do about this sort of situation  ferret? The current article doesn't have the version updates. I also should point out version updates for this game were more in line with new game releases given the drastic differences.  We can both agree that this is a Capture the Flag game, the last editor tried to remove this. This talk page will get used more because of the miscommunication. Thank you for your time.  Nick12506 (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:NOTCHANGELOG This is a core policy of Wikipedia. We're not a change log. -- ferret (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2019 Updates 

message: ferret, I believe your edit of the external links was misinformed.
These are the links that I believe should be on the site.  I've skimmed the rules regarding external links and with such a case as this in when every other form of article on an subject is lost to time, the only links that can be provided should be. The wiki speaks of exceptions for certain situation and I believe these links fall under such exceptions. 
*Homepage of SourceForts
*SourceForts at Mod DB
*SourceForts at Discord
Please discuss this.  Nick12506 (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ELNO, in particular #10. We don't link to social media sites or other sites that the main primary webpage of the topic also links to. There is no reason to make an exception.-- ferret (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Not strictly on the subject of external links, but sources -- A user contacted me on my talk page. He claimed to have an archive of 30+ sources. I thought I had responded to him, but figure I may as well bring it here now. He said that they weren't archived by the Internet Wayback Machine, but I bet archive.is must have at least some of them. If at least some of these are both archived and reliable, they could be used to bolster the existing info present. Eik Corell (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's this same editor, Nick12506. He wasn't signing posts. Either way, no, these external links don't belong. To be fair, if the sources don't materialize, this may need to go to AFD anyway. It's been tagged for notability for a long time. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, I was heavily involved in the Source mod scene back in the days and even hosted a SourceForts server, so don't lecture me about not knowing anything. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory, and "I'm a fan of this!" is not a reason for it to have an article. If appropriate sourcing can be found, everything will be fine, but there's a burden on you to help provide those sources. We do not need any archives of the mod itself, that has no value to Wikipedia or as a source. -- ferret (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

text: I stopped developing Source related mods almost a decade ago when I finally shutdown my CSS server and no longer had a reason to work on SourceMod anymore. I still get PM'd almost monthly by users of AlliedModders asking about old plugins. I think I still have the source code to ManiMod and a few others, but I don't have anything for SourceForts anymore. Wikipedia doesn't HAVE to include SourceForts. SourceForts has to meet WP:GNG. The burden to find sources falls on the editor who wants to add content. It might be best that you start proposing specific changes you want and provide a source to back them up. If there's no sourcing though, we can't add anything. -- ferret (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't in line with established practices. You don't remove a article for having dead sources, you label the sources as dead and request new sources. 174.203.228.193 (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is from 5 years ago, but no, WP:ELNO is still established practice. -- ferret (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_the_flag#Software_and_games
Multiple games that fall under the genre Capture the Flag. 
Last sentence even reiterates that it's a genre.
Nick12506 (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  CTF genre 

message: Video Source of game, production of Half Life Fanboy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml_p_WXmcDc 
SourceForts was one of the original games to be initially added to Steam not produced by Valve on August 4, 2006, here is the link to the Steam trailer that was included on the page. https://steamdb.info/app/928/
SourceForts Interview https://web.archive.org/web/20061109103544/http://dx.ampednews.com/?page=articles&id=9830
German Review: https://web.archive.org/web/20070216044136/http://www.giga.de/tv/gigagamesmaxx/00133546_capture_the_flag_die_siedler/
Planethalflife Review: Source Forts : https://web.archive.org/web/20110711071737/http://planethalflife.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Reviews.Detail&id=13
Partial Interview from defunct invert-on.com  https://n4g.com/news/1132522/interview-sourceforts-2-invert-on
I work for a living, m-s 9-5
I'll get more sources later.
Nick12506 (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The youtube video is not a reliable source. The steamdb.info (and any steam directory based sites) are not reliable. The Ampednews article is already in the article. The Giga.de article is already in the article. N4G itself is unreliable, but invert-on.com itself might be ok with an archive (Can't evaluate it with it offline). So one possible new source, if we can find an archive. -- ferret (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

text: It's not particularly notable as an award but could be mentioned. -- ferret (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Sources 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot
Someone's going to need to go through the past edits and add them back in since a few of the change log has edit details saying the information was removed because of dead links. While protocol says to leave them up and to throw up an label on it instead. 
Example is on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SourceForts&diff=400276806&oldid=395303190, it has around 30 sources. 
Nick12506 (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Those 30 links are almost entirely unreliable sources or primary and that was probably why they were ultimately removed. -- ferret (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links being removed instead of being [dead link] 

message: I struggle to understand what harm this article had been doing for the last 15 years that warrants removing content from an encyclopaedia. It's clearly not original research, and included several references to secondary sources that establish notability in the article - with more out there if anyone bothered to look. How is Wikipedia enriched by not having this in it? —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 19:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete and redirect 

message: Thanks guys, breaking a decade old wikipedia page, super classy, can someone upload the lateat logo? Its inckuded in the latest release of the gameNick12506 (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A deletion discussion was done per Wikipedia policies. If you edit this topic again as a COI editor, I'll go ahead and block you. -- ferret (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I reviewed your discussion and it looks like you broke policy Ferret. Ferret, you seem angry. 174.203.228.193 (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you replied to 4-5 year old talk sections? Zero anger involved, just being direct. -- ferret (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yall broke the logo with this fighting