Talk:List of Battlefield 1942 mods

message: I believe that this article would be unencyclopedic here, but would be better in a "book-type" format at Wikibooks, like other crufty lists.--Zxcvbnm 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Wikibooks? 

message: I fail to see how it is not encyclopedic. Adding details on the mods would be nice. Simply because it is not something many people care about does not mean that it does not belong in an encyclopedia. It is factual and accurate information, and Wikipedia is intended to be a source of such. Icarus999 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is it non-encyclopedic? 

message: i have noticed lately that much mod related material has been proposed for deletion.Many of these mods have a website run directly by the modders so theres viable source on much information so why is so much mod related material either deleted or proposed for deletion.this annoys me in a way which i cant express without getting in trouble here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.212.175 (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mod articles are usually not encyclopedic, as the editors just add the name and link to the mod site. Thus, a valid mod article becomes a hyperlink farm, which is against our policies. As for verifiable information, note that third party references are better than home pages, because a third party is usually neutral, while the home page of a mod usually says it is the "best mod ever". -- ReyBrujo 04:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mod related material being proposed for deletion? 

message: The list on this page could certainly use a little whittling-down;  I propose the subject of the page be changed to "List of major BF1942 mods", and that only mods for which a dedicated server can be found at any given time be listed.  The collumns of the table should include a name, a breif description, the latest version released and an "online popularity" column which displays the popularity of the mod based on how many of the internet dedicated servers, averaged over a period of time, have the mod listed under "Active Mods".  A second list could include any mods which have any particular novelty value, and a third (not nesesarry as far as I'm concerned) may list the remaining mods (excluding those which the developer conceeds are "dead").
66.79.240.162 00:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think inclusion criteria for the mods should come down to the same two factors that affect everything on wiki Verfiability and Notability. If a mod is/was notable to receive the oh-so important multiple non-trivial independant third-party media coverage, and sources to these can be provided, then they can live on the list. Any reasonable objections? According to all the AfDs, you can't move round the net without constantly finding independent coverage about most of these mods (even if the sources never seem to turn up......) so it shouldn't be too hard, right? The Kinslayer 12:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps the subject of the page should be adjusted 

message: I suggest moving this article to "List of notable Battlefield 1942 mods". It is obvious that, while the people working at Half-Life have much less problems with spam, this article will stay the way it used to be before the AFD if we allowed it to. If notable means any mod that had been featured in important media, we would be able to remove 99% of them. -- ReyBrujo 05:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is POV pushing on your part. Mathmo Talk 05:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. I am pushing Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research to the maximun. Anything wrong with that? -- ReyBrujo 05:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable only 

message: Could someone with knowledge of the ref tag thing please change all the links to sources and use the ref tag for them, instead of using the Wiki external link style. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Havok (talk • contribs) 08:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: Although this article contains referenced articles, it's a pretty small list. So, what I propose is to merge all the individual mod articles into here (in the process deleting any unencyclopedic lists) and do the same for the stub List of Battlefield 2 mods. Then, :Category:Battlefield 2 modifications and :Category:Battlefield 1942 mods will be deleted. That way, both lists will be expanded, any mod articles of questionable notability will be merged, this list will serve as the main mod list, and everyone is happy.--Zxcvbnm 21:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody has any problems with it, I'll start merging.--Zxcvbnm 00:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a problem with both those ideas. Those lists would be better off merged to their respective articles (e.g. BF2 mods to the BF 2 article) not here, and the specific mods would clutter up this page. Bfelite 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point of this article is to keep the mods away from the main article. They would take up too much space if merged into the main article, and would be regarded as unnecessary. Plus, the specific mods need to be trimmed to take out any extra, "promotional" material.--Zxcvbnm 00:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't mean merging this one to the 1942 page, but rather not merging anything to this page. For example, if the BF2 mods list is not big enough for article, it should be moved to the Battlefield 2 page, not here. Bfelite 00:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the BF2 mods list is unfinished, since there are a lot of other mods for Battlefield 2 than in the article. But there are only a few mods that have their own pages, so merging them might be easier to keep their content in check.--Zxcvbnm 01:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think its a good idea to merge BF2 stuff or mod articles here, if thats what you mean. Bfelite 01:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say I was merging BF2 articles to this page, just the Battlefield 2 mods to their list page and the Battlefield 1942 mods to this page. Anyway, if you can clean up the individual mod articles, maybe they don't need to be merged.--Zxcvbnm 02:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, I don't think those merges would be appropriate. Bfelite 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying, but just look at some of these mod pages. For example, FinnWars is just a list of weapons and general info about the mod. This could easily fit into a list. The mod should rely on external links for that kind of stuff, since if it becomes defunct, what's the point of keeping a list of weapons anyway?--Zxcvbnm 03:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging mods 

message: The image :Image:Weponslayoutwz0.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Weponslayoutwz0.png

message: This article used to be an exhaustive list which went on for pages!  Why has it been shortened so much?  What's the point of a list page when some arbitrary person just decides which items are "notable" enough to keep!?  I think it should be repopulated and restored to its formal pointfulness again. 199.212.11.176 (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More exhaustive