Talk:Half-Life 3

message: Why won't they make a Half-Life 3?
They should make Half-Life into a trilogy....who is with me?
Half-Life 3 should not redirect to Episode 1. The episodes are expansions upon Half-Life 2's plot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.124.187 (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: is a half life 3 page realy nessisary considering we have no info abut the game other than that it will eventualy be made. Chardrc (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why won't

message: Reverted the page to the redirect for Episode 1.  Lombardi has stated that the episodes essentially are Half-Life 3, albeit broken up into parts.  We don't even know that the title that will continue the Half-Life series is called Half-Life 3 yet; it could be the sequel to Opposing Force for all we know.
Fedallah (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that, but no one except Valve knows what that continuation will be called.  Filing it under "Half-Life 3" is total speculation, which runs counter to Wikipedia guidelines.  The page for Episode 2 states that the episodes will not be the end of the franchise, which is good enough for me.  Fedallah (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted to redirect

message: Moved from draft talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The WT:VG discussion came out divided and I also wanted input from editors not part of WP:VG. If you notice I haven't voted because I don't know either way. If I had strong feelings for creating the article I'd have gone ahead and done it by now. Sam Walton (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: # For all intents and purposes, Half-Life 3 is vaporware, but its extensive coverage in third-party sources makes it rather notable vaporware, worthy of its own article and one that can easily grow if/when it is ever released.  --McDoobAU93 13:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Standalone article

message: # The available (reliable) information is short enough that it would fit within the series article. If this one is mainspaced, it will collect more cruft and rumors by well-intentioned visitors looking to "fill it out" than it would by sitting at the series article.  czar ♔ 14:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Series article

message: Why is there an RFC for this? Plenty of feedback has already been given at WT:VG. Looks like a possible WP:FORUMSHOP.--Vaypertrail (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The WT:VG discussion came out divided and I also wanted input from editors not part of WP:VG. If you notice I haven't voted because I don't know either way. If I had strong feelings for creating the article I'd have gone ahead and done it by now. Sam Walton (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: If by some miracle Half-Life 3 ever comes out there's a draft at Draft:Half-Life 3 which would make a good starting point, I'm happy for it to be moved straight over if the game is announced. Sam Walton (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft 

message: The R does have potential to be an article on the meme of "Half-Life 3 confirmed". --86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meme article 

message: This article seems to be built up on the premise that Half-life 2: Episode 3, and Half-Life 3, are the same thing. This is the first time I've ever heard of the two being considered "the same." There's been times that Valve has commented that Episode 3 might not happen and they might move straight to Half-Life 3. Distinct topics. As far as I can tell, nothing has changed since this article was last redirected. -- ferret (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading about it in the main series article, and what is written here, I agree.  This is about Half-Life 2: Episode Three, and should be renamed that.  Dream Focus 00:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I moved the article because there were arguments for and against it, and I decided to be bold. As for whether Half-Life 3 and Episode 3 are the same thing, I'm not actually sure, and I can see your point. Sources seem to use the two titles interchangably, and I think this article could cover generally the concept of the next Half-Life game with some better wording. Sam Walton (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that Half-life 2: Episode 3 was essentially an announced product that never happened. Half-Life 3 has never been announced, but a rumor/meme. Again, I believe this should move back to Draft space and the original redirects restored. The simple fact is, nothing has changed. -- ferret (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It gets significant coverage in reliable sources so it should have an article.  Dream Focus 00:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not always. WP:N specifically says that just because a topic has significant coverage, a standalone article is not required. In this case, much of the information on HL3 or HL2Ep3 is one and the same, we don't know what it will be when it comes out, and all this is duplicating the information already in the series page. Once something affirmed is announced, then that changes the picture, but we should not be writing an article on something with this much speculation on what it will actually be. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

text: And I reverted you.  You want to eliminate an article, then take it to AFD, don't edit war it gone.  Dream Focus 17:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there was a redirect here prior to my move (I deleted it to make way for the move), this reverting to redirect is fine. BRD in action. Sam Walton (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

text: There is no consensus to do that.  The article exist, and if you don't want it to, you can take it to AFD through proper procedures.  Not sure why you are so determined to delete a perfectly valid article.  Dream Focus 15:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you're so determined to ignore every other editor who has replied to this section. Moving it back to draft would not delete the content or the revision history, making it the appropriate BRD response to the BOLD move from Draft. -- ferret (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Two people wanted the article, me and the guy who moved it here, and three are against it.  Arguments on both sides were split in previous discussions.  And you keep mentioning the WP:BRD essay as though it has some sort of relevance here.  That involves editing articles, not creating them be it from scratch or from moving something from draft space.  Dream Focus 17:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree with article leaving draft space.