Template talk:Half-Life series

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I must've misread an article along the way somewhere. My fault. --Charron 02:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  TF2 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Odessa Cubbage 

message: 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)
thread_title: Adding the ''Decay'' characters

message: 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)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong with that. Thunderbrand 23:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I dunno. If you want to you can remove it, I have no objections. Thunderbrand 17:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Now that we know Episodes One through Three are supposed to represent Half-Life 3 , this should probably be revised, right? MarphyBlack 06:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Grouping Episodes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Other Companies 

message: 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)
thread_title: The High Definition Pack

message: 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)
replies: text: Nope, it's a remake of CS 1.x. Take a look at some screens. --Tom Edwards 11:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: CS:Neo

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. They are not part of the official storyline. Both of them are cut from the official storylines. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 11:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uplink and Lost Coast

message: 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)
replies: text: Can you provide a source that states it's a "jokey crossover"? TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 16:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The games themselves, perhaps? The only references made in Portal to the Half-life universe are jokes. For example, projector slides showing Aperture Science's performance records vs. Black Mesa's, the joke being that the graphs show BM's results/funding allocation/whatever as being hundreds of times greater than Aperture's. The only references in Half-life 2 to Portal's universe, so far, are to supposedly dangerous technologies developed by Aperture which will probably play more prominently in Episode 3. Whatever these technologies are, they are not shown to have or hinted at having anything to do with Portal's story. Furthermore, the tones of Portal and Half-life are so starkly different that it would be extremely odd for Portal to be considered part of Half-Life canon. The situation is perfectly described as a parodic crossover (subsection of Fictional crossover).134.131.125.49 (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're forgetting the Aperture Science shipping vessel mentioned in Half-Life 2: Episode Two. The joke on projector was showing what AS wanted compared to what they actually received against Black Mesa. And the section in the navbox is not necessarily regarding canon, but how the games can be grouped together, and the information provided in the games shows a connection between them. Whether it's canon, spin-off, side-story, or etc. has not been specified and is up to speculation. This was also discussed a while back on the other Valve navbox: Template_talk:Valve_games#Portal. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 18:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the AS shipping vessel when I mentioned their technologies. I agree with you that it's possible (though unlikely, I'd wager) that the Portal plot will feature much more prominently in Episode Three; however, since there is currently no substantial narrative connection between the two, I would say it is more prudent to treat Portal as a side-story/parodic crossover, at least for now. The real question here is not whether or not Portal should be in the main series box, but rather, does it fit better in that box or in the Other Games box.  134.131.125.49 (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that ignoring the cross-referencing between the games based on assuming they are meant to only be jokes is speculation, especially without a source. The cross-referencing does exist. However, I see no harm in having a Portal series section under the Main series section in the navbox. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 18:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But assuming a substantial link will be revealed in the future is even more speculative than the wait-and-see stance. Maybe a Portal Series section is the best compromise. Good idea.134.131.125.49 (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You are correct, it does not belong. 134.131.125.49 (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left 4 Dead 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have removed the 3 three links:Attack on NLO | Lighthouse Defensive | Siege 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cutting down/Splitting up this template 

message: The template was broken, using Firefox 2 with plugins disabled, on at least two pages:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Half-Life_series
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Half-Life_2_mods
A mate has confirmed it was broken for him, too.
Thus the revert.
--Pizzahut2 23:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last revert I did. 

message: "Key locations" and "Key events" should be merged back into one again as Raid on Black Mesa East was recently deleted, leaving Black Mesa Incident and Seven Hour War the only two working links under Key events (I still believe that the Black Mesa Incident article should simply redirect to Black Mesa Research Facility, but I digress). However, the template has been locked because HL2 is going to be featured on the main page soon, so I can't make the edit myself. The dead link looks ugly. :( MarphyBlack 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template needs to be updated

message: As expected, A Man in Pink or the likes showed up to cut down the box. Given no one has actually commented on any further splits of the navbox, I'm assuming there is no objection to this and will just go ahead creating new sub-navboxes for specilized topics. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 13:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possible suggestion: JavaScript to make the clicked sub-nav appear within the parent template, instead of sending people to a new page. That's without a doubt what I'd do on a private site. --Tom Edwards 18:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. The VG navbox guideline never specified anything about boxes pertaining other elements of the series, so it's safe territory. But I have reservations doing this in the parent box, Pink Man recommendation suggests that specific links should be minimized in the box, even hiding the sub-boxes in it would still create a rather cluttered design. But it may be a good idea to merge all of the boxes on the game's characters, concept and places into Template:Half-Life topics, separate from the navbox listing the games. A link to Template:Half-Life topics can be provided in Template:Half-Life games. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 05:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navbox reduction 

message: GLaDOS is a enemy but she is not in the enemy's bit?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.53 (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GLaDOS 

message: Why where they even removed? They're still player characters and in a game considered to be canon, so why were they removed? I noticed that their articles were deleted without any good reason as well...  NarooN (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the articles, but they were removed from here because they became redlinks. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They got removed, because some of the users/admins find them not encyclopedic. You can find some of the removed information here:
http://www.halflife2.net/wiki/index.php/Wikipedia_Articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Half-Life_%28series%29/merge --Barnz (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Decay Characters 

message: S@bre removed HL mods with this edit under the notion that they aren't HL games. I beg to differ. The reason these should be included is because they are official mods of Half-Life sanctioned by Valve. That is to say, Valve owns these games. The template header states, "The Half-Life series and related topics." TFC, CS, and DoD should be included. I don't see how it is justifiable to leave Codename: Gordon but not those three games. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This template is commonly used alongside , which contains most of the same games. To have them listed on both, when they are in reality nowadays very disconnected from the Half-Life series and are independent products in their own right is not very efficient. Having them on this template is like putting Warcraft on the  template. Codename Gordon by contrast is a clear spin-off in the Half-Life series, and relates to the promotion and marketing for HL2. TFC, DoD and CS are not, they merely started as mods on the engine before becoming full products independent of the Half-Life series, so they are far better placed on  alone than here. -- Sabre (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I can see how they should belong on the Valve template. However, Codename Gordon is just as much a mod as the other three games. ~ UBeR (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: But Codename Gordon can clearly be associated to Half-Life in ways that the others can't: its essentially a non-canon marketing product for HL2 (dare I say "gimmick"?), and it has Freeman as the main character, planting it squarely in the realm of the Half-Life series. Its not really a mod anyway, it runs off of Flash Player. CS, TFC, DoD, (Gunman Chronicles,) they merely started life as mods before evolving into standalone products, their connection to the series doesn't extend any further than that. -- Sabre (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HL mods 

message: I know this sounds mad... but is it better just to merge Half-Life template and the Portal template into one template, or maybe link it somehow. TY 203.215.119.229 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal template