Jump to content

Talk:List of Source mods/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Flagged for improper tone

I flagged this article for improper tone because it flagrantly abuses the use of the second person voice. It's really just not appropriate in an encyclopedia article to see sentences like: "... gives the HL2 single player campaign harder challenges, 4 gamemodes to test your skills with, a wide array of weapons, and 5 different player classes to best suit your gaming style." (emphasis mine) --Cyde Weys votetalk 00:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the Physics based part, originally rewriting it but the just lifting the Garry's Mod summary out of the Wikipedia article for it. I think it does the job well. I removed JBMod being that the mod hasn't been updated in, well, years, and is no longer developed or supported by the author. JBMod probably no longer works with the latest updates to Source anyway.

I would like to modify the article further but my background with playing some of these mods is, well, limited... so its difficult. I do see room for improvement on nearly every description, however. Maybe I'll work on things later on. --66.214.156.112 02:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to know anything about the mods to modify the descriptions to be a more formal tone. Please go for it! --Cyde Weys votetalk 03:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with what you're saying. I'm gonna go through right now to make it more encyclopaedic, make NPOV, etc...--Katana314 13:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

POV dispute by A Clown in the Dark: "on several mods this reads like an ad"

Would removing the ModDB awards/rankings help to resolve this? --Pizzahut2 12:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they're complaining about the ModDB awards, I think they're complaining about how some of the write-ups for the mods is not neutral. Many of the entries are being written by the mod maintainers, after all, and may contain such content as, "This is going to have all new totally innovative features." ModDB awards are actually NPOV ... it's not the Wikipedia editors deciding which mods are good and which aren't, it's an outside, verifiable, citable source. --Cyde Weys 12:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop in and say I'm glad the article was kept. Sad that I missed on voting Keep. ;) Will have to drop in again and maybe edit some things up. I like the ModDB idea. --Brad R. 14:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that all of the disputed points where the mod was glorified was basically quoted from the dev team itself. It's pretty impossible to keep this 100% neutural and still give sufficient information. For example, saying that a mod is full of suspense and terror may be interpreted as breaking NPOV but to leave that out will leave you with a poor idea of what the mod is about. This page definitely does need some cleaning up and updating though.--Louis L. 14:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Turning into an advert page?

It looks like more and more people are putting up their mods here, and most sound very un-Wikipedia, and more like adverts. Someone change? Oh, and Jurassic Rage moved to UT2004 because the team had problems with SDK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.166.11 (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC).

I usually edit the released mods for tone. If no one is willing to spend time on editing the descriptions of the unreleased mods, maybe these should be removed from the list? --Pizzahut2 18:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think the unreleased mods should be removed, simply because it is unencyclopedic. It's like having a list of half-written novels. Marasmusine 08:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There, that's done. Perhaps the original contributors would like to add the mods onto this list once they are released (although I suspect this move will just be reverted :> ) Marasmusine 08:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's too bad the unreleased mods had to be removed. More and more it's becoming difficult to find a definitive source of information for mods. I'm sure the info is out there on some sites but it's more a mess and difficult to get an overview. I preferred the list here as it just lists exactly what I want to know concerning the released and unreleased mods so I didn't have to search all over the place for info.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Antifan (talk • contribs) 18:00, 23 October 2006

Try the Mod DB, its search function is very flexible.

It's listing 925 unreleased Half-Life 2 mods in total. --Pizzahut2 10:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The VDC may also help, the mods in alpha and beta are usually HL2 mods (not HL1).

--Pizzahut2 01:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability

In the AfD it was suggested to have only notable mods in the list. I've put a note into the article to address this:

Notable mods are either "blue linked" (have their own article without getting it deleted in an AfD discussion) or can provide a proof of notability (awards, winning a competition/contest like the Independent Games Festival and/or making an appearance in Mod DB's "Mod Of The Year" feature).

--Pizzahut2 13:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that notability standard. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Add the mod-in-progresses back.

It isn't like a half-finished book, it's more like a game in development. The velociraptor 13:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

For reference, here is the last revision which includes the unreleased mods. --Pizzahut2 19:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of lists

This might be good to know when editing the article: Wikipedia:List guideline#Purpose of lists --Pizzahut2 19:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unreleased mods

From the (closed) AfD discussion: "Also, to the idea that a non-released mod is, by definition, non-notable, ah...hogwash. I'd to like to hear the argument that the Black Mesa mod is non-notable; that project has Valve's direct blessing, for one thing."

Generally I tend to agree that unreleased mods are non-notable, on Wikipedia at least.
Black Mesa is an exception, perhaps it should be added to the list. --Pizzahut2 22:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Black Mesa Section

The Black Mesa section is incorrect. They were not "disappointed" with VALVe's Half Life: Source, because they understood that HL:S was just to show how easy it would be to port a game over. And why are they considered "blessed"? Who considers them blessed? That is poor phrasing.

This section needs a lot of work. Besides which, if I am not mistaken, wasn't the Unreleased Mods section removed as a whole? As a matter of fact, I'm removing Black Mesa. If anyone disagrees, feel free to replace it. -El Carnemago

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.242.17.74 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus was that notable unreleased mods would be included, and that Black Mesa was notable. FYI, the term "blessed" in this context is colloquial English useage; it means that an entity (in this case Valve software) has explicitly approved of something (in this case, Black Mesa). Please undo your edit, thanks. Gooshy 00:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Pirates, Vikings, and Knights II

http://www.pvkii.com/

I don't know if this mod is very notable so I'm going to ask if it's OK to put this mod in the article since the beta has been released. Unicyclopedia 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I say go for it. The mod is stable, has a web page, and was actually featured in the steam news. The wikipage for the mod needs some work though.... Polygon 00:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Half Life 2: Capture The Flag

I added this mod to the list today (1/9/06). the mod has had several releases, and is on version 1.7

http://www.hl2ctf.com

Polygon 00:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Many mods removed?

I remember when this list was MUCH longer. Why were the mods removed? (They were not in development, there were completed, non-beta versions released.)--Katana314 23:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Some admins decided the mods weren't notable enough and then never went on to explain what made a mod notable other than having to win mod of the year (being released, played by people, and reviewed favorably by a print magazine was not enough even though Wikipedia guidelines state that being mentioned in print is notability). Krenzo 20:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If we are working like this really insurgency is on the list. Ripperhugmeguy 20:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

MOTY 2006

Here's which Half-Life mods got into Mod DB's MOTY 2006:

Mod of the Year 2006

Honorable Mentions

Mods which came close to victory.

Winners

Most Anticipated Mods of 2006

Honorable Mentions

Winners

Top Mods by Genre

--Pizzahut2 09:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

VERC website

I'm not a mapper / modder, but it seems the VERC website has been replaced with the VDC. So I'd suggest replacing the VERC link at the bottom with a link to the VERC Network Forums: http://www.chatbear.com/board.plm?b=390 --Pizzahut2 23:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A word on copyrights

When creating an article about a mod, you cannot directly copy and paste the description from another website (not even from the official mod website), unless the text on the website is under a license compatible to the one Wikipedia uses (GFDL). There are two options:

  • Write your own text.
  • The copyright owner explicitly grants usage under the GFDL.

--Pizzahut2 14:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Serious Overhaul

I just gave this article a thorough cleaning up in the multiplayer section. I cited every statement of an award, as well as finding others. Perhaps this should be a requirement of notability since several of these mods don't have any award that I could dig up. // 3R1C 02:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

At Talk:List of Half-Life mods#Wikipedia is not a directory the suggestion was made to remove the mods which don't have their own Wikipedia article. I'm thinking the same can be applied to the Half-Life 2 mod list. --Pizzahut2 23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Black Mesa

Black Mesa is multiplayer co-op as well; that's what most of the fuss is over... BlueRaja 04:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Flaw in the system

Who are you to decide which mods are notable and which are not? PS. Not going to learn the wikipedia syntax just to point out an obvious flaw in the system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.210.153 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 12 June 2007

The current idea is that you can add any mod, but it must have an article. If someone thinks the mod isn't notable, he or she can not just delete the mod at will, but has to follow Wikipedia guidelines. E.g. placing a tag for speedy deletion with a reason to be reviewed by an admin. Or with a proposed deletion, which anyone can contest, both of which must have valid reasons. Or by adding an AfD discussion. --Pizzahut2 18:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Categorising multiplayer mods

There's a good number of multiplayer mods, enough to put them into categories. I was thinking along the lines of gameplay types: co-op, CTF, (T)DM, objective(s), other. Or by scenario: sci-fi, war, HL2 themed, zombie, other. Just an idea. :) --Pizzahut2 16:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

By game type:

Capture The Flag
HL2 CTF, SourceForts
Cooperative
OC
Deathmatch
GE:S, PVK2
Objective(s)
BG2, Dystopia, ES, Ins.
Player vs. team
H:S, IG:TO, ZM
Sandbox
GM
Survival
ZP

--Pizzahut2 00:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mod articles at the VDC

While the VDC does have a GFDL compatible license, a lot of mod articles over there are a direct copy&paste from the official website. So often VDC articles cannot be used at Wikipedia (because of copyright/licensing). --Pizzahut2 20:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that having a link to 2005 or to Mod DB in every award is a bit overkill. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Wikilinks. I can hardly see a relevance when linking to a year or day. So my suggestion would be link to relevant articles (e.g. Mod DB) sparingly, and I'm not sure if it makes sense to link to dates at all (within the scope of this article). --Pizzahut2 13:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this being changed?

I for one have used this page in it's previous form many times- I think I speak for many people when I say it was informative and offered all that was neccessary to make a judgement to know what you want to know more about, and it included links to mods. --89.243.96.212 10:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. We should only be listing notable mods here. This is normally asserted by coverage from multiple reliable sources. Marasmusine 10:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Insurgency

I'm thinking this is a fairly notable mod.

Google hits:

--Pizzahut2 (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The coverage looks good. Marasmusine (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember the article was originally deleted because the mod authors used the same description as on their own website and did not resolve the (copyright) issue. But searching through the deletion log just now it appears that the notability is at least questioned. (It did however win the MOTY award (players' choice) in the meantime.) --Pizzahut2 (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

To Do: Empires

I noticed there was is a request for a wiki article on Empires mod. What's to keep it from being deleted again this time? It's been afd'ed before and subsequently removed in the drive to remove all mods in Nov '06. I'm not going to put any effort for the fun of it being deleted by non-notability you know. --L3TUC3 02:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of that has happened since then to make it notable would be the winning of ModDB's award, but all of the printed articles and awards from print media Empires had before it was deleted didn't do anything to sway the opinion that Empires wasn't notable. It would just be deleted again. Krenzo 03:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime it also got the 3rd place at Mod DB's MOTY awards 2007 (Player's Choice). Not sure if that's sufficient to keep it from getting deleted again though. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fighting Mod For HL2

Hey, you guys forgot the only fighting mod for Half Life 2, One Must Fall: Destiny. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.210.27 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just a selection of mods, not a complete list. Mods in here should be notable (in the context of Wikipedia, see WP:N). --Pizzahut2 (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well... it is the only fighting mod you can find on ModDB. Would that not be considered notable? Want Proof? [2]70.177.210.27 (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. The mod requires substantial coverage from (preferably multiple) independent, reliable sources. Alternatively some kind of award from a notable source. Marasmusine (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok, sorry to waste your time, just that I'm a big fan of One Must Fall: 2097, and then I saw Destiny. 70.177.210.27 (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

References

There are quite a few references that are links to external scans of magazine pages. Whilst the images are useful for gathering information for material and citations, they shouldn't be used as the citations themselves. They should be changed to Template:Cite journal, with the links to the scanned images moved to this talk page. Same goes for the individual mod articles too, if they have been used there. Marasmusine (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Add "Counter-Strike: Source" to the list?

One of the game's increasingly popular multiplayer mods, Counter-Strike: Source has not been included. Is there a reason for this? 202.89.172.211 01:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, CS:S isn't a (Half-Life 2) mod. It's a separate game which just happens to use the same engine as Half-Life 2, the Source engine. --Pizzahut2 21:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
And mods are separate games that use the same engine as Half-Life 2, I don't understand what you mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.49.8 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Use our Wp:Verifiability policy. If multiple reliable sources call it a Mod, then we do too. If they don't, we don't. Marasmusine (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The difference between a game and a mod is that a game is standalone - it will work without the need of another game or mod. A mod is a modification of an existing game - it will not work without this game. With Valve's Source SDK Base things are a bit different, Source mods need this instead of a game. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Flipside

I've started an article about Flipside, feel free to add! --Pizzahut2 (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines for adding mods to the article

  • There must be some basic level of assurance that this mod is not vaporware. A general guideline is if the mod does not have a website yet or a downloadable playable version, it does not belong in this list.
  • Each mod should be listed only once. If it has both singleplayer and multiplayer components, list it only in one category, but be sure to remark on all of its play modes.
  • Mods should be inserted into lists in alphabetical order.
  • Do not create wikilinks (i.e. UltraCoolMod) for a mod unless it actually has a Wikipedia article. "Red" (missing) wikilinks will be removed.
  • Follow the general formatting and style of the other mods in the list when adding a mod.
  • Use formal language. Do not use the second person voice (i.e. "you" or "your"). Use proper spelling, punctuation, capitalization, etc. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a chatroom.
  • Write everything in a neutral point of view. This is not the place to editorialize on a mod, i.e. "This is uber" or "This mod sucks".

These guidelines have originally been written by Cyde. [3] --Pizzahut2 10:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Several mods are missing, finished single player mods with significance. For instance, there is DoomEd which is sort of an educational science-based mod intended for a young audience (http://www.desq.co.uk/doomed/index.aspx), and one of the most interesting and original mods I've seen, Mistake of Pythagoras. I'm not good at editing the actual article, but I hope someone else can include these mods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.151.10.186 (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if you can show where these mods have received substantial coverage from reliable, independent sources then I'd be happy to make a stub article for them and add them to the list. Marasmusine (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Grayshot game that mysteriously comes back to the article repeatedly

Before putting this away as advertising, self-promotion, crystal ball (unreleased), not notable etc etc (please read WP:NOT), let's see if there is something to let this stay:

It's not possible to include every mod there is, that's why this is a selected list. So what is used for the selection? If a mod manages to have an article on Wikipedia, this usually means that it's notable enough. It's prefered to have an article anyway, like the list of webcomics does have articles also. In addition to the article, references (to "reliable sources") are mandatory, otherwise the whole list might not have a place on Wikipedia. (See discussion at Talk:List of Half-Life mods#To-do: references.) This is because unlike aforementioned list of webcomics, the list of HL2 mods does include short descriptions. A plain list apparently can stay, so having references is not always mandatory on Wikipedia. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "2006mods2" :
    • {{cite web |url=http://features.moddb.com/287/mods-of-2006-players-choice/?fpage=4 |title=Feature: Mods of 2006 - Player's Choice |accessdate=2007-04-29}}
    • {{cite web |url=http://features.moddb.com/287/mods-of-2006-players-choice/?fpage=4 |title=Feature: Mods of 2006 - Player's Choice - Top Mods by Genre|accessdate=2007-04-29}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

HL2 vs. Source engine mod

For reference, the link to the name change. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

At least when it comes to Source code, afaik only Half-Life 2 can be modified.[4] I guess in theory it's possible to modify any other game to, but it's limited. Mind that I'm not a modder myself so I'm not sure. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfect Dark: Source

The redlink was a bit of an eyesore, so I have made a stub article for this mod. Interested parties may wish to expand, as the references provided may or may not be enough to assert notability. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted for advertising, so in addition to what Marasmusine said about notability, my advice is to avoid making it look like an ad. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As it hasn't been expanded, and doesn't fully satisfy WP:GNG, I've merged the stub to here. So basically as it was before, but without the redlink and with better citations. Marasmusine (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge/redirect proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the proposal was to nominate for AFD per recommendations made at this merger proposal as well as at Talk:Black Mesa (video game)#Merge/redirect proposal. MuZemike 17:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose that Operation Black Mesa be redirected to List of Source engine mods as a plausible search term for the list. I have proposed a similar merger to Black Mesa (video game), but the rough consensus indicated that the location of the redirect was not feasible (see Talk:Black Mesa (video game)#Merge/redirect proposal). Please discuss below and indicate whether you want to merge, redirect, or oppose any merge or redirect. MuZemike 22:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is still awaiting any kind of independent reference. At the moment I would actually support an AfD instead. I can support a redirect if a third-party reference is provided that can satisfy verifiability policy. If somehow a whole bunch of sources turn up to satisfy notability, then leave it here. Marasmusine (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Importance

I'm trying to get in some references for some of the list additions. Struggling with getting any independent verification for any claim of importance for Synergy, but don't want to remove it yet due to the recent AfD result Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synergy (video game). Any pointers appreciated. Marasmusine (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Restored Synergy. Seems that it was removed due to "lack of importance" or "significance". This course of action determined due to Notability.
However, Notability guidelines only "outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." As such, I have restored Synergy, as it was the only co-op mod on the whole list that allowed vanilla co-op (i.e., co-op through the standard game). Antelope In Search Of Truth (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

-

Furthermore, I do understand and appreciate the edits made to clean up this page. For example, mods like Grayshot that had to be removed, don't appear to have even been completed. But the point of a list is not that anything allowed on the list can only be there if its significant enough to have its own article. At that point it should be moved off into its own article anyway. The point of a list is that the things on it may be significant in some way but not significant enough for its own article.
To put it another way, while we do not want an exhaustive list, every item on the list doesn't have to prove its significance to the same level as it has to in order to qualify for its own article.
So I think something like Synergy, which is the only one of its kind, has an arguable amount of significance to merit inclusion on a list, even though it does not qualify for a full article. Antelope In Search Of Truth (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed Synergy from List of Source engine mods, again due to no indication of importance. This should be something in the vein of the general notability guideline. A gameplay feature ("the only mod on the list allowing vanilla co-op") itself isn't important (otherwise I could list something like "the only mod with bananas in it"), although if this is a unique feature it should help it gain notice from the kind of sources needed to show notability. I hope you understand, Marasmusine (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith on your part, however, you did not address my point. The Notability requirements state very clearly:

"These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article."

My Point: Synergy, and Riot Act for that matter, are not under consideration for their own articles. We are discussing the content of an article. Specifically, editors have been citing WP:N in an understandable way, but one that is contradicted by the scope outlined on its page.
Now there may be something I am misunderstanding here, but if WP:N is the reason those Mods are off this page, please consider my point. I am open to argument and will wait a reasonable amount of time for response (a week?) before restoring anything.
If anything, the descriptions of the Mods on this list that merit their own full articles should be limited/trimmed on this page, as there is more room for such content on the pages for those articles. Antelope In Search Of Truth (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The main issue is that we need to avoid video game lists from becoming "internet directories" (WP:NOT) - that is, we don't want a list of every single Source mod ever made. On other game lists I've worked on, this usually means games that have their own article (as emphasised strongly by many in in-line comments), but also those games that don't quite fully meet notability guidelines (for example, see WP:N#cite_note-3).

But, okay, if we agree to broaden this out - WP:LIST - entries should still at least follow core content policy (verifiability, neutrality). Each entry should be verified with a "reliable, third-party source". You've provided one for Riot Act - Rock, Paper, Shotgun - which is fine. Can you suggest one for Synergy? Marasmusine (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes.... good point. Hmmm.....I did find a couple that might work..... Co-Optimus reported about how Synergy was listed in a press release by Steam as one of "The first five (Source) MODs to ship on steam." There is also a review on Planet Half-Life. I am not too sure about submitting that source, though it is a subsidiary of IGN Entertainment. -shrugs-
The Steam reference would seem to suffice. Also, I thank you for spurring me to look.  :) Antelope In Search Of Truth (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, I agree that this lists here should not become internet directories. I looked at the history of this article and saw that, at one time, even Sources Mods which didn't even exist yet were listed.  :| Oh, and thanks for "listing" WP:LIST. I failed an earlier search for that page. ^_^;;;
Antelope In Search Of Truth (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That works for me, thanks. Marasmusine (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Word. Antelope In Search Of Truth (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Resistance and Liberation: sources

The information there is either common knowledge among the community (so its not written in any one place) most of the other information was re-worded directly from the website. If you've got a problem with the sources; for whatever reason you could possibly have, take the couple minutes to actually look into what you are removing, maybe you can do some good by touching up references or citations if they are needed. Does a phrase like "sometimes water can be cold" need a source, too? Please use your discretion and common sense when deleting information. In the mean time, I'll try to add as many references as possible.. 24.108.96.66 (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing Mods

How about upcoming mods "They Hunger: Lost Souls", and "Science and Industry 2". And also, "Natural Selection 2", but it hasn't not been defined yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tucalipe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Upcoming" and "notable" are usually mutually exclusive. Have either had any media coverage? Marasmusine 07:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


Also, Zombie Master has not been mentioned, it's been out for years and has had several generations of hardcore fans which come back at times and mix and match between. My fav mod. - 7 year long SDK mod player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.222.152 (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Source engine mods. 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:

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 13:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Source engine mods. 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:

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) 11:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of Source mods. 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:

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) 10:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Most of these aren't mods and should be removed

Most of these games aren't mods, but just games developed with Source. Very few of the articles site sources supporting the claim that they're mods. Some cite sources explicitly claiming the opposite.

In its current state, I recommend deletion of the article. Misinformation is worse than no information.

72.193.105.70 (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

What kind of third-part references are requred?

I was trying to add portal 2 speedrun mod into the list, but both times my edit was rejected, because there were no third-party references. There are only three places with info about this mod:

So what kind of refrences should I add?

AlphaMrWave (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Source_mods/Archive_2&oldid=1136925827"