Talk:Half-Life (series)

Regarding the "Cancelled Games" section

If I remember correctly, Valve still have never said HL2:EP3 was officially cancelled or in the making in plannings or development at the same time like straight up, either way. If I'm right about this, then why was the section changed from "Future and cancelled games" to "Cancelled games"? It's gonna give the wrong impression that Half-Life 2: Episode Three is indeed cancelled for good when it might be rather still on hold, which is the opposite of being cancelled.2600:1700:9770:6760:A019:8943:AC98:B3DE (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

A game with zero news for multiple years is reasonable to considered cancelled. In contrast, while Duke Nukem Forever took forever to come out, there were at least some regular updates every year or so. --Masem (t) 06:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There still needs to have some verification to cite the claim on the article, rather than personal WP:OR suspicion. While interviewed Valve representatives did say they held back on that game's development in The Final Hours of Half-Life: Alyx YouTube video, they never confirmed they cancelled the game completely, if you know what I mean. After all, there was another game that, if I'm right about this, had no word on its development for over 15 years, and eventually came about after 20 years since it first came about in 1997, before a full release was commenced in 2017. The point is, the silence doesn't always mean anything unless confirmed by reliable sources, especially sources that can be used here, in the article, to confirm such.2600:1700:9770:6760:A019:8943:AC98:B3DE (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It should probably be classified as vaporware, games that are believed canceled but are not canceled officially. "Unreleased games" might also be a better section header. Lordtobi (✉) 09:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we can't fairly describe Episode III as either "cancelled" (or "future"), if we're to stick to the Wikipedia rules. The "Final Hours of Half-Life: Alyx" piece, when it emerges, might give some more clarity. Until then, "Unreleased games" seems like a good solution. Popcornduff (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

"Unreleased Games" section status and "Episode Three"

Because it's now safe for Valve Corporation to officially open to certain questions relating to the series, they confirmed a couple days ago that they couldn't continue the episodic module for further games in order to properly develop and publish Half-Life 2: Episode Three. But does this really mean anything about the episode concept being canceled or still in vaporeware? I don't even know if this means that, if the episodic module for a hypothetical continuation from Episode Two were canceled, but not the general idea of continuing the storyline in as a video game, does this still mean Episode Three is cancelled? If all of this does mean anything, considering what Valve officially shared most recently, this could mean the entire "Unreleased Games" section be changed to as"Cancelled Games", but I do really want to know first. Gabeluna27 (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Gabeluna27, it seems safe to presume Episode Three is cancelled, but we have to go by what sources say. If enough sources say "cancelled" then let's use that. Feel free to check the sources and see what terms they use. If not, "unreleased" seems like a safe catch-all to me. Popcornfud (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud, bruh. Half-Life 3 is definitely coming out. If you look at the PS4 and Xbox One, you'll notice 4 and 1. 4 - 1 = 3. Half-Life 3 confirmed. Jokes aside, I think it's best to refer to Half-Life 3 as "unreleased" because it was never officially canned. We referred to StarCraft: Ghost as unreleased for quite some time because it wasn't officially confirmed to have been canceled until 2014. JOEBRO64 12:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

TheJoebro64, yeah that's my thinking too. I happen to know, through my professional life, of a fair few "unreleased" games that are definitely cancelled, but one must keep one's duties separated... Popcornfud (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

---

• Half-Life (series) → Half-Life

– The video game series is by far the primary topic for the proper noun version of "Half-Life" when it comes to pageviews and has been for a very long time, getting many times more pageviews than the next-most-popular work. Per WP:DIFFCAPS it can be primary while still allowing for the existence of Half-life also primary for the non-proper-noun version. The only way I can see this being opposed is if people believe Half-Life should be a primary redirect, in which case it should redirect to Half-life rather than the disambiguation page._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Isn't there another RM going on? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal. If the redirect should be changed, then it should be changed to redirect to Half-life, which is what most people think about and a lot won't know if it is spelled "Half life", "Half-life", "Half-Life" or some other combination. Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Per WP:DIFFCAPS, The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages. As such, whether the reader might not know its spelling is not what is being debated, since that can easily be remedied by a hatnote, but if the capitalized Half-Life is truly commonly used to describe the scientific term. It certainly does not seem that way, being a proper noun._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. DIFFCAPS applies as it does in MAVEN v. Maven. IceWelder [✉] 12:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose On personal opinion grounds. I've long disagreed with DIFFCAPS as a absolutely terrible form of disambiguation and terrible for accessibility. If I were Wikipedia President, I would disable case sensitive titling and force all titles to be case-insensitive unique. *steps off podium* -- ferret (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, already redirects to the disamb. page where it should. And per Gonnym. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I would probably oppose the move, but isn't there an argument that the DAB should be at base name? I see no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as per page views [here]. They each have arguments for significance, and in those cases I prefer the DAB at base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• I personally believe that per longterm significance criteria and being the namesake, Half-life should stay where it is. That and it would be ignoring WP:SMALLDETAILS in the opposite direction. I think the two can exist together as lowercase and capital._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Even with "Half-Life" as a disambiguation page, we should never let popular culture terms take precdence over scientific terms. Page views should not be used to determine page moves. --Masem (t) 01:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Masem:I'm not sure where it's shown that "Half-Life" would take precedence over the scientific term. It would remain at Half-life as the primary topic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. As usual, disambiguation using a single capital letter is a terrible idea. Generic terms are often seen capitalised as well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This capitalisation should continue to point to the DAB at Half-life (disambiguation) as there are several other uses there, and the game and following series have no great claim to being the primary topic for it. Andrewa (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2021 (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.

Recent edit warring

I have full-protected the page due to recent edit warring. So far I see no attempt to discuss the issues on this talk page. Please come here and work it out or establish consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The user trying to add the info has gone to talk pages of thisd that have reverted him (eg like mine). Note this user has a clear COI on the matter. --Masem (t) 17:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be about Special:Diff/1080991100, coming from an editor with a disclosed conflict of interest.

• The removal of external links from the article body is generally fine (WP:EL: "External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article.")
• The removal of IMDb as a source is generally fine (WP:RSP: IMDb).
• The removal of ianjamesduncan.com as a source for "has created the game described in this article" or similar claims is a misuse of a primary, self-published source; I could add similar claims to my personal website and they wouldn't be reliable either.
• The removal of a steampowered.com link as a source for "available on Steam" is debatable, but a secondary source would generally be preferred and the specific addition in this case rather looks like promotion than an attempt to improve verifiability.
• The removal of a YouTube link as a source is generally fine (WP:RSP: YouTube).

In a nutshell, I'd have reverted this as well, and I'd have re-reverted a COI-affected editor's reinstatement as well. It clearly, clearly doesn't belong into the article in this way. The onus to obtain a consensus here is on the editor favoring the inclusion of the material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Note the COI editor has opened a dispute resolution separately: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Half-Life (series). ToBeFree has summed this up well. The editor keeps reinstating saying no one has provided adequate reasons for removing it, but every removal I found in the history quite clearly quotes policies and guidelines and said why. -- ferret (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed

A number of articles titled "half life" in some way contain disambiguations. This article needs to as well. There's nothing about (series) that makes it clear this article is going to be about a video game, since many scientific concepts, including half-lives, are often depicted via series of an entirely different sort. A disambiguation is a simple and low-cost mechanism of resolving this issue, and pointing readers to other uses of the term. -Darouet (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

An LTA has been removing the disambiguation hatnote for the past year. Multiple editors have restored the hatnote for this very reason. @Thrakkx: As I said on your talk page: Most specifically, in this case, "Half-life (series)" is not unambiguous, because the primary topic deals with a scientific and mathematical model/series. Remember that NOTAMB says "generally not preferable", meaning it's not a hard prescription. -- ferret (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Developed by Valve

I feel like saying the series is developed by Valve is incorrect given the number of third-party developers who've worked on the series but I'm not sure how to phrase a change. Maybe "originally developed by Valve" but at the same time Valve still develops games in the series so that sounds inaccurate as well. Does anybody have a better idea as to what to write? XeCyranium (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I've changed it to just "created by Valve". Popcornfud (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems good to me, thanks. XeCyranium (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Someone removed my section about half life source

Alright icewelder. You removed the section I made about half life: source. Any reason why? I took time to write an entire section about a half life game. Sure, it’s just a port into the the source engine, but half life: source has its own history. If you wanted to add to the section that would be fine. But instead you deleted it. The viridianfox (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It's because you added the information without a reliable source. All information on Wikipedia must be cited. Popcornfud (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

HL 25th & HL2 20th Anniversary Documentaries

i was wondering if we can add the documentaries to the films section of the article? 1timeuse75 (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)