Talk:Half-Life 2: Episode Three

Merge to Half-Life (series)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

How is a separate article for this game "clearer" for readers? Per WP:STUB and considering the current lack of sourced information, this article should be merged to Half-Life (series). We shouldn't keep it around solely for the potential of future content, either. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What he said. The only two usable sentences of prose are already in the series article. Currently there are no sources to develop the article beyond a stub. Rehevkor ✉ 00:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I just think it's clearer here than being redirected to a section on the whole series. Additionally there was more information on this but Haipa Doragon deleted it in bizarre edits like this one. WP:CRYSTAL says "scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" - well, this game IS notable and IS almost certain to be released.

Look, what's the point in merging, what on earth does it gain? Nothing. If by some miracle the game doesn't come out then the article can be merged at that stage - rst20xx (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Adding my two cents here. I agree with the parent edit on it being clearer having it's own article. If there's not much information on the game at this point, it should simply stay a stub, and any speculation added should be removed. The information that is here is all sourced and the game is confirmed to be in development. I don't think we should try and fix something that isn't broken here. A redirect would definitely cause confusion for me. I think this is a case of bored editors. Psykus (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it notable, though? Future potential doesn't establish current notability. Right now, the article is composed of nothing other than primary sources, and they aren't enough to constitute a separate article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources are primary, although only two are solidly reliable sources. A simple search of typical gaming sources shows the subject itself is easily notable, there's just not enough information to warrant a separate article at this point. -- Sabre (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

They all stem from primary sources, e.g. press releases, etc., though, and don't show much for its real-world context. The article currently cites very little about its reception, development, etc., content which should form the bulk of a VG article, and therefore largely fails WP:VG/GL and WP:RS. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No they don't all stem from primary sources. Not one is a regurgitation of a press release. They're written by individual publication writers and have gone through their standard editorial processes. If we apply your logic, a review of any game isn't acceptable because it stems from something the developer had their hand in. I'm all for merging the article, but your interpretation on sourcing and rigid non-negotiable take on petty things like this is ridiculous and very much against the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines. Publications don't mention go out of their way to mention genres, etc in these sorts of cases because they realise that readers have to have a brain made of cheesecake not to know these things—again, apply your logic and you might as well remove the statement that its a video game because no-one's categorically stated it. Stop hiding behind blindly behind policies and apply some common sense man. -- Sabre (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply to your comment when you can have the civility not to address me with phrases such as "a brain made of cheesecake", "ridiculous", "blindly" and "apply some common sense man". Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

None of those comments are meant to insult you, I apologise if you've taken them that way, but please read more carefully. First is a generic metaphor not aimed at anyone, the others are simply used to convey I think your actions are grossly out-of-hand and misguided. Negative words and sentiments don't automatically equate to a personal attack. -- Sabre (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I very much took them that way, so please avoid such comments in future. Anyway, As for the edit I made, I still don't see what's so "misguided". Where are the sources to back the information up? Such details could very well be contended, and to assume based on previous games that they are what the previous games were is nothing but speculation. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it's still speculation. As notable as it may become, there is far from enough information on the subject now and we therefore shouldn't speculate about its release by leaving around an unexpandable stub article until that time—as of now, there isn't even any form of release date for it. How can we consider it "almost certain" to take place if no details of its release have been disclosed? The absence of information could just as easily lead to an argument that the game is unlikely to ever surface, and frankly, at this point, to assert either way would be too much of an assumption. The release argument aside, WP:STUB nonetheless states that articles of such little content such as this one should be merged into another relevant article. At this point in time, I'm failing to see the need for this subject to have a separate article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

We can consider it almost certain to be released per WP:COMMON. All signs point to Valve still working on the game. And WP:STUB says "if a small article has little properly sourced information... it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." MAY be merged. Doesn't have to be. It's up to you to provide a good reason for it to be, which is clearly not WP:STUB itself. I think it's clearer to keep things separate, especially when this article is going be expanded before too long anyway - rst20xx (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:STUB clearly defines that stubs are "too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject"; as it stands, this article is not encyclopedic, as it lacks the necessary secondary sourcing, per WP:RS, and therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:VG/GL. The possibility of future sources arising does not establish such notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be the general consensus within the VG project, at least for series with high editor attention, to merge stub sequel articles. Details on Portal 2 for example are within the [[Portal {video game)]] article, Bioshock 2 didn't have a separate article until the media campaign started and information flooded in. I will admit I'm surprised at the lack of attention to this. Rehevkor ✉ 22:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(I added the merge template and left a message here. Rehevkor ✉ 22:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

What's the problem with merging it for now and then redeveloping it once more information becomes available? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The article was already boldly merged by Haipa Doragon but another user, rst20xx, contested. I presume Haipa Doragon initiated discussion to avoid a revert "war". Rehevkor ✉ 23:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know rst20xx's response. I don't understand why he thinks that's a bad idea. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see why we need to have this discussion in two places, so see my comment on the series talk page: there is so little here that it is identical word for word in the series article: "Half-Life 2: Episode Three is the third and final installment in a series of episodic expansions of Half-Life 2 developed by Valve Corporation. It is planned as the last episode in the story arc, although not necessarily the end of the Half-Life franchise. No release date or other details have been announced, though some concept art has surfaced". Those three sentences can and are more than comfortably be contained there until there's actually something substantive to say, and we shouldn't speculate on when that will be: this is Valve. -- Sabre (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge until more significant details are known. Yes, they will be, but having a standalone article now invites speculation from less skilled editors that we'd like to avoid. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge: Initially, I was opposed to the change, which seemed drastic, but Haipa Doragon is right; three sentences in the series article are enough to convey what it publicly known about the game. Yes, the game is being created, but that's all we know. Once more information emerges, perhaps after E3 in early July, the topic can be re-expanded into it's own article once again. Andrew James Richards (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge: It should be merged until more info comes up.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Merge for the time being - until there's actually something to say about it, there's not much point in having this separate article. Robofish (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge - there's no real point i having a seperate article yet until ther's something to put in it. MrTrent9484 (talk) 15:00, 7 May 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.

New deaf character

There are recent reviews about half Life 3 having a deaf character apparently [1]. Hervegirod (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Very intriguing. However, it's probably not enough to warrant Episode 3 getting it's article back. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)