Talk:Black Mesa (video game)

Forum hack attack

"On June 13, it was made known (though not widely) that the hacker(s) responsible either directly or indirectly damaged the forums beyond repair; the 3500+ accounts and most if not all of the forums' posts were lost."

I wonder if this is in retaliation for the one who leaked the source code being found out?

Isn't this the second time in as many months the forum's been hacked? Last time the forums were only down for a day or two, but this time it looks serious. --Tim1988 ^talk 15:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge it was just another attack. We get a lot of hits on the site so I'd suppose it's a good hacking target due to all the traffic (One of the hacking attempts redirected the site to warez pages and so on.) I was out of town when that particular incident occured, though, so I'm the one who knows the least about it! --RabidMonkey 18:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh Dear

Sorry for changing the "crackers" to "hackers". I thought someone placed them there as a racial slur. Change them back if you'd like. Delta 00:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it's not that important--"hacker" is the recognized term for the general public, so even if the term "cracker" is technically more accurate, "hacker" is probably better for a general article like this. Good job. Viewer 01:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Percent Complete

The article states that the mod is 50% complete per a value given to a mod database by the game developers. However, the developers later stated officially on the forums that this value was not true, it was just put in as a place holder value. They replaced this value with the statement that the mod, if all goes well, will be released in 4th quarter 2006 or 1st quarter 2007. Unfortunatly, there is no record of the statement, as it was lost with the forum hacking. I am changing the article to reflect this, and if editors feel it should be deleted, sorry. Redgrassbridge 01:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I just talked to the developers over skype, they said that that statement is entierly incorrect and asked me to remove that statement. Astroman

High Quality Picture

Could the uploader of the PC gamer review scan it again with a higher DPI? Cant read what it says!!!! Cybesystem 13:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just zoom in a bit.... 150% should do it. it's still blurry, but legible

Hack Threat?

"On Sept. 25 2006, a member of RVB called Dman123, said he would hack the site, as of late, the site is down, more info will come as more things happen." --most recent edit. Besides being written completely unencyclopedically, is this a big enough deal to mention in the article, or is just citing an empty threat from some random internet face? The site was down long before the 25th, for one thing. Also, to what does the author refer with the acronym "RVB"? I'm assuming it's not Red Vs. Blue... Anyway, until someone can indicate this isn't someone bragging about their friends' leet hax or something, I'm removing the edit.Redgrassbridge 10:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Playability

In the opening, the article reads "Black Mesa will be playable by anyone with legal copies of both Half-Life 2 and Counter-Strike: Source.". Does this mean you are required to have BOTH or either game?

The mod uses content from both games, and it would be illegal for this content to be distribuled free along with the mod's original content, so payed copies of both must be on the computer.Redgrassbridge 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same thing. For any HL2 mod I can think of (e.g. Garry's Mod, SMOD, etc.) the only game required is always HL2, never CS:S. So, I have a suspicion that this part of the article is invalid. However, I'm not confident enough to remove it. Tero 23:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Developers' word: This total conversion will not require Half-Life: Source installed on your system to play, only a legitimate and working version of Half-Life 2. [1]

No CS:S either, then. Just as I thought. Tero 17:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the inconvenience, the original article was right, after all. [2] I will restore the "CS:S" part. Tero 14:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously? So those of us with only Orange Box will have to buy CS:S for this mod? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.29.174 (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't CS:S free if you own HL2? I have it and I sure as hell wouldn't have paid for it as I hate CS 90.210.113.58 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you originally bought HL2 from a store when it first came out, CS:S was packaged with it, so it might be that. —Yar Kramer (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a point; The developers have now eliminated all CS:S content from the mod and replaced it with their own. All you require is the Base source content, which is downloaded with all source games. --165.154.24.116 (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

Various models, such as the marine, were scrapped and new ones created (the old models not meeting our new self-standards). - Black Mesa news

As you can see in their website's media page, there have been changes to the look of the mod throughout the time. Shouldn't we substitute some of the article's images for the most recent ones, or add the recent ones to the gallery? Also, since the marine model(s) was/were scrapped, what do you think of taking the PC Gamer image from the article, since it reflects old, replaced work in the game? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.196.99.164 (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Xen

There's rumours going around on the internet that Xen has been scrapped due to the lack of media about it. Should this be mentioned?--80.47.60.26 18:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Xen has not been scrapped, it is being kept under wraps until the mod is released. Raminator 15:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If they keep to the current trickle level of media releases, then Xen information will likely be made public only within the final week(s) prior to release. It is after all the portion of the game that could most benefit from the Source engine. Displacement maps and HDR in my opinion, will be the most noticable of these. The ablilty to create truly living environments will likely be of the greater challenge for the team, and consequently, the best kept secret. With the recent video release on ModDB[[3]], I think the wait will make release all the sweeter. Yue.san 09:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove and Refer?

With the results of last years deletion debate ending in a No Consensus, and seeing as VALVe's own development wiki is more appropriate place for this article, I propose replacing this article with a referal to either the Half Life 2 article, or the article at the VALVe-Dev Wiki [[4]]. I have put an item in the discussion of that site's Black Mesa (mod) article to use this (the superior) article in place of their own. If that is done, then holding another deletion debate may be in order. Objections, thoughts? Yue.san 10:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As you recall, the reason for the mod being AFD'd in the first place was being "non-notable". At this point, having received official recognition from ModDB twice, as well as receiving a commendation from Valve themselves, I believe that Black Mesa currently has enough weight to stand on its own, for the time being. Viewer 21:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Viewer that with these awards and Valve's own "nod of approval" (so to speak) of the mod, it has some legs to stand on, for now. If things turn sour (hopefully not), then what you propose may be in order, but for now, let's just let it be and add information as it comes. Delta 21:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been 3 years since, and pretty safe to assume things have, indeed, turned sour. It is ridiculous that such a "title", with nothing to show for other than some rolling demos, should warrant its own wikipedia entry. Put a fork in it fer heaven's sake ; it's done. 79.103.173.176 (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I should hope we don't have an article on Duke Nukem Forever, because people have been waiting for at least a decade for that one. ArchabacteriaNematoda (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Heaven forbid a huge project like this, developed for free and in people's spare time won't be subject to some years work and delays. But yes, you're right, we should take your uninformed opinion as law and totally write it all off, THE END IS NIGH. Rehevkor ✉ 02:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs moving

I'm planning to move this article to Black Mesa (mod) in a couple of days (as opposed to Black Mesa (game mod)). It doesn't need the 'game' part - mod is sufficient, no other mod articles are described as 'game mod', in normal speech almost no-one says 'game mod', and what other definition of 'mod' is there that this could be confused with? If anyone has any strong objections, post here and I'll consider any and all before making the move. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bmspcguk2.jpg

Image:Bmspcguk2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Forum hacks

Does this article really need so much information on it? It's pretty irrelevant to the game itself, and it could be summed up with a sentence like "there were a number of times when the Black Mesa forums were hacked." Krang 11:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, detailed security issues are not relevant to this article and should be summarised in one sentence or removed completely.--Matthew Hill 22:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. All the security related issues have nothing to do with the mod itself. I'd like to see them removed, or if it must be, summarise. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cancellations

The game has been, sadly, cancelled. I assume so, anyway, considering that the site has not been updated in a year. I say that we delete this. I grimace while typing this, as I hate deleting articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.146.121 (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

But there is news from 24 dec 2007. That is not "over a year". BillMasen (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Site seems very much alive to me, The devblog seems to have plenty of activity, last post was.. 5 days ago? No "news" doesn't mean a game as been "cancelled". Rehevkor (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know that there was a Devblog. Also, I Don't think that I said "Over a year". Besides, I forgot that 2008 just started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.146.121 (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"he site has not been updated in a year", ambiguous I guess :) BillMasen (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't delete the page, for gods' sake. Even if it has been cancelled (and there is no evidence to that effect), it doesn't mean that any of the information in the page is suddenly desposable, although it does seem that the game is rapidly (or slowly, depending on how you look at it) becoming vapourware (this could be addressed in the article). Retrorocker (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Black Mesa has not been cancelled, and there are no plans to do so. Updates are currently being displayed in the form of devblogs (albeit not from all developers, I'll get round to writing one at somepoint). Work is still progressing on the mod, slowly, but steadily. Thanks, Stormseeker (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2008 (EST)

Anyone know if this mod is still in production? There's some chatter that its still being made, but dev updates are nonexistent and they haven't released anything to prove otherwise in the past year. JackFail (talk)

Still looks in production to me. The guys here are trying to make a high quality mod here, comparable to and most likely better than a lot of commercial games. Without a commercial budget this will take time, and since this time is their spare time it'll take longer still. Rehevkor ✉ 12:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So, how long before we declare this never-appearing mod vaporware? Call me impatient, but I would think six fucking years in "development" are a good indication that the programmers simply cannot make this happen. Is any and every piece of vaporware really worthy of its own wikipedia entry? Perhaps I should announce the new cracking remake of Frogger and get my own vanity page on the open encyclopedia...

Steam Distribution

The article says that the mod will be distributed by steam. This is incorrect, as no such thing has ever been stated, and due to the mod beeing free is beeing highly unlikely. I will remove it immediatly. Arcid (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You were right to remove this unsourced statement. However, some free game Mods were released on steam. But hinting that it could be the case for this Mod would be pure ungrounded speculation Hervegirod (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This is being released on Steam, read the info on the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahahs (talk • contribs) 22:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The website only says that Steam is a requirement to play the mod. This is because it is a mod of the Source engine, which requires Steam. It doesn't mean that it's being released via Steam. Delta ^(Talk) 01:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether the mod is released on Steam is entirely up to Valve, not the developers and until the mod is complete there is unlikely to be any word on this. DerekHartley (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Past or present tense

Hiya, a note from an uninvolved admin here: I see that there is an edit war about whether the mod should be referred to with "is" or "was". I have no opinion either way, but would like to see the edit-warring stop. I would also caution folks that if someone changes a tense, it may be something that you disagree with, but that doesn't mean it can be reverted as "vandalism". The word vandalism should only be used for blatant cases, such as page blanking or profanity. See WP:VANDAL. In terms of the tense issue, I recommend that you develop a consensus here at the talkpage, as to how the article should be handled. Preferably something that is a compromise which incorporates different views. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Once there is a clear talkpage consensus, then any "anti-consensus" changes that are made to the article, can be reverted with a pointer to the talkpage discussion. It will then be up to people that want to edit the article differently, to discuss and build a new consensus at talk, or to make changes to the article which keep it in a neutral state, which other editors are also happy with. --Elonka 14:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. There was a post to the devblog on May 11. Therefore, the mod is not cancelled. Therefore, present tense is correct. --Geniac (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. While it may not be vandalism, it is clearly disruption as they are adding blatantly wrong information. Rehevkor (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, anyone who have visited the site more than once (wich one should have if you want to claim that you have correct information) would know that the mod is not cancelled. Arcid (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As a level designer currently working on the mod itself, I can confirm that the mod should be referred to as "is", as the latest media release will show, the team is still hard at work on the mod, and as such we have no intentions of cancelling. If you need to confirm this, by all means contact the mod team via the website address questions@blackmesasource.com. Stormseeker (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

At this point anyone declaring the mod dead needs to cite the cancellation of the project should they decide to edit the tenses again. - JeffJonez (talk) 03:12, 26 June 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 withdrawn as rough consensus and common sense indicates that Black Mesa (video game) is not a very good location for a redirect or merge. However, I will immediately propose another merge/redirect proposal of Operation Black Mesa into List of Half-Life 2 mods. See Talk:List of Half-Life 2 mods#Merge/redirect proposal. MuZemike 22:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I propose that Operation Black Mesa be redirected to Black Mesa (video game) as a plausible search term for the list. I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that can establish independent notability after doing a quick Google search here. The article also contains unverifiable speculation, which is against Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Finally, it is written in a way that is not encyclopedic, more like a web page or directory entry. Please discuss below and indicate if you want a merge, redirect, or if you oppose both. MuZemike 01:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Operation Black Mesa and Black Mesa are two completely separate projects that have nothing to do with each other, other than being mods on the Source engine. The team responsible for creating Black Mesa has no contact or interaction with the team for Operation Black Mesa. My guess is that any looking for Operation Black Mesa would be very surprised and confused to be redirected to Black Mesa (video game). Delta (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Per the above, the projects are separate. It seems to be a notability issue, which needs a different approach. Notability tags, then afd, prod or whatever. Rehevkor ✉ 01:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How about a redirection or merge to List of Half-Life 2 mods (which I was originally thinking), since it is a Half-Life 2 mod? I am trying to avoid the deletion route if all necessary. MuZemike 04:12, 22 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.

Time Travel Vandalism

I removed some vandalism that was apparently from a person stranded in the 21st century because of a time machine malfunction. IF this is true feel free to undo my edits. P.S. I was under the I.P. of 121.215.58.97. Kausill (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

MOAR VANDALISM

Oh god, that was annoying. Still more vandalism to wipe guys! I've finished now! Kausill (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Release Date Edit Warring

I give up. I'm reporting 173.66.66.49 for edit warring. Every time I think it'll stop, it happens again. If anyone can find a source for this insistent date insertion, please advise. Thanks! - JeffJonez (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not the "vandal", but the team provided an update in July, stating that the game has been pushed back. http://forums.blackmesasource.com/showthread.php?t=2416. I just edited the page based on the info in that thread (provided the source too), although it should probably be rewritten. Do some research next time. kthxbai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.108.147 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, he'll just boot up his time machine and travel 2 months into the future from October 2009. Perhaps you should try doing some reading next time? -- I need a name (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Here I am. :) Wow... there's a forum? Who knew? By the way, that forum now indicates that the release date is up in the air again. - JeffJonez (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

History

This was tagged conversion from list to prose and for needing references. It seems like a trivia section (since parts of it are already in the article so I moved it to talk)// RJFJR (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• On December 16, 2006, media release "Stage 2" was released, which featured a revamped website, updated weapon models, revamped and new maps, Gargantua render, an animation movie of the mod's Houndeye and pictures of the Bullsquid.
• On January 25, 2007, Black Mesa once again won the Mod DB "Golden Spanner Award" for the most anticipated Half-Life 2 mod of 2006. The development team also submitted a teaser video which includes flybys of the Test Chamber, Blast Pit, Residue Processing, Lambda Core, and Surface Tension dam areas.
• On May 2, 2009, the server hosting Black Mesa's website and forums suffered from a hardware failure, which led to a fresh install of the forums. Josh Hubi, Webmaster of Black Mesa released the following statement regarding the hardware failure via their community forums: "There is no delay in our release..... We never released any statement of delay. The hardware failure ONLY affected our website, nothing further."

References

Article expansion

I was thinking about trying to dig up good reliable sources and add to the article a little bit. Nothing major--I'm not sure how big it should really be since the project is still unfinished--, but I think it's certainly notable enough that more info could be here. What do you guys (the major contributors) think? Sebquantic (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Added some formated sources from here. I've got a rough draft sitting in my sandbox that uses what looked to be the most RS of the sources, and uses what's already in the article. There are a few more (like NSA Games Magazine) that I'm still looking for info on. Sebquantic (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Good work. While some of the sources may not adhere to WP:RS as such, they will suffice to address the ref improve and notability issues. Rehevkor ✉ 21:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to lean on those magazine refs since they looked the strongest. Sebquantic (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete?

It's painfully obvious this is a dead mod. I mean, it's even on Wikipedia's "List of Vaporware" article. I say we delete this article and stop wasting space on something that's been dead for a while. Unless you want to keep it, and someone posts reasons why this is a dead mod...--173.48.144.55 (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for discussing whether or not it's an active mod not. Cheers. Rehevkor ✉ 16:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And when you say wasting space, do you mean that there this is preventing other articles from being written? Hewinsj (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, nevermind I said that. But come on. Must every piece of vaporware get it's own page? When the end of the year comes around and we get a "Sorry we won't be releasing this year, hang tight it's coming" message, don't say I told you so.--173.48.144.55 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not a consideration, the subject has received significant coverage and is considered notable enough to have an article regardless of it's status (or lack of). Rehevkor ✉ 23:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I may be late to the party on this one, but I don't think this article should be deleted. Wikipedia still covers things that are outdated and dead, and I don't see why this should be an exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vykara (talk • contribs) 17:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, do you have any proof that Black Mesa is dead? Just curious. Until then, f. off, troll! --Saftorangen (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, website is active, developers are frequently stating that they still work on it and that they are on, if internal to avoid another publicly known and missed release date, schedule. So no, there is no evidence for it being inactive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.178.205 (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Title: "Black Mesa (video game)" → "Black Mesa (modification)"?

Black Mesa is not a video game per se. Wouldn't a more appropriate tile be something like Black Mesa (modification)? What are the video game wikiproject guidelines for this kind of situations? Diego_pmc ^Talk 16:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Leaks, vandalism

Perhaps the article should include a section on the setbacks Black Mesa has suffered, including website hacks and most significantly the series of leaks, the most recent being screenshots posted in Atomic PC and rapidly removed: [REDACTED COPYVIO LINKS] Boatscaptain (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Only if these issues have received reliable third-party coverage. Otherwise it's original research. Doniago (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The images are of un-determinable copyright status and source, can't even say for sure they are of Black Mesa based on that website. Should not be linked per WP:EL, as I pointed out before. Rehevkor ✉ 13:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on the gigantic Atomic PC watermark on every image, the source is quite easily determinable, and the "copyright status" of publicly released screenshots of a free modification based on 3rd-party intellectual property is not relevant to anything. Please stop vandalizing my edits, thank you. Boatscaptain (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate further on why these links should stay under WP:EL

WP:ELYES

3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

WIP Screenshots of the game are relevant to an encyclopedic understanding the subject, and cannot be integrated into the article due to amount of detail (i.e. total amount of screenshots).

Please point out which aspect of WP:EL these links allegedly violate before reverting so we can discuss your issue. While we're at it, maybe we should discuss whether the Black Mesa Wiki link violates the "avoid linking to open wikis" clause. Boatscaptain (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How do we know these images are, authentically, images of Black Mesa? Doniago (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

What is your criteria for proof? Atomic PC published Black Mesa screenshots is disclosed on their website, and these screenshots contain the Atomic PC watermark - that should be enough evidence for anyone operating in good faith. If you press the issue, we can do a 1-to-1 comparison between these screencaps and screens hosted on the official Black Mesa website. But that seems like overkill Boatscaptain (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Proof would be text from a reliable source explicitly stating that these are images that were leaked from the Black Mesa project. I don't know whether Atomic PC is considered a reliable source, but I do know that a watermark isn't definitive evidence in any case. Doniago (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A watermark is in fact definitive evidence, as the function of a watermark on an image is to explicitly define the source of the image. If you are suggesting the watermarks may be faked, you are clearly not operating in good faith. Boatscaptain (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

These links have no place here. They are hosted on a user submitted image site and their actual copyright status is impossible to determine and a blatant vioation of WP:ELNEVER. Rehevkor ✉ 15:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you are going to insist on attempting to remove other's edits, please elaborate on which specific aspect of WP:EL you feel these edits violate. Simply declaring "blatant violation" as fact is not going to get us anywhere. Boatscaptain (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement.", there are only two points in WP:ELNEVER, it is not hard for you to read this yourself. "Not going to get us anywhere" is not a situation that is going to change, because there is nowhere to go, we cannot link to these images, full stop. Please stop trying to do so. Rehevkor ✉ 16:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally you're perilously close to edit warring at this point and consensus currently seems to be against including the images in any case. If nothing else, I'd recommend taking a day off to allow other editors to weigh in on this issue. It isn't something that must be resolved now, and you're not helping your case by being insistent when there isn't support from other editors. Doniago (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Who's copyright are you alleging is being violated? We need to talk specifics rather than unsupported declarative statements if we're going to even approach a consensus on anything. Boatscaptain (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Black Mesa's? Atomic Gamer's? Valve's? Who knows. That is kinda the point. Rehevkor ✉ 16:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Black Mesa" does not hold any copyright over this material, as it is Valve's intellectual property. It was placed into the public domain by Atomic Gamer and therefore does not violate their copyright either. Since you admittedly don't know that a copyright is in fact being violated, your deletions based on alleged violation of copyright are not valid. As I have reached the 3-revert limit I will await arbitration for this issue, but it is pretty clear that all objections raised thus far have been dismissed with prejudice. 1. that the source of the material is indeterminable (false) and 2. that some copyright is being violated by the website hosting public domain images (also false). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatscaptain (talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't know who put those photos there. Watermarks are not conclusive, I cannot find anything about this on the AG website. And if they are from a leaked version of the game, I highly doubt they have permission or licensing to publish them themselves, especially not place them into public domain, only Valve could do that; and they won't. Please just drop the stick - for me there's nothing more I have to say here. Good day, and good luck. Rehevkor ✉ 16:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The website states that "We did have a large gallery of images of the game"[5]. These are those images as determined by the AMPC watermark. Again, Watermarks by definition conclusive, as they are included by design to be difficult to add or remove, in order to specifically prove sourcing. There is no basis for doubt of authenticity; your repetition of the claim does not make it so. As to the "permission or licensing," Valve has no relationship at all with this free modification of their IP, and would certainly not be asked or expected to permit or not permit any Black Mesa content to be published or not. So to recap, there has been no valid reason submitted for the deletion of these appropriately included links

[REDACTED COPYVIO LINKS]

I suppose it's too much to ask Rehevkor to drop the stick even though his objections have no merit, so I am going to look into some form of outside arbitration because these links will otherwise continue to be deleted arbitrarily without any basis.Boatscaptain (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Atomic Gamer: "project leads have asked us to remove them". AC had no permission to publish these images, whoever uploaded them to imgur didn't either: they are copyright violations. It's not my problem if you refuse to listen to what is being said to you in plain English. Please feel free to seek arbitration, but they will pretty much repeat what have already been said here several times. Why do you want these images here to badly anyway, did you upload them to imgur? Rehevkor ✉ 17:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Handy link for you: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. But please we weary of wasting anyone else's time. Rehevkor ✉ 17:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so you've decided to admit the images are legit and sourced from AMPC? That's progress. The images were taken down as a courtesy, note the phrasing "asked to remove" rather than "required based on copyright violation." This is because the Black Mesa team does not own the copyright to anything, as the game itself is technically a copyright violation based on Valve's IP, and contains assets from various Valve software products.(Boatscaptain (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)).

Sure, the copyright status of mods is in general a grey area, but still valid. Whoever has the claim to the copyright, they have not given permission to publish the photos. End of. They simply can not be used. It's the same thing as linking to a leaked beta. Black Mesa devs certainly make a claim to the mod, see here [6]: "© 2004-2010 Black Mesa Modification Team". The actual maps and art work are their own actual work, as far as I know no actual "assets" were Valve's, they have all been created from scratch, only based on Valve's property, which is fine as long as it's released for free, but then I'm not copyright lawyer. But this is getting far too nit picky, I'm only repeating exactly what I said from the beginning. If you don't believe what I'm saying, feel free to seek someone else's opinion, in fact, now I welcome it. Rehevkor ✉ 01:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And that is the end of my part of the discussion, copyrighted material, and links to it, can be removed without question. You can seek arbitration of some kind, maybe they will be able to explain it to you better than I have, but I have no desire to discuss this with your further. Rehevkor ✉ 01:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your cite is the copyright of the promotional webpage, not a copyright on mod content. Like you say, mods in general are a grey area, and BM is not even grey because the entire mod is a reproduction of someone else's copyright. Including the maps and artwork, which are an even more direct reproduction of Valve's copyright than the mod itself. The issue is a copyright violation of a copyright violation, which legally can not exist. It's in the pubilc domain. Also please do not edit my comments on the talk page, that is not appropriate.Boatscaptain (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:ELNEVER: "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement." Images are not licensed, they are not in the public domain, linking to them is a violation of copyright, regardless of who owns it. Continuing to link so it will result in a block. Rehevkor ✉ 03:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This is correct. We have to know that something is not violating copyright. In other words, we need clear, explicit proof that it is not copyright. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Alright, I'm going to attempt a third opinion here. Honestly I like Rehevkor's bold edit in removing the section, and I think it was rather appropriate. Words like "implied" aren't really appropriate when describing something in a reliable source: we're not here to decide what underlying thoughts there may be in someone's words. We've had discussions over at RSN multiple times about whether or not forum posts are ever acceptable to use, and the consensus is almost always no, they can't be used. Even if it's someone on the team posting about their own project, it's not okay to use under the WP:SPS rules. And even beyond that, it's very clear that the game has been delayed, so a dev saying "when it's done" really doesn't add anything to the article; it's just reiterating what we already know. As to the imgur links, they are definitely unacceptable and should not be included anywhere. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input HelloAnnyong. Hopefully everyone will accept that the forum based sources are not appropriate in this case and are best removed. Rehevkor ✉ 01:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The developers plan to release the game as a free download when completed.

I think that this should be changed to "The developers plan to release the game as a free download if completed." due to the astronomically long development time and 226 days of no indication of game progress (At time of writing). I believe this mod should be considered "dead" until we hear something from the developers. P.S. I know this is an independent project, but this is too long even for that! 121.221.219.250 (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Jumping to a few conclusions there, eah? Have a little faith. Either way, we have to presume it's still going until a reliable source says otherwise. Rehevkor ✉ 12:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The mod is still in development, and the developers frequently answer questions on the forums. They're not updating the Youtube page or Twitter, but they are still working on it, the work is just invisible to the general public because nobody thinks to check the forums --208.65.244.212 (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 Release Statement

Since I predict Rehvcor is going to turn this into an edit war, here is the subject under discussion. The old text of the article states a 2010 release date was "denied by the lead level designer." The cited statement is as follows:

"No, you can assume that our internal deadline is internal. No, you can say "when it's done"."

This statement does not constitute a denial of anything. The fact that the developers have an "internal deadline" and plan to release the game "when its done" is neither confirmation or denial of the Lead Developers statement that it would be released in 2010. Stating on the wiki article that this was a "denial" relies on the author's subjective interpretation of the post, and is therefore WP:OR. Please do not revert my edit of this unencyclopedic inaccuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatscaptain (talk • contribs) 00:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reworded this paragraph to read "On end of July the lead animator announced in the Black Mesa official forum that the game would ship at the end of 2010, a statement qualified by the lead level designer who restated that the release date is internal and the official date continues to be "when it's done."" This more accurately reflects the content of the cited source for the Level Designer's statement.Boatscaptain (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a hair to split: no one promised a 2010 release date. The odds spaghetti-o story merely implies a 2010 release. - JeffJonez (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on this and the weak forum sources I've been bold and removed the stuff about the release dates, implying a release date that was later denied isn't really notable.. doesn't really add anything. And using primary sources that don't really spell out what they're trying to say and only imply it, ads a certain level of WP:SYNTH to the mix an we get this drama. Rehevkor ✉ 20:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Good move. - JeffJonez (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is important, but on the "Got A Question?" Thread on the forums, A developer gave some sort of math problem to the public that he said if it was solved, would reveal the release date. Someone apparently solved it, deciphering the date as 11/19/10. I believe the posts were deleted, but did anyone else see that and if so, is it important enough to include? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.8.19 (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, if it's covered by an independent reliable source there's no problem. But otherwise, especially if the posts were deleted, there's nothing that can go on the article. Rehevkor ✉ 14:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Right there should be LOTSA SPAGHETTI! oFTo LOL - Mario324 (talk) 19:25 2 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario324 2 (talk • contribs)

Still not here.

It's October. Still no updates, still no signs of completion. At this rate, DNF will come out before this piece of vaporware. I would say we should get a nomination for deletion of this article going, but the retarded fanboys will fight against it.--24.147.229.201 (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A deletion nomination would be pointless, there's coverage in a variety of secondary sources, ensuring that the subject meets the inclusion guideline. We don't delete articles on the basis of whether or not their subject will be released. If it isn't ever released, then the article should document the development process and the cause of the failure to release the project. -- Sabre (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is to create an academic account of the subject and if it fails to materialize that's still a part of the development process. The secondary sources warrent inclusion. Hewinsj (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen a fan mod create so much vitriol. Please be aware of our policy against personal attacks when posting in the future. Rehevkor ✉ 21:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The best part of waking up...

Is vaporware in my cup.

It's 2011 tonight. No announcements. No media updates. Nothing. I would say we get articles for deletion going, but I know the rabid fanboys would defend this piece of fail to the last. Half expecting another "Hang tight, it's coming!" message from the devs.--24.147.229.201 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. This again. Notability is not temporary, it's been established as notable, has received significant coverage and this article is unlikely to ever be deleted. Instead of focusing your hate on an article about the mod why not get of their own forums and find out what's going on? Perhaps that might be a slightly better use for your time. Bottom line, it's just a game, get over it. Rehevkor ✉ 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh look. A fanboy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.229.201 (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh look, someone who can't take simple advice. Can't help some people. Rehevkor ✉ 21:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Rehevkor: I'm not sure why you've set yourself up as the arbiter of what is acceptable on this page, but you're entirely incorrect when you say, "Notability is not temporary." Any notability related to this mod is based purely on speculation about it, without even a shred of evidence as to what the final product will entail. No one has seen the mod. No one has played it. There is no indication as to when it's coming out, or even if it is still in development. So exactly what "notability" are we talking about here? The developers of this mode were very savvy in getting word out about it and getting the gaming press worked up about what a great thing it would be, but they have yet to show anything that can be considered a finished product. I'm not sure how notable something is if it can't even be proven to exist. Anyone can say, "I'm going to do X." But at a certain point, if you don't actually do what you say, then it's pretty obvious that you were talking out of your ass. As of right now, this mod doesn't exist. I don't care what the developers have said they're going to do, until someone actually plays a working copy of the mod, it's all just blather and bluster. The correct thing to do would be to remove all info about the mod, which I didn't do; I merely added that it's generally accepted among the gaming public that this product was a publicity stunt and nothing more, and the fact that you felt it necessary to remove something so innocuous is clear proof that you can't think rationally about this topic, and therefore shouldn't be editing this page. --PerfectFaro

I've not set myself up as anything, I'm just following the guidelines set by consensus, I provided a helpful link last time but this might be more useful: --CLICK HERE--->Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary<---CLICK HERE----. Also, your addition to the article is unsourced and based on your own speculation/observations, everything must be be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question (without it being original research), see Wikipedia:Verifiability. The mod's status as vaporware has already been established anyway. This mod seems to be a subject that people get easily worked up about, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a place for people to vent their frustrations. What part of requesting someone's contributions are backed up by sources, a matter of policy, is not thinking rationally? Anyhoo, I have a bangin' headache so unless you have some sources to bring to the table there's not much I can say on this subject. Rehevkor ✉ 10:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Rehevkor is right. It's unsourced, so it's not going in. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Rehevkor: fair enough. I have no desire to get into an edit war, but we're supposed to reach a concensus through dialog, not by one party unilaterally deciding what is acceptable and what is not. From the link you sent: "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time re-assessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. As a result articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered." I would submit that, based on the currently available information, it's time to reassess the validity of the article as it currently stands. The mod garnered a great deal of attention by trading on fans' love of the original game and the excitement generated by the idea of experiencing it again with better graphics. However, subsequent events have not justified the notability of the mod, especially in light of the dearth of information coming from the dev team. As it now stands, the article is about something that doesn't even exist.

Anyone can say that they are going to produce something. However, at a certain point, you need to produce evidence that you are actually doing so. To date, we have no evidence that the mod in question exists in playable form. We also have no evidence that the developers have a release date in mind. So basically, we have an article about something that someone said they were going to make, but after six years still haven't gotten around to, and can't say for sure when they might. I'm not sure how you can argue about the notability of something that doesn't even exist.

You make a great deal of the importance of having reliable cited sources for anything related to the article, but I would argue that the only source we have for the article as it currently stands comes from the developers themselves. The other sources cited come from sites that have called the mod "most anticipated," but haven't actually reviewed the mod itself. The whole thing has begun to feel like an elaborate hoax, or an enormous joke played on the gaming public. Based on your own criteria, you haven't shown any source that would indicate that this mod exists in any form, except on the word of the developers themselves. Since they are unwilling or unable to release even a partially playable version of the mod, I would argue that using them as a "reliable source" is pretty much the definition of gullibility.

So, if the developers aren't a reliable source, what are we left with? Well, not much. For that reason, I think the article as it currently stands is false and misleading. It gives the impression that there is such a thing as the Black Mesa mod, when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it exists. I find it difficult to understand how one can defend so tenaciously something that can't even be proven to exist (that may work for religious zealots, but seems bizarre when it comes to a supposedly fact-based encyclopedia). Until we have definitive proof that the mod exists, there is no justification for this article. Worse, it gives people looking for information about the mod false expectations, which seems to me to be the opposite of what a site purporting to be about information should do.

I agree that my addition didn't meet the guidelines for attributable sources, but I would argue that neither does any of the information in the article. For that reason, I think it's time to remove the article until a reliable source can be found for the existence of the mod. --Perfect Faro — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerfectFaro (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built by collaboration, consensus and most importantly, sources. Without the latter, there's often very little the former two can achieve. The lack of a released mod is not a reliable "source", it is not a "source" at all. It's coming to conclusions based on a lack of evidence, as if it's some kind of conspiracy. It's the worst kind of original research and simply not acceptable. Even if the mod is never ever released, we cannot jump to conclusions, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and relies on information published in reliable 3rd party sources, it is not the place for broadcasting new ideas or the place for disgruntled gamers to come and vent. It is not what building an encyclopaedia is about (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, there are multiple points there that apply to this situation). Even if the mod is officially cancelled, this article would likely remain, because the sources and coverage are still there, and the article would also cover and controversy surrounding that too.

I count 19 sources at Black Mesa (video game)#References, there are probably twice that out there, they all support the article and the potential mod (there are many articles out there on cancelled games, see Category:Cancelled video games, being cancelled or simply vanishing doesn't stop them being notable, not that I'm claiming every one of them to be notable).

You are of course welcome to list this article at Articles for Deletion if you feel the 19 sources listed above do not satisfy the general notability guideline, but please be weary of wasting anyone's time any further.

So bottom line, if you want to contribute anything to the article, we need sources. If you think the article should be deleted, AfD is thatta way, and the community can decide. There's nothing else I have to say. Ta-ta. H. Rehevkor ✉ 18:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that Rehevkor is doing things the right way, and that he's following wikipedia policies. Additionally, for those who think it should be deleted; take a look at the article for the game Chrono Break. It's merely a "trademark" of a game, but it still achieved good article status. It's more proof in favor of what Rehevkor is saying. Take your issues up with Wikipedia policy makers or something, it's them you have the real problem with. Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

New story on Kotaku

New quote out of the webmaster of the project was posted in a short story on Kotaku. If anyone wouldn't mind adding this info to the article it would be appreciated, otherwise I'll get to it eventually. Hewinsj (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's an article about speculation based on a speculative quote from some forums. It's not a particularly good source. Some guy (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I'll let it go. Hewinsj (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Merger

Surface Tension Uncut exists as a separate article, while it has received some coverage I do not feel it is notable independent of Black Mesa itself. The information in the article is already contained within this one, and I don't foresee the the STU article expanding any further than it has. Яehevkor ✉ 14:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I quickly found three references for the mod. Although I only wrote it as a stub, it could easily be expanded. Given its references, it passes the GNG by itself and without any help from the original Black Mesa mod. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

In my view it fails all the points of WP:NOPAGE, I've seen the sources but I don't think there'll ever be enough material to bring it to much more than a permanent stub. All the content could quite easily be contained here. Яehevkor ✉ 11:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support per all of Rehevkor's reasons. Some guy (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. If we have a page for every mod in existence, and every mod of a mod, we'll have thousands of pages with little to no information or notability. Also, the section for addons on the BM page could use mention of more mods for Black Mesa, such as the 'Insecurity' project that aims to recreate Blue Shift, the remake of the Uplink demo, or the Hazard Course remake. 69.166.28.209 (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support per all of Rehevkor and the above users reasoning. reasons. AnthonyJ Lock (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Surface Tension Uncut is only a small addon mod for Black Mesa (video game), which is a mod itself. I don't believe that Surface Tension Uncut requires a page of its own. I believe that it can remain just being mentioned in the Third-party expansion sub-section on the Black Mesa (video game) page or that the Surface Tension Uncut page should merge into the Black Mesa (video game) page. Also, I believe it would be good to add an addons and/or mods section to the Black Mesa (video game) page.Soryn6 (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• YLooks like someone already did the merge. I've redirected Surface Tension Uncut to the appropriate section of this article and removed the cleanup template. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 20:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Surface Tension Uncut and On a rail uncut

I added the two mods to the mod section, but the change got reverted because I used moddb as a source. Now, there is a PC Gamer Article (http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/01/10/black-mesa-surface-tension-mod) About the release of surface tension uncut, but none about On a rail uncut. Adding only surface tension uncut wouldn't make much sense, but leaving it like it is right now would be wrong. Suggestions?Leftshift (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming or Vaporware?

I've noticed that this page has both the "Upcoming video games" and "Vaporware" categories in it, which, apparently, is not allowed. The problem is, I don't know which one is supposed to be removed. Can someone give me clarification? Chocolatejr9 (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Neither should be removed. Black Mesa is an upcoming game that is still scheduled to be released. The release date for the full version is not certain. It is not cancelled. In the past, reliable sources have referred to the game as vaporware due to its prolonged development cycle, thus it fits in the vaporware category. It can be in both vaporware and upcoming, they are not mutually exclusive. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Mesa (video game). 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pcpowerplay.com.au/article/1002/PCPP174-Black-Mesa-and-GOTD/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110323182005/http://source.valvesoftware.com/rendering.php to http://source.valvesoftware.com/rendering.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419030634/http://www.moddb.com/features/mods-of-2005/3 to http://www.moddb.com/features/mods-of-2005/3
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.moddb.com/features/mods-of-2006-players-choice/3

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) 10:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

What content does this include?

I am trying to figure out precisely what content this release includes: It seems to include all of the original Half-Life game - but does it also include levels and storylines from the some of the subsequent sequels and extensions? If so, could this be more clearly described? RK (talk)

I don't how else it can be said, but it only comes with what came with the core HL game. None of the paid addons (OpFor, Blue Shift). --Masem (t) 14:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Puffery

"Black Mesa received positive reviews upon its initial release and was lauded as the game was updated and improved. Praise was directed towards the gameplay and attention to detail, comparing it to that of an official Valve release, as well as for the improvements they had made on the Xen chapters." I see that Masem has reverted my removal of this wording on the grounds that what's in the lede doesn't need to be referenced. This is only partly true, viz. "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." and "...editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". I feel that the present wording is inappropriate, particularly the first sentence. "Praise" and "lauded" are not NPOV wording unless they can be directly supported by references. WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Deb (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps those specific words are not appropriate - but that's even with citations, we'd not use those in Wikivoice. I'll change out those words, but the general content of that paragraph is otherwise reflecting the summary of the reception section. --Masem (t) 14:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of confusion here. Puffery is when we smother things in loaded adjectives (wonderful, beautiful, whatever) or ascribe WP:UNDUE weight to positive events (like an award or good review) that doesn't reflect the balance of sources. But if we say a critic praised something, then that is a simple fact expressed in plain English. There is nothing fundamentally puffy about saying that, and to reword it with unnatural euphemisms like "favorably commented" not only fails to solve the perceived problem, it makes the prose worse. Popcornfud (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud, WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If we say that critics "praised" something without a citation, that's exactly what we are doing. Deb (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Obviously claims must be cited. I'm responding to Masem. Popcornfud (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

And we're at the usual problem that we don't have explicit sources that summarize the critical reception short of MetaCritic's aggregate score. So in SYNTH, we have to be careful not to use excessive puffery. We can look to the reviews and within synth say that they talked positively about certain features as a whole, but we can't say "praised" without a source that says that. --Masem (t) 14:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"Talking positively about certain features" is what praise is. You might as well say we need a source saying they "talked positively" about something. Popcornfud (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"Praise" can be taken as excessively positive reviewing, gushing about a feature or the like; it's just too far off neutral language as Deb indicated. But we can say "positively commented" if the reviews talk favorable about gameplay elements (as long as it is clear and non-interpretive of the reviews) That's far more neutral language that we don't need to source. --Masem (t) 14:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that's way off the mark - to say a critic praised something is totally plain-English, it isn't "gushing" or non-neutral, it's used in countless FAs in reception sections. I mean, do you think the term "criticize" is also non-neutral? Because it's just the opposite of the word "praise".

The suggested replacement substitution "positively commented" is a truly grim and unnatural euphemism - I mean really, truly awful. Sorry to be blunt. Popcornfud (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to be tardy to the party, but I tend to agree with Popcorn on this. I don't think "praised" sounds overly-effusive (provided it isn't at odds with what's in the Reception section), and I don't think "positively commented" sounds especially natural. If anything, it almost sounds like we're trying to downplay the fact that the game received a decent positive reception. Now if we were talking about "highly praised" or "widespread critical acclaim" or such, that would be a different matter for me. Heck, if one wanted to be a pedant, even "praise" isn't necessarily all that impressive.[7] Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Readability

"the redesigns that were done to the original levels for the Source engine were well done"

Could the last 'done' be changed to 'constructed'? It still fits the context of level design and is less awkward to read. 2601:243:C700:38E3:68CB:9F5C:AD62:C764 (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that's a pretty clunky sentence, so I rewrote it. Popcornfud (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)