Talk:Deathmatch Classic

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

HL1:DM Source[edit]

"Also includes two multiplayer games: Half-Life 2 Deathmatch and Half-Life 1 Deathmatch: SourceTM." [1]

It's official.

HL1:DM is an entirely different mod from DMC.
How can you prove that?
Try playing either of the two, see the difference.
Or, to add to this illustrious conversation, you could examine the Steam listings for these different games. Each are independent of the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.239.183.126 (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To further "prove" it one can look at the release dates. HL1:DM is simply Half-Life's original multi-player mode which was part of the game when it was released in 1998. DMC didn't come out until years later (the 2001 Half-Life patch described in this article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.221.200 (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just look here to see proof: http://store.steampowered.com/app/40/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.64.249 (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed a load of issues and cleaned it up.

Valve Task Force Re-vitalization[edit]

Attention, all contributors to the Valve Task Force and the articles it constitutes!
I am here to announce that I will be re-vitalizing the Valve Task Force, aimed at universally improving articles constituting Valve Corporation, their employees, associates and products. This specific task force has been dormant for quite some time and with two very notable releases coming out this year, I feel like this is the appropriate time to re-stimulate the general aim of this group. For those who are not already members of the Valve Task Force, feel free to add your name to our members list and contribute to whatever articles you feel your contributions may prove beneficial for. Valve, its products and notable employees have proven to be essential to the progression of the video game industry, so I'd like to make a call of arms for this cause. DarthBotto talk•cont 22:13, 08 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

If we have no reviews for this game and only a handful of mentions/announcements, it would be best covered in its parent section: Half-Life_(video_game)#Third-party_mods. When I looked, I saw nothing more than a paragraph in Internet Archive 2001-era magazines. czar 14:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

czar this is not a third party mod, neither is Ricochet, these are both primary releases from Valve. Valoem talk contrib 21:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being a primary release is not part of notability guidelines though. There's no reviews or real coverage of the game, regardless of it being primary or third party. -- ferret (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, primary releases are notable and are always covered significantly in reliable sources. I have added sources which show notability. Valoem talk contrib 21:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be confusing WP:V and WP:N? No one is denying the existence of the game, but the three sources you added barely make a passing mention of the game. There's no coverage or discussion in any of them about Deathmatch Classic. They definitely do not support notability. Being a first-party release from a developer is not part of any notability guideline. -- ferret (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These games have been accessed on over 10 million PCs, it is included with any purchase of Half Life. There are tons more sources online, if you think this won't survive AfD go for it. Valoem talk contrib 21:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is great source GameSpot which lists both of these games as 37% of Steam games never played. Anyone who owns Half Life has a copy to this primary release, please use discretion, try searching for more sources they could be easily added. I split the article due to overwhelming notability. Valoem talk contrib 21:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is a waste of time for this because no one is arguing for its deletion. We don't have more than a small paragraph's worth of sourced text to write about this topic (no reviews, all mentions, etc.) In those cases, we merge the content to a parent article that can support the paragraph. If more sources appear, we can always merge it back to its own article. WP:Due weight czar 00:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend rereading WP:Due weight, this only applies to text within articles implying that the text gives a specific POV undue weight. Due weight is not a reason for merger or deletion it is for balancing NPOV within an article. The only requirement for this as a stand alone is reliable sources. Both games are not the same thing therefore merging it into one article is in fact WP:UNDUE.
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." Valoem talk contrib 02:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) Do you contest my original statement that there is an insufficient amount of secondary, reliable coverage to write a detailed article on this topic? (2) The NPOV issue, if you must make it into one, is that we do not cover this subject in any depth if we cannot reliably source a Reception, Development, or Gameplay section. If all that we have are the websites that you added, we can do no authoritative justice to the topic (mind that I had actually read and reviewed those sources before I first redirected this article months ago). czar 04:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I disagree with everything, there are enough sources added, including a source which says this game is on the 37% of Steam games that everyone has, but no longer plays. I feel like these sources are a good start, but MANY more can be added for both games. But before you decided to add sources or merge we should use discretion to determine which path is better. For two games that can be accessed by 10 million PCs at any time, common sense would suggest sources should be added, and the article unmerged. Are suggesting games played by over 10 million people at one point, can be non-notable? Valoem talk contrib 16:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing has been written about them, yes.

37% of Steam games that everyone has, but no longer plays ... can be accessed by 10 million PCs at any time

I'd take another look at this. The article is about games owned but never played (not "lo longer played"), meaning that it came in a bundle and went unplayed. But even still, Deathmatch Classic is just a minor entry among all the other Half-Life 2-related entries... and that does not confer notability (only significant coverage does). The second part of the above quote would only indicate that this mod is on par with other free-to-play downloads that were added to personal inventories but never played—which is to say that it indicates nothing on its own. We don't base notability on these custom measures. It always goes back to what I originally said—whether we have enough sources to write a full treatment of the topic. If not, we merge. czar 16:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same thing as merging Eva Bruan to World War II. Look at what you are saying, first it was not minor release, it was a major release at the time look at 2001 sources, and it was release with Half Life, which is the most influential game in FPS (and one of the most influential games of all time). Being release with Half Life is never trivial nor minor. Also it was release with Half Life 1 not 2. Valoem talk contrib 17:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I want to point out your comment:

it was a major release at the time look at 2001 sources

That's what Czar is telling you. It was NOT a major release, and there isn't any major coverage from 2001 sources. Notability is not inherited. Half-Life 1's notability doesn't help Deathmatch Classic. -- ferret (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

is just a minor entry among all the other Half-Life 2-related entries

It was release with Half Life 1 not 2 and yes it was a major release at the time Valve had three games HL, CS, Ricochet and this game. Valoem talk contrib 17:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1) Being a first-party release by a notable company makes a release neither major nor notable in any way, as notability is not inherited. 2) "Possible players" do not make up the actual number of players, which is fairly small, and regardless of its size, no significant coverage means no article, as notability is required. On a side note, due to Steam package 0, Synergy can be played by over 100 million people at any point, yet the article is redirected to List of Source engine mods. 3) None of the three sources added have any information available on the game, they only state a quick fact or its name once:

All mentions of the game from given citations:
Ars Technica: "Buried in a leaked folder called "wmods" (in a subfolder named "3wave") was a level pack for Half-Life's Deathmatch Classic containing replicas of all the official maps from the Quake Threewave mod."
Eurogamer: "Valve's Threewave was buried within a leaked folder called "wmods", in a subfolder called "3wave". It's a level pack for Half-Life's Deathmatch Classic, and includes remakes of the maps from the Quake Threewave mod."
GameSpot: "Counter-Strike: Source, Half-Life 2: Deathmatch, Left 4 Dead 2, Counter-Strike, Half-Life 2, Portal, Counter-Strike: Condition Zero, Day of Defeat, Deathmatch Classic, Ricochet, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Day of Defeat: Source, Portal 2, and Half-Life 2: Episode One."

Clearly, none of these sources state anything besides Threewave's burial inside its code, the game's non-players, and the entities existence. Since the only other source is primary, and only handles information on the OS X and Linux ports, nothing on this article can be properly solved, which again results in lacking significant coverage (or, heck, any coverage) and notability. Therefore I contest keeping this article and redirect as intended by czar. Lordtobi (✉) 22:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, those are not the only sources that exist, Load the Game, Giant Bomb, Kit Guru all of which cover this topic as a major release in bundle, Destructoid, this coverage can certainly defer this article to AfD, a merge is not appropriate. Valoem talk contrib 22:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...those are patently unreliable sources: three unreliable blog posts and a user-submitted wiki. Not only would those sources not count towards notability but they wouldn't be appropriate within the article either. I assumed you would know that if you're making such an elaborate argument. Wikipedia:Reliable sources has much more on what constitutes a reliable source and WP:VG/RS has even more specific sources. czar 23:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to czar, the two "articles" still only put the game among a list of others:

Load the Game: "You’ll get Counter Strike: Global Offensive, Portal and Portal 2, Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2, Team Fortress Classic, Team Fortress 2, Counter Strike, Counter Strike: Source, Counter Strike: Condition Zero, Day of Defeat, Day of Defeat: Source, Half Life 2, Half-Life 2, Half-Life 2: Deathmatch, Half-Life 2: Lost Coast, Half-Life 2: Episode One and Episode Two, Half-Life, Half-Life: Blue Shift, Half-Life: Opposing Force, Half-Life Deathmatch: Source, Half-Life Source, Ricochet and lastly, Deathmatch Classic."
Kit Guru: "The Valve complete pack has gone through a few iterations over the years but right now it includes the Team Fortress games, the Counter-Strike games, all of the Half-Life titles, Ricochet, Deathmatch Classic, the Left4Dead games and finally, the two Portal titles."

Giant Bomb, alike MobyGames, only includes user-submitted content, which is just as much unsourced. The Destructoid source is, as czar correctly says, a community blog, even if the information is valid, it only points out that something was censored in the game; a nice little fact to add to the article, but not noteworthy seeing the origin of the fact: Off a community blog. No source, how improper it might be, implied significance of the entity, and nothing of it applies to significant coverage. Please don't try to defend this article with your life, just let the redirect happen, as there is enough evidence that the entity is not notable enough. Lordtobi (✉) 10:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lordtobi (✉), The redirect is improper redirect will not happen. I find this sources enough per IAR we have exceptions. Anything that has been downloaded 10 million times and has been included with Half Life the most influence video game of all time is clearly notable. Use common sense and if you want a redirect I'll immediately open an AfD as that overrrides redirect discussions then editor with knowledge of the industry can make their input. Please name me a non-notable Microsoft, Square Enix, or Blizzard product. You haven't found sources because you are not looking, this game is called "Deathmatch Classic" a common term referring to a format of FPS. In the PC gaming industry Valve is at the peak. Everything they release as a primary product is notable and passes GNG. Until you open an AfD I am not going to engage other editors. Unless you feel strongly about the redirect, I would recommend you drop this, because I am never going to. Deathmatch Classic, a Valve Corporation primary release (and among their first video games) is undisputedly notable. Valoem talk contrib 15:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to blame others for content you cannot deliver, so far the significant coverage has been missing from everything ever linked by you, of which half is not even reliable. First of all, it has zero reviews, using WP:VG's custom Google search engine, you can find 10 pages that say that the game is included in the Valve Complete Pack, just like every other Valve game (it's not like they could just leave it out). Now, when you look veeeery closely, two appropriate sources state its release, hey![2][3] Now that is very nice, but not essentially significant enough to maintain a whole article. Two further sources state the free inclusion of the game in Half-Life update 1.1.0.7, but nothing comes after that.[4][5] (Note: I will leave Eurogamer out as the detail is pushed into the corner, with the date also being off.) I will add the release citation, but will generally put myself on the side of czar for proposed redirection. It is your task, as defendant of this article, to prove to use that it is worth keeping. Blaming others is not a good way to do so. Lordtobi (✉) 15:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you can find 10 pages that say that the game is included in the Valve Complete Pack, just like every other Valve game (it's not like they could just leave it out)

What does this mean? Its hard to not include major releases. This is a Valve release not an independent third party mod. Valoem talk contrib 16:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Major company release ≠ Major release, that should be clear by now. If you think it is, you have to prove it, but there is no proof. You can't prove what is not true. It was released for free, and still is free to those who get Half-Life on Steam, but you have cited yourself that its playerbase is near non-existential. See, e.g. Microsoft Studios, one of the largest publishers in the scene, has a page of releases, List of Microsoft Studios video games. Now scroll down, every red link is a non-notable release by a major company, and there are enough of them. Please stop sticking to the same argumentation. Lordtobi (✉) 16:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Yes, it should be merged; there's literally no sources for it that say anything other than "Valve included a mod with Half-Life that sort of replicated the deathmatch mode of Quake. No one plays it, but it's still in there." This is a non-notable half-life mod, even if Valve was the one to slap it together. That said, clearly Valoem is never going to stop arguing about it, so either a) just start merging it per this consensus and then block him when he inevitably reverts over and over (no one who writes something like "I would recommend you drop this, because I am never going to" will last long) or b) just take it to AfD and put in the nom statement that multiple editors have searched and can't find any more sources to justify an article, but one person has declared their intention to never stop being obstinate and blocking the merge. --PresN 19:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pres There is a clear lack of understanding, I am against the merge based on reason highlighted but specifically requested AFD for outcome as I said above. Specifically, the comment regarding "not dropping the issue", is a response to "Please don't try to defend this article with your life, just let the redirect happen", which I find to be an invalid rationale, please review my edit history regard DRV and GNG, you can see your recommendation to block me is insulting and given my history is disruptive. Please be careful how to talk to me, this could lead to an ANI and possible desysoping. Thank you. Valoem talk contrib 07:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've undid the merge, please AfD to merge for consensus. Valoem talk contrib 07:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple users have proven to you that the entity is not notable any further than the content I added. PresN clearly explained why a redirect is granted and so czar did what we had to do. An AfD discussion would receive the same outcome, as the unnotability of this, and Ricochet is clear, unless you can prove it is notable, which could not thus far. Simply undoing the redirect is pure edit warring, as there was no consensus to do so. Currently, your only argumentation (as posted on czar's talk page) is that it is owned by 10 million users, truly, this is a high number, but the game was given out for free over 10 years now, the number is not surprising (research shows that it is even less than 10 million, around 7.5 million). The playerbase is, as you have cited yourself, fairly small. In fact, the peak number of people playing the game at the same time is 32, and the median play time is just seven minutes. This argument also collides with Steam package "0", the appendant given to every user of Steam (100+ million) when registering an account. Within this package is, for example, Pirates, Vikings, and Knights II. It does not have an article either, and is not notable whatsoever.
If you really wish for an AfD, please set it up yourself. The current consensus is "redirect", and it is most likely to stay this way. P.S.: Please not that threatening other users by reporting them, in this case without valid reason, will not help you in a discussion. Lordtobi (✉) 11:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If AfD results in redirect, that it fine, but the only way to find out is to try. I have some faith it may pass, I was quite irritated that you and PresN, suggest I have no argument. My arguments are that the coverage is not trivial and has been documented in multiple reliable sources. Second argument is that notability cannot be lost, also 10 million purchased regardless of time frame is not trivial. This game was commonly played till 2004, the release of HL2. Both of you have the right to disagree, however since it is the sources that are in question, I feel AfD is the best option for a final outcome. Did you want me to open an AfD to keep, seems strange, no? Valoem talk contrib 14:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the coverage is not trivial and has been documented in multiple reliable sources

The little cited information is covered insignificantly in just a very few sources. You justify "significant coverage" with random articles naming DMC as one of many in the Valve Complete Bundle. If the bundle is reported on, no game can be left out. You are not debating that there is no article for Half-Life 1 Deathmatch: Source, are you?

notability cannot be lost

There never was and haven't proven the opposite, as this is tying in with the false argument one above.

10 million purchased regardless of time frame is not trivial

It was handed out for free with copies of Half-Life, and that just 7.5 million times (even if that is still much), however, owners ≠ players, all-time peak was 32 so that is pretty much nothing, also disproven by my argument on Pirates, Vikings, and Knights II, which is owned by 100+ million and still not notable.

Did you want me to open an AfD to keep, seems strange, no?

You are the only one here wanting AfD, although a Redirect is perfectly reasonable and justified, as detailed by PresN. You can set up an AfD to start a discussion and oppose it with your arguments. Lordtobi (✉) 16:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a consensus to merge, I dropped the issue since there was no activity, but I do have follow up sources, these two MAJOR Valve releases obviously pass our WP:GNG/VG requirements. Here is a copy of my discussion with Cunard

  • I am having issues search for sources regarding Deathmatch Classic. The is a first person shooter mod for Valve's game, Half Life one of the most influential games of all time. The game Deathmatch Classic is included with Half Life which means over 10 million people have purchased the game. Now there is a debate that the mod, a primary release from Valve, is not notable. Some editors are looking for a review of the game which exists but is hard to find due to the fact that the term "deathmatch classic" often refers to a type of combat mode in first person shooters. Because of this the term "deathmatch classic" is generic and becomes difficult to find sources specifically referring to "Deathmatch Classic" the mod. What method would you use here? Valoem talk contrib 08:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Talk page watcher) Hi @Valoem: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources has a list of recommended sources for video games. You could search on some of the sites that are listed there as reliable sources to see if they report about the topic. Also check out WP:ADVANCED, an essay I recently composed, for advanced source searching information. North America1000 07:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard has provided sources which pass our GNG for video games. Valoem talk contrib 23:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Planet Half-Life GameSpy source isn't reliable. GameSpy and IGN used to host fan sites like this. The editorial team consisted of a group of volunteers and likely had no editorial oversight. So you can scratch that one. The GameSpot source says barely anything. The Czech article is rather short. Doesn't look like the topic meets WP:GNG with these additional sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The three sources: The first one is Planet Half-Life, which is only hosted on GameSpy, is much alike a fan site, written not very objectively. The second one is already included in th current version of the article. The third one is from an unnotable, foreign-language source. Juding from its length, even if I do not speak Czech, it will likely only state "it released. it is like Quake.", also it is unaffiliated with MFDNES, which you linked to, rather it is part of iDNES, which is unnotable as well. Saying that DMC and Ricochet were major releases are your opinion, really, breaking it down there is an insufficient amount of sources, and all just state "hey, it was released today." as a kind of side-note, not a fully-fledged article, making both articles miss significant coverage by far, and neither passes GNG. Lordtobi (✉) 00:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was a pretty clear consensus to redirect the articles again, I thought. -- ferret (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Here's a formal merge discussion: Talk:List of GoldSrc engine mods#Proposed merge with Deathmatch Classic. Pinging all participants: @Valoem, Ferret, Lordtobi, PresN, Northamerica1000, Cunard, and The1337gamer czar 18:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was among the most popular games played on the internet at one point. This game is included in all Half Life packs. Over 10 million people have downloaded this game, though only a few remain playing it, this is a notable game. Please AfD to get proper closure. Valoem talk contrib 22:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have explained several times why AfD is the wrong forum and I won't repeat it. No one is proposing outright deletion. Please continue discussion at the formal request: Talk:List of GoldSrc engine mods#Proposed merge with Deathmatch Classic. WP Video games has been notified as well. czar 23:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am saying AfD is the only forum for this type of disagreement. What we have here is a classic example of mobbing those who already formed strong opinions wish to include the discussion among those editors who already agree. To generate better consensus is to allow broader discussion, I can't fathom how this request could be unreasonable. Valoem talk contrib 05:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because starting an AfD with the goal of redirecting or merging will likely be closed on procedural grounds. AfD is for requesting complete deletion. -- ferret (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deathmatch_Classic&oldid=1199588473"