Talk:F.E.A.R. (video game)

Akira Similarities in Vault Sequence

The sequence in the Vault, from entering it, descending down and finally opening Alma's cryogenic storage unit, is a carbon copy of the same sequence in AKIRA. Is this worth mentioning somewhere in here, or would it be rendered as Original Research? I think it's noteworthy as it is one of the major events of the game (ie. all games have sections inspired from other sources if you look hard enough, but this is a very distinct setup). 208.251.140.163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC).

Level list

I've added a list of levels which the game F.E.A.R. contains, because I think it is a good idea to see how many levels the game contains and how it is structured. But the user called "Xihr" is deleting it every time without discussion and by simply referring to the wikipedia directive "WP:NOT#GUIDE". I've read it and I cannot see how adding a level list is hurting this directive. It's just a simple list, not a guide nor an advice nor an suggestion or something else what is conflicting the directive. It would be very nice if Xihr would explain it before he simply removes something by arbitrary behavior. I'm not playing a game with Xihr, I just don't' like it when someone simply delete the work of another one without consultation like in this discussion thread. 84.63.194.11 (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC) James

Well I'm a wee bit curious as to how the level list improves the article. Delta (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a "wee" improvement, but the point is, it doesn't hurt really, or does it? If it does so tell me, because then it makes me a wee bit curious. It was the last time I've added something here. You can make whatever you want with this article, I don't care anymore. I'm not getting paid for the time I've spend to "improve" any article here, especially when it's getting reverted back without proper reason. 84.63.197.143 (talk) 10:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC) James

It is still Wikipedia policy that this sort of thing is not appropriate for the project. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game guide.  Xihr  08:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read the WP:NOT#GUIDE, too, but I also cannot see how a simple level list is conflicting this policy and directive. A list of levels has nothing to do with a game guide. If so, please tell me where you see this in the WP:NOT#GUIDE, Xihr, but please stop deleting the list by just simply appointing to the WP:NOT#GUIDE without telling the line you mean and that is possibly violated. It's very frustrating when you destroy the work of another just because you don't like it, and I doubt that anyone will keep improving this article if you keep stubborn and thankless. It's important that we can discuss about everything, but the teamwork ends, if someone decides everything by arbitrary behavior and is not willing to discuss.84.63.201.247 (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If a list of levels is not a game guide, then what purpose does it serve? In terms of the article, how does it improve this article? If it doesn't improve the article, then it doesn't belong here. In Wikipedia, all the content added must be notable. Otherwise, anything could be added and it would cease to be an encyclopedia. Delta (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A Guide is a kind of receipt, a kind of manual to play the game or to solve a problem. It's serves as an advice, a collection of hints if you get stuck in a game. A level list just shows, how the game is structured, how many level it contains and that it is a linear game, divided in chapters. Perhaps it's not a very notable improvement for you but I think it has the right to be added. And by the way, I haven't seen a PC game in any encyclopedia, so why don't you remove the whole article? You have no real reason to remove the list. As long as you don't tell me how it hurts the wikipedia directive WP:NOT#GUIDE I will keep adding it. Until now Xihr is the only one who is violating the policy by destroying my work. 84.63.192.113 (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

But where do you ever see level lists? I've only ever seen them in game guides. On a different note, I have yet to see how this level list improves the article. If it doesn't improve the article, it has every right to be removed. Delta (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that it's well-established Wikipedia policy that this kind of thing is not appropriate. Disagreeing with consensus doesn't mean that it's changed.  Xihr  07:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Xihr, I'm not willing to discuss the policy with you again as long as you cannot point the exactly line in the policy that is violated from your point of view. I never said that I'm disagreeing with the wikipedia directive I just see that you misunderstood the policy. I think that I have annotated depletive the difference between level list and game guide above. Just because you keep stubborn doesn't mean that I have violated the policy. And now to the point with the improvement. Who decides this? Just you, Xihr and Delta? I thought that wikipedia is a team project, but it seems that both of you are believing that only you can decide what kind of improvements are allowed. And by the way, why don't you delete the plot summary? This is truly a violation of WP:PLOT, why don't you delete this? The plot summary is too detailed, too long to fit with the policy, but you are discussing with me about a simple level list. Some game guides are containing plot summaries, does this automatically mean that plot summaries are game guides? I don't think so. The level list is really not so important to me that it must be kept in this article, it just makes me angry that people like you are thinking that they can wipe out the work of others just because it doesn't fit in their personal concept. I spend some time to write something in this article and on the next day I have to see that it's been deleted without a reasonable explanation. Again, tell me, how the level list degrades the quality of this article and I delete it personally. But don't tell me something about violation against the wikipedia policy unless you tell me which line of the policy is violated.84.63.207.23 (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is an archived peer review in which level lists were discussed. Check out the Half-Life 2 article as well, you'll notice no level lists in there. In fact, check out this list of featured video game articles, and try to find one that has a list of levels in the article. I agree that I have yet to find an official policy explicitly stating that level lists aren't allowed, but Wikipedia policies and guidelines are much like the Constitution: not every single rule is explicitly stated. The policies and and guidelines are designed to be general and cover a wide range of topics. There are plenty of "rules" that have been defined by consensus in discussions; these just haven't been explicitly documented. On a different note, your comment about the plot summary is true; it's gotten quite bloated since I last saw it (which was about a year ago). You're welcome to improve it. Delta (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe you Delta when you say that there are no level lists in the articles you have mentioned. On the other way, does this automatically mean that adding level lists is a bad idea? Just saying that I cannot add a level list because other persons also don't do is not a good argument for me. It just means to me that adding a level list makes the F.E.A.R. article unique which means improvement for me ;-) No really, I'm still missing a good argument to remove the list, and I'm a little bit disappointed that you still can't give it to me when it is so obviously. Just saying it's not an improvement is not very constructive. You say it doesn't improve the article, but you didn't mention why. I'm happy that you agree with me that I have not violated the rules, because this is not my intention. The discussion Here also tells me nothing that could help us in this situation. I suggest something: Until you find a really good reason to remove the list, you should concentrate yourself to the real problem with the plot. You've also agreed that this is a real violation against the policy WP:PLOT. From my point of view this should be the first priority for this article. I will see if I can do something about that. As a first gesture of friendship I won't remove (like Xihr would do ;-) ) the whole plot because of the violation. ;-) I wish you a happy new year guys! 84.63.207.23 (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason I pointed you to this discussion was because the Doom 3 article originally had a list of levels much like the one you are trying to add. The result of that discussion was that the list of levels were unnecessary because the plot summary was sufficient. In the case of the FEAR article, I say it doesn't improve the article because there is no useful information gleaned from a list of levels. If I were a random reader stumbling upon this article, there would be no benefit to me (the reader) by reading a list of levels. Is a list of levels significant? Do these level names refer to some grand theme or motif? If not, I don't really see a need for it's inclusion. With that in mind, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.Check out this Wikipedian's edit, and why it was reverted. Finally, see the discussion on video game article guidelines and the guideline itself, which states that it is inappropriate to include "lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts", in which list of levels falls under.

As a side note, I really do appreciate you being patient and taking time out of your day to engage in this discussion. I find that your edit was in good faith and you really were trying to help out. I have been trying to find the discussion in which it was decided that level lists are inappropriate, but I have been unable to find a single, all-encompassing page that states this consensus. However, all of the data that I have found so far has pointed me in the direction that a list of levels in an article is unnecessary and perceived as fancruft. I ask that you join me in this search, perhaps looking for a discussion it which it was acceptable for a list of levels to appear in an article. Delta (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You've convinced me Delta. You've also been very patient and fair, and I really respect your opinion. I've just asked for was a reasonable explanation why the list should be removed, but Xihr's reaction wasn't adequate and helpful. The guideline is indeed a good argument that I can accept, so I will remove the list as I promised. At last we can work all together now to improve the plot summary ;-) 84.63.205.18 (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I quoted WP:NOT#GUIDE, which is policy.  Xihr  02:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You have still quoted nothing, my friend. You just named the whole policy, but you haven't quoted a single line from the WP:NOT#GUIDE that matched our discussion. It doesn't matter anymore, because Delta convinced me after he found a valid argument, but in future you should learn how to argument exactly. You've accused me for something I haven't done, and I see, that you still don't understand or are not willing to and that you prefer to keep stubborn instead. 84.63.217.178 (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you've acknowledged that what you were doing was against consensus and policy and have removed it, why are you still going on about this?  Xihr  00:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Xihr, you are really annoying. I haven't acknowledged that I was doing something against a rule. When I was doing so, why haven't you been able to show me which line of policy or else I had broken? I have removed the list, so why do you keep discussing here? Me personally want to make sure that something like this won't happen again. I mean that someone like you just remove something by arbitrary behavior without any discussion and argumentation. I've accepted Delta's answer because it really made sense and at least he was able to quote from some guidelines and discussions (no rules or policy terms btw), something you haven't been able to. You've failed and nothing what you have done was acceptable and helpful. For me, this discussion is over now. 84.63.194.51 (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. At least you've stopped violating policy against consensus.  Xihr  09:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read it carefully, you will see that you've violated against more rules then me. Just read the last part of WP:AGF. ;-) Never mind! At least also you can learn from your failures. But keeping stubborn and discussing with me won't help and doesn't show good faith. And you've forgotten to quote the relevant line again. It's the same fault you've made from the beginning by just naming the whole policy, and not the relevant term. And btw, this discussion is over. If you want to discuss with me further I suggest you open a new thread, but this thread is reserved for the level list. So if you want to say some last words about this topic you're welcome, but if you just want to play a game, I suggest you do it somewhere else. 84.63.200.62 (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why you're continually trying to remove this part of the discussions, except perhaps either to play WP:POINT games or to try to hide your embarrassment at the resolution. It certainly is not a case where WP:NOT#FORUM can be invoked, since I was responding to your claims about what I had said (which were wrong, since I was quoting a policy, not a guideline), and we were discussing the actual policy and what you were doing wrong with respect to it. The added absurdity is that you're trying to remove a discussion which you yourself contributed to. I'd be happy to WP:AGF here but you're making it an itsy bit impossible. I would suggest you drop it since a WP:3RR case wouldn't look good when you're trying to remove someone else's responses to your own comments about their editorial actions regarding your edits and a discussion of the policy that led to those actions. Please move on; you are making yourself look exceedingly silly here.  Xihr  23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Xihr, you are obviously violating against Wikipedia police. I've already described why I've deleted you're unnecessary comments. I suggest YOU read the WP:DISCUSSION -> KEEP ON TOPIC again. "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal". You are the only one who seems to play games. No comment you left since I agreed with Delta (which doesn't mean I've acknowledged that I violated anything you would like me to see) have been relevant or helpful. I explain it again, so that you can understand it: This thread is reserved to discuss about the level list. Perhaps someone else wants to add a level list for another game. This thread could then serve as an reference, to avoid equal discussions like that one. Your unnecessary comments are the only thing that looks embarrassing here. Nevertheless, it doesn't fit in this thread. I've agreed to delete the level list, I even deleted it by myself. So I suggest you do us and yourself a favor and stop playing games here by discussing with me about things that should be discussed on another thread then the "level list" thread, okay? 84.63.220.111 (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to get involved in this, but I will have to ask that you both take this discussion somewhere else. This talk page is for the discussion on how to improve the article; it is not a place to discuss talk page guidelines. Please, take this to your own user talk pages or the discussion on these guidelines. I will not delete any portion of this thread, because I believe in preserving it for posterity, in case of (heaven forbid) a request for comment or even request for arbitration. I sincerely hope that this does not progress that far and that we can solve this dispute. Delta (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I was discussing the article. He mentioned by name in conjunction with my edits and I was explaining my actions. He then started reverting that whole discussion. It is not practical to take his talk pages since he's editing from dynamic IP addresses and has dozens of them. Whatever, who cares, even if it goes to RfC nothing will come of it, so why bother?  Xihr  20:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I just wanted to make sure that this discussion thread would be closed with a final solution and mutual agreement, but Xihr made it impossible. I hoped that the discussion would be over after I deleted the level list which should have been the only topic here, and I already tried to explain Xihr that all unrelevant discussions should be placed in another thread than this. I just want to remember that the whole "conflict" started, when Xihr removed the level list without a valid explanation and giving me a chance by understand his "interpretation" of the Wikipedia policy. It would have been nice if he had written something helpful in this discussion, instead of naming some Wikipedia policies he caught up but without quoting some necessary lines. He just told which "rules" I have broken, but nothing of his comments have been a bit constructive. This behavior has really nothing to do with teamwork or fair play. 84.63.179.91 (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand completely that you are very frustrated with Xihr, and I am not trying to throw your thoughts aside by any means, but if you do have a problem with him, then I need to ask you to contact him on his talk page and tell him so. There is no need to point fingers at anyone; anyone who reads this thread will be able to clearly see what is happening/happened. Also, might I suggest creating a username so that it is easier to contact and help you? Thanks! Delta (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone reading the thread can clearly see that he was violating policy, stopped doing so, apparently didn't appreciate that being pointed out, and then started reverting the discussion he was involved in. The discussion was about improving the article and why I made the reversions I made, so it's clearly not WP:NOT#FORUM. As if that weren't obvious enough, he was adding replies to the thread and then deleting the whole thread again. That's beyond ridiculous; he's simply being disruptive. I'm sure it's not an accident that he's editing from multiple dynamic IPs; now another SPA is contributing to the discussion at my talk page. Come on, guys, it's pretty obvious what's going on here.  Xihr  20:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I know I'm eating my own words about keeping things on topic, but whatever. First and foremost,THE REVERTING NEEDS TO STOP IMMEDIATELY. Specifically, I am talking to you, the IP address (is there something else we can call you?). Constantly reverting after making replies or reverting after other's replies is a big no-no. It makes things much more difficult to keep track of and consequently, this whole thing will never get worked out.

Now, as I understand it, Xihr was defending his edits and "IP Guy" argued with him about whether they were valid or not. Then, the discussion was 'closed', but IP Guy started reverting the page due to his opinion of WP:DISCUSSION. And here we are.

Reverting talk pages are usually frowned upon, unless the edits made are slanderous and offensive. Since none of that has happened (and it better not!), it's best to keep all of this (yes, all of this!) as a record. In terms of WP:DISCUSSION, removing irrelevant topics is more along the lines of taking out fanboy talk or things waaay off topic like the weather. Things related to the article, such as an editor defending his edits, is completely acceptable. Hopefully, this will settle things once and for all, and we can get back to editing the article. Delta (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is an accurate summary. Thanks for looking into it, Delta.  Xihr  05:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Delta, it sounds like you find Xihr's behavior acceptable. He was not defending, he was offending. And you must confess that nothing he has ever done was constructive, and I mean EVER. If you look on his page you can see that most of the time he spends here is reverting articles from others. If there is a reason to revert something it's okay, but doing this without explanation is vandalism, like in my case. After he reverted it many times I've started this thread to discuss it. He defended himself by accusing me of violation of some Wikipedia policy. This policies are existing, but it's pretty obviously that he don't know the content of it, or is not willing to understand it. In this discussion he was never willing to show good faith. He kept accusing me of something, but he never quoted a relevant line of the policy he was referring to. But this is important, because this rules are not written in stone, and they could be interpreted in another way. It's not obviously what's right or wrong, but he insisted to see me as a violator instead to explain his point of view exactly with reasonable arguments. Is this really the way things should be handled here? I'm new here, and surely I make faults, but everyone who reads this thread can see that I'm willing to learn. At least I've removed the level list by myself after you, Delta, convinced me with reasonable arguments. To leave this thread clean and to avoid what finally happened (thanks Xihr) I was deleting everything what was out of topic after I agreed with you and deleted the level list. This was the topic, and the discussion should be over after we found a consensus. Xihr seemed to be unsatisfied, perhaps because I deleted the level list and not him. Nevertheless, I've explained my actions by referring to the WP:DISCUSSION -> KEEP ON TOPIC. But this seems to be a rule that could be broken from Xihr's point of view by transforming it into a personal discussion thread. And then he accused me of defacing it. That's what I call self parodying. Accusing others to violate rules by breaking the rules by himself, really funny.

Explain me, why newcomers like me should do anything here, when everyone would act like Xihr? You can still call me IP-Guy, because I won't create an account here. It's not worth the effort to do anything here again so long guys like Xihr are reverting things by arbitrary behavior without explanation, and can make their own rules. Don't you also think that someone who is referring so much like him should also act in the way? I'm out of it. It's pretty hopeless since there is no way to communicate in a reasonable way to Xihr. I hope at least you are happy with this result. Or in other words, that you should understand as a gamer: YOU WON! GAME OVER! 84.63.184.144 (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC) The IP-Guy

This guy's just parroting back almost exactly the same phrases I've used during the course of the discussion. It isn't even a very clever troll.  Xihr  21:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This one makes me curious now: You are calling him a troll? Just because he don't have an account here? Have you seen how many people are inserting here without accounts? Are they all trolls? Am I a troll? I don't think that it's very clever from you to evade his arguments by insulting him. But hey, I'm just a guy without an account, so please go on. I wonder what the admin would say if he would see this funny discussion here. This has been gone really a little bit beyond the topic, hasn't it guys? Perhaps there should be found an adequate way to resolve this dispute, because it seems that this will go on and on and on. 75.144.244.156 (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this is the only edit you've ever made on Wikipedia and it's to this obscure dispute (which has already been resolved, no less), no, there isn't much reason to take your contributions very silly.  Xihr 

Just for information: If you read Xihr's talk page carefully, you will see that he is known for making troubles with other users, e.g. in the discussion "Sade Adu" he already had trouble with an admin, Tabercil. Most of the discussion are about unexplained and invalid reversions. And I've seen that he deleted comments from IP-Guy, which was unacceptable in this thread. I think that the Wikipedia rules are also valid for his discussion page, so stop deleting comments immediately! 193.100.62.28 (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, as the issue is clearly detailed on his talk page, my talk page, and the actual edit history of the Sade Adu article. I don't think anyone's really going to buy this obvious sock attack from coordinated SPAs, but hey, knock yourself out. You're the one who's going to run afoul of admins, not I.  Xihr  23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting is, that you accused IP-Guy for violating the same WPs that Tabercil was accusing you. And also interesting is, that it is not the first time that someone accused you for not knowing the Guidelines and that you are not listening. Here some quotes from the user Swampfire:

"...You're wrong I understand BLP and I also understand your misuse of it. And I am no where near messing with almost all of your reverts. Just the ones I know a few things about. Especially when you do nothing to help the page. In most cases it would take you less than a minute to fix a problem. But for some reason you don't feel like helping improve. In fact you spent more time creating discussion with me, than it would take to fix the problem...Swampfire (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)"

and

"...You're not understanding, There are several times, where what you did. Does not fall under BLP. But you try to say it does. Removing a valid citation that pointed to the exact page, with the words on it. Is going completely against BLP, and yet in some cases you do it anyway. When removing content without proper cause (meaning you say it is BLP, when it obviously isnt) is considered vandalizing....Swampfire (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)"

Sounds familiar? BTW, why are you deleting comments on your talk page? I thought this was a big NO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.100.62.28 (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you quoted him talking about BLP in there, maybe you could figure it out yourself. (The admin in question was similarly telling him to stop making the edits, too.) You are really not even trolling very convincingly. Why not give it up already?  Xihr  05:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"...I seen you and Swampfire are in the midst of an edit war on this article. Please stop reverting each other and take the discussion to the talk page first to hash out your disagreements. Further blind reverts will lead to page protection and/or edit blocks, neither of which I want to levy. Tabercil (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely what I have tried to do.[8]. After all, I solicited your advice on your talk page.[9] He is demanding citations on ridiculous things, and when I give in and provide them, he is still reverting them. WP:3RR doesn't apply to vandalism or abuse. Xihr 06:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look, I have issued identical warnings to both of you. I'm trying to be a neutral party here, though I will say that I do think you are more likely in the right than Swampfire is. Tabercil (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

He just reverted the edits again, despite WP:3RR, his clear abuse, and your warnings. Since I got the threat too, I guess there's no point in users trying to rein in ridiculous WP:POINT behavior on Wikipedia anymore. If I'm going to get threatened for doing that, I have no choice to let him WP:OWN and do whatever he wants in the article. Have fun; he's your problem now. Xihr 19:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw your most recent comments on that page... hold off on making any hasty decisions, okay? I'm currently at work and that limits what I can do. Tabercil (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)..."

You can say what you want, but nobody will believe you anymore. You aren't the unguilty victim, you are also a passionated reversion and edit warrior. There is no room for you here anymore, so go with god, but go! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.213.21 (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Protip: The only way to ensure the end of a discussion is to end it yourself. That means stop talking, and let them have the last word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.152.148.234 (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summary

A good point was brought up in a discussion. The current plot summary is way too in-depth and detailed for what's appropriate according to WP:PLOT. I propose reverting the plot section back to this one, as I feel it was concise, had plenty of references and wasn't overly detailed Delta (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Downloadable Content

I have noticed recently that the downloadable content from the Xbox 360 version is now missing. Would anyone have info on this? 72.223.63.169 (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

epileptical effects on playing the game

recently i expierienced some strange motions like dizyness,... wich i expierienced the first time after playing call of duty,... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.67.188 (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a warning about that on pretty much every single video game released in the past 5 years. AlessaGillespie (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sequel

FEAR 2 has been released, this article says that it has been announced. That needs to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.152.148.234 (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing needed

f.e.a.r 3 is in testing and is soon to be released and as mentioned before this article only states that the sequel is soon to be released, I agree that this article needs editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.196.76 (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to revert back to 2007

The article is a wreck—barely C-class, currently. Back in 2007, it was a pretty strong A-Class article for the time. A straight revert would probably improve the article, but perhaps some of the newer content could stay. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation page needed

There is an upcoming album named "F.E.A.R." by Papa Roach that is not mentioned in the upper section of this article. I believe there is now a need for a proper disambiguation page that would link to all the F.E.A.R. articles. --149.156.157.66 (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on F.E.A.R.. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080130195609/http://aigamedev.com:80/reviews/fear-ai#comment-1660 to http://aigamedev.com/reviews/fear-ai
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070109081902/http://www.gamespot.com:80/pages/features/bestof2005/index.php?day=2&page=10 to http://www.gamespot.com/pages/features/bestof2005/index.php?day=2&page=10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060826023605/http://www.sierra.com:80/en/home/news/product_news/080806_-_fear_combat.html to http://www.sierra.com/en/home/news/product_news/080806_-_fear_combat.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060531164559/http://www1.gamespot.com/pc/action/fear/downloads.html?mode=demos to http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/fear/downloads.html?mode=demos
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061014144830/http://goty.gamespy.com:80/2005/pc/index22.html to http://goty.gamespy.com/2005/pc/index22.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302061555/http://www.gamespot.com:80/news/6144629.html to http://www.gamespot.com/news/6144629.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on F.E.A.R.. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508145904/http://www.projectorigincommunity.com:80/Askthedevs3 to http://www.projectorigincommunity.com/Askthedevs3

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on F.E.A.R.. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://aigamedev.com/reviews/fear-ai
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/pages/features/bestof2005/index.php?day=2&page=10
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sierra.com/en/home/news/product_news/080806_-_fear_combat.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.projectorigincommunity.com/Askthedevs3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005014908/http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3134101&did=4 to http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3134101&did=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060628223210/http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3146962 to http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3146962
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://goty.gamespy.com/2005/pc/index22.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elspa.com/?i=3942
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/news/6144629.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 October 2017

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

---

• F.E.A.R. → F.E.A.R. (video game)
• F.E.A.R. (series) → F.E.A.R.

– Series has more than 3 video game articles now per WP:NCVG, set this page to be the secondary article. Neverrainy (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 14:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Contested and opposed. Doesn't meet WP:NCVG requirement. Original game is the still the primary topic. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

3 main games (F.E.A.R. (video game), F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin, F.E.A.R. 3), 2 expansions (F.E.A.R. Extraction Point, F.E.A.R. Perseus Mandate) and 1 related item (Alma Wade) DO meet the WP:NCVG requirements. This has to be done. Neverrainy (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Try reading WP:NCVG again and properly. It says as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item.. Alma Wade is a character in the game, not a media item. If you want the page moved, follow the proper process and open a move discussion. This isn't a uncontroversial technical request. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

What we really need is something like a comic, featured length film, TV/Netflix series, or graphic novel adaption before we consider a move like this.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Neverrainy, The1337gamer, and The1337gamer: Queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Makes sense. At this point the first game does not receive more page views than all other topics (including the third game, which was sold as "F.3.A.R." and as such is pretty confusingly titled considering the first game).[1] Placing the series at the base name makes sense per WP:CONCEPTDAB. The WP:NCVG requirements such as the "related item" bit are not at all intuitive and should probably be changed to align with WP:CONCEPTDAB.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to add F.E.A.R. (series) into the {{requested move/dated}} template since the aforementioned page was never tagged with a move request template (done by a bot). Hoping this brings in more input to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think the original game is still the primary topic, per The1337gamer, considering the series is just the three games, and is of little interest independent of those. The page views also bear that out, with the game receiving 2.5 times that of the series.[2]  — Amakuru (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 19 August 2019

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. The arguments are equally convincing, but the headcount is much more in favour one way than the other. For what it's worth: yes, people do recall the first game the most, and they might recall the sequel, but not the threequel. But on the other hand, I think WP:NCVGDAB is a good guideline to follow in these cases. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

---

• F.E.A.R. → F.E.A.R. (video game)
• F.E.A.R. (series) → F.E.A.R.

– Not sure why the last move request failed. Pageviews indicate that the series page and other games in the series get roughly 200 views daily while the F.E.A.R. article gets around 400, indicating that many people are probably getting brought to the first game when they just want info on the series. It makes sense to move the series page to the main namespace, as all the games are clearly notable in some respect. @Steel1943:, @Neverrainy:, @Cuchullain:, @The1337gamer:, @Amakuru: as involved in the last move attempt. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. A1Cafel (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: if this move fails, then the video game series should really move to F.E.A.R. (video game series) as "series" is just meaningless without the medium context. --Gonnym (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This is contrary to the guideline at WP:NCVGDAB which suggests using (series) unless further disambiguation is necessary because of the existence of other series with the same name. Colin M (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support as before. Makes the most sense.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Proposal argument fails to recognize that vast majority of page views are driven by Google and users are going directly to the pages they want. If you Google for “F.E.A.R. game” the results give you the option to click on either this page or the series. What the page view counts show is most people are choosing this page; it’s the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —В²C ☎ 05:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCVGDAB: Naming conflicts often arise between a video game and a series based on it. The conflict should be settled according to the disambiguation guidelines and the specific conventions below. In many cases, the series will be the primary topic as a broad concept article covering all the related uses, including the original game. In such cases, the series should take the base name while the video game article is disambiguated. I don't see why this article should be an exception, on the contrary, available evidence indicates it should not. No such user (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Question: Why put the name "F.E.A.R" in the series name instead of the game? Benjaminkirsc (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Usually it's done when the chance of a visitor typing the name in search of information on the series is greater than the chance they are looking for the first game in the series. Which is the case with most long running game series, besides those with extremely famous first games, like Bioshock. For example, most people who type Metroid are looking for the Metroid series, not the very first NES game._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This is the BioShock case. F.E.A.R. typically refers to the first game, because it is a classic of the genre, and the others aren't. Search for conversation on the game and the series, and you'll find it mostly talking about the original. This Eurogamer article for example, this reddit thread for example - https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/7s24fi/fear_13_years_later/. No one is going to look back on F3AR 13 years later. The FEAR sequels are significantly less important compared to the original than the BioShock sequels. - hahnchen 11:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - nothing has changed since last time. The original game is still overwhelmingly the primary topic by page views, between itself, the series and the sequels. And as the original and most viewed of the games is likely to have long-term significance too. Using the series as a broad-concept might make sense if there was equal interest in the different things, but given most users want the original game, it's best to keep the status quo and take them there, with the others available via hatnotes.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• As I mentioned in the nom, there is no reason to believe those pageviews aren't from people searching for the series, since the page is in the primary namespace. I'm not sure how that makes a valid argument that the first game is the primary topic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as per No such user. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - the series/franchise overview should be primary over the single game. I too think the (series) disambiguation is too unclear, and this move fixes that concern. -- Netoholic @ 10:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per Amarkuru. Most people want the original game, hence the pageview charts. If people genuinely wanted the series article, you'd see a lot greater percentage traffic to the series article, or the disambiguation page. - hahnchen 18:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONCEPTDAB. This is a good case for a broad concept article covering all these related uses in one place.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.