Talk:SourceForts

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

Citations[edit]

I added citation for the release date (which was actually a day later than written) and up all other uncited information as best I could. If there's anything else you guys arn't sure about, stick a {{fact}} on it and I'll try my best to clear it up. --Khuskan 18:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old stuff[edit]

It must be noted that the 2.0 format is jlf's format.

Guys, I'm really trying to keep this article as non-bias as possible. I know that there are two sides of looking at the whole NF/SF fight, and that it is hard to find any middle ground. But please don't just say "jlf was a jerk, nick is right, here's why" or vice versa. Anything that there is disagreement about should be labeled as "controversial", because it is, and this allows you to then describe both side's view of the matter.

Finnegar

Acutally, Knifa is a personal friend of mine! --Saint-Paddy 10:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Same as, i went to a lan party with him and a few of our close friends, stayed at his house as well, more mature than you might think. DreamEater

Deletion?[edit]

Why are we up for deletion? You seem to be going around putting all HL2 mods on your list, is there something wrong with a mod article?

I like this mod , but i hate it's community, especially since they've put the global ban list that PERMANENTLY rejects your steam id and prevents you from being accepted into the most played server. I'm on that list , and if this article is being removed from wikipedia, i couldn't care less anymore since i hate what it's community does to their players. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.186.67 (talk • contribs) .
--The vote for deletion has already taken place (several months ago, I posted the above comment in January), with the majority choosing to keep the article. I'm afraid I don't know anything about any global ban list, is there some way to request removal, on the forums perhaps? Either way, choosing to delete an article because of a disagreement over their punishment methods doesn't seem like a fair idea. Finnegar 21:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you look at the record of this deletion suggestion, it was marked no consensus. I however completely agree that this "thread", for lack of a better word, is silly :) -- Sirius81 16:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References and cleanup[edit]

I've tagged large sections of the article with "unreferenced" or "fact" tags. Don't see it as an attack, this page just needs to be way more encyclopedic. The both history sections reek of WP:OR, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt by tagging instead of deleting. I've also removed a part that gives advice to new players to read up on something (can't remember what exactly) and points to the SourceForts forums. Please remember WP:NOT, among other things, it is not a game guide and not a newssite. -- Sirius81 17:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some minor changes so far, I'm going to try to be bold and clean this page up a whole lot more. The history section, regardless of it being unreferenced, is way overdone, it is longer than, for example, Counter-Strike's history. Some information regarding milestone releases might be interesting, but that is about it, perhaps some info regarding the whole NeoForts issue if I can find a source for that. -- Sirius81 14:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted a lost of the unnecessary bits in the history section. This should clear that issue up. I understand the need for citations, but a lot of the information regarding the NeoFort's issue is first-hand and not much exists on it besides a few IRC chat logs. --Stieffers 18:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted almost the entire version history and summarized it in an infobox in the history section on top. I did it while you made your edits and this was my first edit conflict, I think I merged our changed, but please verify ;) -- Sirius81 18:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely rewritten history section, with references this time, it is only a few lines now, but that is all that could be verified (so far). -- Sirius81 22:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your History changes. The NeoForts conflict was a very large scale event, and I've often used this page as a reference for people who have not heard about it, or do not fully understand it. --Stieffers 00:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, do you have a link discussing the whole NeoForts issue? I've spend some time looking for sources; interviews and reviews and such, there aren't much. The ones I did find I used as references and should be in the references section. What I am worried about, and made me start this whole topic, was that the history section seemed to be Original Research, someone who wrote an analysis from what he personally remembered, and, as that link explains, it does not belong here. -- Sirius81 03:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I want to note that I'm trying to make a proper article of this, I'm not mindlessly tearing it down ;) In fact, I want to show all those request for deletion guys wrong about having articles about mods :) -- Sirius81 16:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay section[edit]

I've expanded the gameplay section somewhat, I found it odd there was barely a description of gameplay at all, which is the most important thing for a mod, especially this one that used essentially all HL2DM art. The prose is still quite ugly and it contains a list of classes, I'll try to improve that some more. English is not my native language though, so bear with me :) -- Sirius81 | Talk 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major rewrite[edit]

I've rewritten large parts of the article, linked lots of things etc. ANY OTHER MAJOR CHANGES OR REVERTS OF MY MATERIAL SHOULD BE DISCUSSED HERE FIRST. Please do not randomly dissect the article without prior discussion - I am hoping to raise this to featured status. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing of SourceForts screenshots[edit]

Any screenshots of SourceForts on this article are no longer {{Non-free game screenshot}}, now as per this forum post in this thread by Taylor Stieff, head developer, they qualify as GFDL 1.2 or later. All screenshots of SourceForts should therefore be tagged and licensed as below: 

=== Licensing ===
{{GFDL}}

Released by GFDL license readable at [http://www.sourcefortsmod.com/boards/showpost.php?p=125931&postcount=1 this page].

A copy of the email conversation that prompted the thread has been sent to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, and is available on request. Thanks. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 20:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive Politics[edit]

I'm not familiar enough to tell you what is or isn't most important, but this article has too much about dev team resignations etc. that simply isn't useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.110.134 (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is just a load of bickering by and about a bunch of sexual inadequates rather than a Wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.195.173 (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Y’all this was literally the most important part of the article. This was a community driven and developed game, hence the community being a big part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:8800:2F30:BD81:7278:3813:6F4B (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal[edit]

I removed the list of maps and classes in the mod. They don't contribute to the article and only serve to make this article seem like a game guide.Eik Corell (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domain expired[edit]

Wow. The original team certainly didn't leave the project in very good hands. 3 years of bickering and the end result is absolutely nothing. 88.14.36.64 (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SourceForts. 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:

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) 11:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Updates[edit]

Okay, let's talk about every new update to the page like what I've read about on how it should be. I want to make this page 100% factual. The links in dispute have been added to all official channels that have been considered valid. The Moddb has links to all issues discussed in the edit history.

If you have not played this free game, play it before editing information that is common knowledge to a day 0 player. This game is a Capture the Flag game. There is 2 teams, red and blue, both have flags. The only image on this site even shows the flag.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick12506 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't include version histories and change logs. You should take a moment to read our policy on verification, the manual of style for video games (in particular, WP:VGSCOPE), and the guideline on reliable sources. Our personal experience playing a game is not good enough for adding things to Wikipedia, as that would be original research.-- ferret (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This game is a decade old, all the articles about this game are long gone. What do you suggest we do about this sort of situation ferret? The current article doesn't have the version updates. I also should point out version updates for this game were more in line with new game releases given the drastic differences. We can both agree that this is a Capture the Flag game, the last editor tried to remove this. This talk page will get used more because of the miscommunication. Thank you for your time. Nick12506 (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NOTCHANGELOG This is a core policy of Wikipedia. We're not a change log. -- ferret (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You skipped the part in which I said this is a CTF genre game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_the_flag#Software_and_games Nick12506 (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

ferret, I believe your edit of the external links was misinformed.

These are the links that I believe should be on the site. I've skimmed the rules regarding external links and with such a case as this in when every other form of article on an subject is lost to time, the only links that can be provided should be. The wiki speaks of exceptions for certain situation and I believe these links fall under such exceptions.

Please discuss this. Nick12506 (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO, in particular #10. We don't link to social media sites or other sites that the main primary webpage of the topic also links to. There is no reason to make an exception.-- ferret (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ferret I've looked into the rules I believe that because of the limited information and the limited available sources for this topic that we must allow the other 2 links. This game has had its online presence pretty much erased from the flow of time and the only way we can begin to make this article wikipedia worthy is by including those 2 links. I read a bunch on the rules and the exception clause shows that this is a outlier case.. The title of the rule you've quoted is "Links normally" this is by far the farest we can get from normal case and I believe its covered by the exceptions to allow the 3 links.

Nick12506 (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly on the subject of external links, but sources -- A user contacted me on my talk page. He claimed to have an archive of 30+ sources. I thought I had responded to him, but figure I may as well bring it here now. He said that they weren't archived by the Internet Wayback Machine, but I bet archive.is must have at least some of them. If at least some of these are both archived and reliable, they could be used to bolster the existing info present. Eik Corell (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eik Corell: It's this same editor, Nick12506. He wasn't signing posts. Either way, no, these external links don't belong. To be fair, if the sources don't materialize, this may need to go to AFD anyway. It's been tagged for notability for a long time. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Nick12506 (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC) It was me, I asked for help and you start talking about deleted a decade old page. What type of person are you, I can not express my disgust that you would follow someone looking for help and then try to destroy what they hold dearest. Neither of you have yet joined any groups relating to this game, showing that you would rather delete a page then do a little bit of research. The game at one point was at the top 10 games on Steam in terms of active players. Go look up the historical records of Steam game ranks instead of talking about deleting a page that you're in no way helping and at the same time destroying the quality of Wikipedia through sheer ignorance and refusal to do your homework. How can a game that was ranked in the top 10 games of Steam, the largest game distributor in the world, not be notable? The game has 900+ user made maps that can be located on Moddb, how can something not noteworthy have that much content?[reply]

I will gladly upload my entire archive of the game, it is 190GB, I can trim it down to 40gb~ if you want just the website data archive, I can send you it via FTP or any other method you'd like.

I would have a far larger archive, but when Megauploaders died, it pretty much caused every project for the game prior to it's deletion to be wiped given it was the main file transfer service the game used. Then the backup, FileFront started removing downloads that were past a certain age, it caused a 2nd major lose in the community aspect of the game. I still actively look for anything relating to the game because of these events. When years of work is deleted in a instant, people drop from the community.


On a side note, I did pull up the exact page of the magazine because it came up in the discord chat. So I might as well post in it this talk page.

https://ia800906.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/29/items/PC_Zone_163_January_2006/PC_Zone_163_January_2006_jp2.zip&file=PC_Zone_163_January_2006_jp2/PC_Zone_163_January_2006_0118.jp2

Nick12506 (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I was heavily involved in the Source mod scene back in the days and even hosted a SourceForts server, so don't lecture me about not knowing anything. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory, and "I'm a fan of this!" is not a reason for it to have an article. If appropriate sourcing can be found, everything will be fine, but there's a burden on you to help provide those sources. We do not need any archives of the mod itself, that has no value to Wikipedia or as a source. -- ferret (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hey on a related note ferret (talk)Ferret. I really do archive the game and since the game has downloadable content per server operators configuration, each instance of past SourceFort installations are unique. I have been searching for new files to archive and the search is pretty scarce, do you still have your server files or original sourcemod folder of SourceForts? I am extremely interested in obtaining any source/metamod plugins, maps, models, materials, and the sound folders of each. It does make me more trusting of you knowing that you've been with the community before instead of someone from the help section that I posted on just suggesting to delete the page.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we must include SourceForts. The burden to find correct sources is on all of us to make sure this site stays true to its goal.

Relating to the trailer, how can I use steam as a source for such and how can I source defunct websites that I have archived on my LAN?

For most of SourceForts life, I was a player. Up until Valve broke the game with the source base update I was just doing what you did. Then we had to work together as the community shrank from the lack of a playable game to release one. Now with credits in the latest patch I can not update this page. What can we do about situation that would improve this article. What do you believe this articles missing so that I can help to obtain proper sources for such information. Nick12506 (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped developing Source related mods almost a decade ago when I finally shutdown my CSS server and no longer had a reason to work on SourceMod anymore. I still get PM'd almost monthly by users of AlliedModders asking about old plugins. I think I still have the source code to ManiMod and a few others, but I don't have anything for SourceForts anymore. Wikipedia doesn't HAVE to include SourceForts. SourceForts has to meet WP:GNG. The burden to find sources falls on the editor who wants to add content. It might be best that you start proposing specific changes you want and provide a source to back them up. If there's no sourcing though, we can't add anything. -- ferret (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't in line with established practices. You don't remove a article for having dead sources, you label the sources as dead and request new sources. 174.203.228.193 (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is from 5 years ago, but no, WP:ELNO is still established practice. -- ferret (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CTF genre[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_the_flag#Software_and_games

Multiple games that fall under the genre Capture the Flag.

Last sentence even reiterates that it's a genre.

Nick12506 (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On top of this, shouldn't we add this game to the action genre? It did win the Moddb player choice award for the action genre. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_DB#Mod_of_the_Year Player's Choice By genre Action: SourceForts

Then, since this game has 2 rounds, building and combat. Shouldn't we also make this a strategy game, given the base building aspect of the game?


Nick12506 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More Sources[edit]

Video Source of game, production of Half Life Fanboy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml_p_WXmcDc

SourceForts was one of the original games to be initially added to Steam not produced by Valve on August 4, 2006, here is the link to the Steam trailer that was included on the page. https://steamdb.info/app/928/

SourceForts Interview https://web.archive.org/web/20061109103544/http://dx.ampednews.com/?page=articles&id=9830

German Review: https://web.archive.org/web/20070216044136/http://www.giga.de/tv/gigagamesmaxx/00133546_capture_the_flag_die_siedler/

Planethalflife Review: Source Forts : https://web.archive.org/web/20110711071737/http://planethalflife.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Reviews.Detail&id=13

Partial Interview from defunct invert-on.com https://n4g.com/news/1132522/interview-sourceforts-2-invert-on


I work for a living, m-s 9-5

I'll get more sources later. Nick12506 (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Also, we should make the genre Action, given this ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_DB#Mod_of_the_Year Player's Choice 2006, By genre, Action: SourceForts Nick12506 (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The youtube video is not a reliable source. The steamdb.info (and any steam directory based sites) are not reliable. The Ampednews article is already in the article. The Giga.de article is already in the article. N4G itself is unreliable, but invert-on.com itself might be ok with an archive (Can't evaluate it with it offline). So one possible new source, if we can find an archive. -- ferret (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we also add the mod of the year ModDB award? Nick12506 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not particularly notable as an award but could be mentioned. -- ferret (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links being removed instead of being [dead link][edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot

Someone's going to need to go through the past edits and add them back in since a few of the change log has edit details saying the information was removed because of dead links. While protocol says to leave them up and to throw up an label on it instead.


Example is on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SourceForts&diff=400276806&oldid=395303190, it has around 30 sources.


Nick12506 (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those 30 links are almost entirely unreliable sources or primary and that was probably why they were ultimately removed. -- ferret (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect[edit]

I struggle to understand what harm this article had been doing for the last 15 years that warrants removing content from an encyclopaedia. It's clearly not original research, and included several references to secondary sources that establish notability in the article - with more out there if anyone bothered to look. How is Wikipedia enriched by not having this in it? —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 19:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Ya, someone skipped the vote.. .... ////

If gmod and other source mods qualify trying ti sugfest SF doesnt is bad and double standards. Yall cant go around deleting decade old that have been declared not allowed to be deleted by the past vote just because yall dont wanna googleNick12506 (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yall broke the logo with this fighting[edit]

Thanks guys, breaking a decade old wikipedia page, super classy, can someone upload the lateat logo? Its inckuded in the latest release of the gameNick12506 (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick12506: A deletion discussion was done per Wikipedia policies. If you edit this topic again as a COI editor, I'll go ahead and block you. -- ferret (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed your discussion and it looks like you broke policy Ferret. Ferret, you seem angry. 174.203.228.193 (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you replied to 4-5 year old talk sections? Zero anger involved, just being direct. -- ferret (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SourceForts&oldid=1211487635"