Template talk:ModStatus

Should have every mod updated that was part of either the Beta, Alpha, Dead or Released categories. Use this Template in place of the old strict Beta/Alpha/Release ones. Full options for the template code is: {{ModStatus|size=small/big|status=alpha/closed beta/open beta/released/dead|engine=Source/Goldsource|download=url}}

size: Small for the in-line small box, big for the 80% width one. If omitted, small is default.
status: Status of the mod. If Open Beta or Released, you must specify a download URL. If Dead, you must at least have "download=" or you can have a link to the last released version (for like if you put up an Alpha version after deciding to drop development).
engine: What engine the mod runs on. Source/Goldsource.
download: URL for download if you have status set to open beta, released or dead.

This template will also automatically add your mod page into either the [[Category:HL1 Third Party Mods]] or [[Category:HL2 Third Party Mods]] categories based on what engine you specify. It will also automatically add the correct mod release category (Mods In Alpha, Mods In Beta, Released Mods, Dead Mods) based on the status. --Remmiz 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions

• Question 1: What is the criteria for labelling a mod dead? How much time has to pass (without anything being mentioned on this wiki/ModDB/official sites/the internet) before this can be presumed? Return to Mana did a surprising comeback after being labelled dead, for instance.
• Question 2: What do I label mods that just say that they are going to be released sometime this year, but don't have info on whether they are in an Alpha or a Beta stage? (This is the case of Return to Mana as well.)

--MossyBucket (formerly Andreasen) 22:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"PreAlpha" mods

I spent a couple of hours going through the orphaned pages, and there are lots of mods there. Some were awesome, but most mod articles were crap. They were some young kid thinking "It would be awesome if there was a mod that had everything, based on that movie I just watched. I can't believe that nobody thought of making this before, but that's why I'm awesome and they're not. All I have to do now is to assemble a team to create my world for me. It should be ready for release in a couple of months." and often not contributing anything else to the wiki than a shallow fantasy. They're a waste of space. I say we declare once and for all that creating articles for mods that are in "prealpha" is not allowed, and that such articles should be deleted. You can compare this to some boy posting an article on Wikipedia about how he will one day become the ruler of a small country. Unless there's some proof of concept, the mod is not fact.

--MossyBucket (formerly Andreasen) 04:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

My proposal for mod article general standards

I'm not at all informed about what rules and policies this wiki has for making mod pages, so I may be completely wrong here, and I hate to get in the way of a mod development or discourage a developer at an early age, but the way that I see things is that a mod article (unless you make it a subpage of your user page, but I'm not sure this is allowed either) should be treated like any other wiki article. That means that it should only contain facts. Personal mod pages are for blogs, personal web pages, and the mod database (although they have standards as well). Any user is allowed to edit your mod page, not only to change templates and correcting spelling, but also to remove POV speech, subjective claims, so that the article focuses on facts. This also means that the author of a reknowned mod doesn't have a say if he would like to remove his own mod from the wiki. If it's no longer being developed, it is to be labelled as dead - not removed. While I do understand why one would feel embarrassed about a dead mod, blanking a reknowned mod page should always be considered vandalism.

I also think that a mod should be reknowned before being posted here, and reknowned before being posted here. The mod should be something that at least a small part of the community knows about and is looking forward to, or else it's simply not noteworthy enough among the 30 million active Steam users who has probably had 60 million mod ideas by now. I think a good (although harsh) rule of thumb would be to be posted on a site such as (but not limited to) Planet Half-Life before an article about the mod is allowed.

What do you think?

--MossyBucket (formerly Andreasen) 11:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)